#anyway this is what i was doing and this is my moral philosophy

[augustheart]

[waterlogged-detective]

i wanna write lore about my characters but i am in the eternal struggle of how do i start

[gu6chan]

People will be like "idc who you are, seriously block me if you do/support x" and then i block them and they react like this everytime

[deathsmallcaps]

Replying to tags but then I ran out of room and I think i was if not cooking then at least microwaving

#dude when I was in 6th grade I read #the veldt #and at the time it disgusted and genuinely scared me because I was #just so surprised that people - children! - could be raised to be so heartless #idk if I read it for the first time as a 23 year old it would scare me so much #but goddamn

#I think we're both people who are *at least* good at literacy but we're both a little too STEMmy #to look at it the way some English teachers want us to? #like they want people to go from 'damn that's fucked up → what themes are the authors trying to explore here → what about the world #made them think of that and perhaps what are they trying to get us to consider and think about and perhaps change' #obviously not all writing is a fable with a moral at the end #but a lot of good writing has some sort of central belief that it wants the reader to consider

#(I struggle in creating that with my fiction ugh and I think a lot of booktok books do too and it bugs me that we have that connection)

#but anyway #I think you and I'd first reactions are like #’that's horrible → how can we prevent that specific problem from occurring again' #like take the lottery. my (and maybe your?) first reaction is like 'that's horrible → they should ban the lottery' #but the English teacher is going to want us to think 'oh gee okay so this is a commentary on traditions. why would this tradition be started #/necessary? does the lottery reflect the overall morals and sensibilities of the overall society (aka fond of the death penalty etc). #what sort of tradition might this mirror today? connecting to historical events and the fact that the person stoned and the author were #women. aka the gender commonly stoned for witchcraft in New England #do you think that's related?' etc etc etc wrapped in metaphors and shit. and tbh that's how I learned a lot of my religious and political #philosophy as well as history. I really like Thomas swift's 'a modest proposal' (satire) for that reason.

but that was NOT my initial #thought process for English class. I had to be heavily trained into thinking that way and often my first instinct is to not engage with the #metaphor an just go straight to the logic/sensible answer. blah blah blah. I really respect lit and history teachers as a profession but boy #do I not want to teach it because I would be so slack on writing the kinds of questions that would get the kids to engage with the meta. #once I got a piece I got it but it was a struggle every damn time. because I had to get over my feelings of well why didn't they just not #do that'

the biggest one I can think of is 'song of Solomon' by Toni Morrison. I think my senior AP English teacher wanted us to really #consider authors and characters of color (he was white but it was 2018-2019 aka Trump era) so he taught us othello and TM. othello is a #little easier to understand because iago is just being a little bitch about a Black foreigner getting a promotion and a hot wife and no longer being able to convince himself that he was better than Othello

But TM’s main character Milkman? Unlikeable, spoiled little shit who doesn’t give a damn that he’s the 1 percent of his marginalized community and he’s frittering his privileges away so hard that it literally induces suicidal and murderous tendencies into the people around him. Among other things.

It took me foreverrrrrr to engage with the text beyond GOD I HATE THIS GUY but once I was able to examine his psychology and the mean flip side of ‘if you want to fly, you have to get rid of earthly attachments’, which he does at the end of the story.

Was it a chore? Absolutely. But have I ever forgotten the story or the literary tools it gave me? No.

Maybe I’m just speaking for myself in this longass response - you and I usually talk animals and men not books 😅 - but yeah every English class is full of these annoying stories that are meant to rattle one’s brain and I REALLY avoid rattling lmao. Tbqh again I respect lot classes but I’m glad they’re over lmao

But anyways I listened to Levar Burton’s podcast ‘Levar Burton Reads’ from start to finish, and he once read (as a three parter) Toni Morrison’s Recitatif. It’s the story of two girls, one Black one white, who grew up around and with and against each other during the mid 1900s.

I didn’t know what the story was getting at, aside from the surface ideas of the American Civil Rights Movement and privilege and stuff. But LB usually asked questions or briefly mentioned the author’s main idea at the end. And when he did? HOLY FUCK.

If you ever decide to listen to it (I’ve never gotten my hands to a print copy so idk if they usually have some sort of author’s note at the end to ask the reader this question)(I love LB’s voice he’s a pleasure to listen to if you listen to Recitatif) please @ me and tell me if it also blew your mind and made you consider how you viewed the POV character of the story.

Because it blew my mind and made me really consider why I assumed things about the pov character. Im not going to say anything further because I feel like I’m spoiling the point but yeah.

Anyways again this could be just me but I’ve always had trouble moving on from the straight solution mindset. When I was 12 I was in a model UN and I was told to write a report about Togo and its healthcare issues. I took this to mean that I had to research the common issues there (such as unclean water and mosquito bite diseases) and then come up with solutions.

It was incredibly embarrassing to do all that and then hear every other group explain their countries healthcare issues and WHY (historically, monetarily, etc) their countries struggled with such things. And my ass went up there and talked about affordable mosquito deterrent changes to water sources and cheap water cleaning services.

I didn’t realize it then but like. It perfectly exemplified my lack of instinct to subtextually interact with instructions and prompts.

And the thing is. May the universe bless and boost the fucking lit teachers out there because my poor students are entering math class with lit skills 6 grades under where they should be and are genuinely unable to interact with straightforward STEM instructions. My college had every ed major take a ‘teaching literacy’ class and sure I passed but the thing is. I’m not really the person that’s supposed to catch these kids on that subject. I’m supposed to be a secondary math teacher. So a lot of the advice in that class simply wasn’t applicable and I wish it was!!! I’d be happy to help in that subject but also I WAS TRAINED TO BE A MATH TEACHER. AND MOST LITERACY AND LANGUAGE DIFFICULTY COURSES ARE NOT DESIGNED WITH STEM IN MIND. (Which is why I want to learn enough Spanish that I can teach kids learning English math as well because that’s an area that doesn’t get a lot of crossover and a lot of kids fall through).

Well this turned into a ramble goodnight lmao. I’d say this was a decently microwaved thought track lol

[ldknightshade]

morality: a character creation guide

creating and understanding your oc’s personal moral code! no, i cannot tell you whether they’re gonna come out good or bad or grey; that part is up to you.

anyway, let’s rock.

i. politics

politics are a good way to indicate things your character values, especially when it comes to large-scale concepts such as government, community, and humanity as a whole.

say what you will about either image; i’d argue for the unintiated, the right image is a good introduction to some lesser discussed ideologies… some of which your oc may or may not fall under.

either way, taking a good look at your character’s values on the economic + social side of things is a good place to start, as politics are something that, well… we all have ‘em, you can’t avoid ‘em.

clearly, this will have to be adjusted for settings that utilize other schools of thought (such as fantasy + historical fiction and the divine right of kings), but again, economic/social scale plotting will be a good start for most.

ii. religion + philosophy

is your oc religious? do they believe in a form of higher power? do they follow some sort of philosophy?

are they devout? yes, this applies to non-religious theist and atheist characters as well; in the former’s case… is their belief in a higher power something that guides many of their actions or is their belief in a higher power something that only informs a few of their actions? for the atheists; do they militant anti-theists who believe atheism is the only way and that religion is harmful? or do they not care about religion, so long as it’s thrust upon them?

for the religious: what is your oc’s relationship with the higher power in question? are they very progressive by their religion’s standards or more orthodox? how well informed of their own religion are they?

does your oc follow a particular school of philosophical thought? how does that interact with their religious identification?

iii. values

by taking their political stance and their religious + philosophical stance, you have a fairly good grasp on the things your character values.

is there anything they value - due to backstory, or what they do, or what they love - that isn’t explained by political stance and religious and/or philosophical identification? some big players here will likely be your oc’s culture and past.

of everything you’ve determined they value, what do they value the most?

iv. “the line”

everyone draws it somewhere. we all have a line we won’t cross, no matter the lengths we go for what we believe is a noble cause. where does your character draw it? how far will they go for something they truly believe is a noble cause? as discussed in part iii of my tips for morally grey characters,

would they lie? cheat? steal? manipulate? maim? what about commit acts of vandalism? arson? would they kill?

but even when we have a line, sometimes we make exceptions for a variety of reasons. additionally, there are limits to some of the lengths we’d go to.

find your character’s line, their limits and their exceptions.

v. objectivism/relativism

objectivism, as defined by the merriam-webster dictionary, is “an ethical theory that moral good is objectively real or that moral precepts are objectively valid.”

relativism, as defined by the merriam-webster dictionary, is “a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.”

what take on morality, as a concept, does your character have? is morality objective? is morality subjective?

we could really delve deep into this one, but this post is long enough that i don’t think we need to get into philosophical rambling… so this is a good starting point.

either way, exploring morality as a concept and how your character views it will allow for better application of their personal moral code.

vi. application

so, now you know what they believe and have a deep understanding of your character’s moral code, all that’s left is to apply it and understand how it informs their actions while taking their personality into account.

and interesting thing to note is that we are all hypocrites; you don’t have to do this, but it might be fun to play around with the concept of their moral code and add a little bit of hypocrisy to their actions as a treat.

either way, how do your character’s various beliefs interact? how does it make them interact with the world? with others? with their friends, family, and community? with their government? with their employment? with their studies? with the earth and environment itself?

in conclusion:

there’s a lot of things that inform one’s moral compass and i will never be able to touch on them all; however, this should hopefully serve as at least a basic guide.

[mythalism]

Watching a video of the "fight Solas" ending and I find myself really disliking the fact that Rook declares that the Veil must be tied to the life of an elven god. It is treated like a fitting punishment for Solas, and even in the redemption ending, Rook all but orders Solas to sacrifice himself to maintain the Veil (or the status quo). I also can't help but feel that Solas, the last of the elven gods, is being sacrificed to maintain the Veil that he, alone, is somehow expected to magically maintain, allowing everyone else to go on their merry way. The implication here is that the elves are losing the last of their history, or pantheon, and this is a GOOD thing, and now we can all move forward and live peacefully. Am I overthinking this? 'Cause if this was the intention it does sound kind of bad.

yeah. i do agree and i dont think you're overthinking. and even if you were, im about to overthink way harder so don't worry. forgive me for getting on my legal philosophy soapbox but thats my whole brand at this point so here we go: it is a very retributive view of punishment and desert (deserved-ness) that i morally disagree with and feels outdated in the political landscape of 2024 to me PERSONALLY!! the foundation of retributive justice is:

(1) that those who commit certain kinds of wrongful acts, paradigmatically serious crimes, morally deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment; (2) that it is intrinsically morally good—good without reference to any other goods that might arise—if some legitimate punisher gives them the punishment they deserve;

obviously this is how much of the western world conceives of punishment and western media is consequently saturated with narratives that espouse this. most of the time, restorative justice is seen as mutually exclusive with retributive justice, though there are some people who say they can be used in tandem. i disagree anyway.

i think solas's endings grapple with these ideas in a way that is... messy. its confusing because we dont actually know if he is truly imprisoned, in the sense that he cannot leave. we know he is in A prison, though its unclear whether its the new regret prison that rook was in, or the black city (epler refused to clarify this during the AMA because of "spoilers", while trick said the implication is he is "going back to the prison", the epilogue slides imply he is in the black/golden city, as does his quest to heal the blight which only exists in the black city). we also do not know what capacity he has to leave. with lavellan or after being "redeemed" by willingly binding himself to the veil, he does not have the lyrium dagger but he does have the capacity to free himself from his regrets (if hes in the regret prison) or heal the blight (if he's in the black city), exemplified by his golden epilogue slides. if he is tricked or fought, he is not in a mental space to overcome his regrets and does not swear to atone by healing the blight, but he does have the lyrium dagger with him, so we can assume he can just use it to leave, the way we literally see him do earlier in the game lol. whatever message they are trying to send with his "punishment", i think it is muddied by the vagueness of what actually happens to him in the end and where he goes.

if the message truly is that he "deserves" to be imprisoned in the fade for his long list of crimes, i find that lazy and nonsensical. first of all, he loves the fade and has been dying to return to it so thats not really a gotcha, but more importantly, which crime warrants this punishment? and is his punishment proportional? this is impossible to answer because we do not know what the punishment truly is. we also dont really even know what crime he's being imprisoned for. taking down the veil? he didnt actually get to do that. are we punishing him for something he didn't do yet? is it for killing varric? sure, i guess that one works. its the strongest of the options we have, but the game is also pretty clear that its not what varric would want. what about all of the other people he has killed? the spirits he sacrifced in that siege on elgar'nans temple? the mages who summoned and corrupted wisdom which he incinerates alive? flemythal and felassan? do they deserve retribution via solas's imprisonment? would they want that? would they find it just and satisfying? the game does not ask these questions. so we dont know. does he deserve to be imprisoned for for what he did to the titans? ok, maybe. this is stronger than the others at least. but in the trick/fight endings he doesnt vow to heal the blight, so what does his imprisonment do for the dwarves and the titans spirits? this is what i mean when i say his imprisonment is retributive, but it is not even thoroughly retributive. it does not think deeply about what solas deserves for his crimes and the proportionality of such a punishment, but it is clear that we are supposed to that he deserves to be in prison, it is morally good that he is receiving "justice", and rook is a hero for imprisoning him. his punishment is presented as a moral good because he deserves it. unfortunately for veilguard, i dont think i would ever be convinced by this message in any narrative anywhere, even if it was better written, because this is not a moral philosophy that i subscribe to.

his redemption endings feel so much better and more satisfying because his vow to use his immortality and knowledge to heal the blight that he created is restorative and has a direct correlation to his crime of creating the blight by tranquilizing the titans in the first place. his imprisonment achieves nothing outside of removing him as a "threat", which is ruined by the fact that he has the dagger and can just leave lol. devoting the next significant portion of his life to alleviating the titans suffering is not just reparative remedy that directly affects the people and creatures he has harmed, it also actively makes the world of thedas a better place. to be clear, im not saying solas is innocent. he is guilty. of a lot of things. he bears responsibility for a lot of things. he would qualify as a war criminal. but i do not believe in retributive justice. veilguard having solas kill varric because trespasser made me sympathize with him "too much" is not going to make me believe in retributive justice. for the non-atonement imprisonment endings to feel satisfying you have to subscribe to this ideology of moral desert and punishment and a lot of people do. the entire american carceral system is founded on it. so is christianity. and bioware clearly subscribes to it as well. you might disagree with me and subscribe to it yourself. thats fine. but i believe it has caused a lot of harm to our world and continues to do so. seeing it manifested in media is always disappointing to me.

regardless of the technicalities of his imprisonment, his binding to the veil is the one thing that happens regardless of his ending, and i agree that it is icky for similar reasons. the veil is his responsibility, as is the blight which he will be keeping contained with his life, so i guess you can interpret it as proportional? but again, what crime is he paying for with binding his life to the veil? is he not paying for a crime at all? is binding his life to the veil even part of his punishment? or is it just something he has to do because he's the only person alive that can do it? if that is the case, that it has to be him because he is the only proper sacrifice, and not that he deserves it, then what does it say about rook that they sacrifice someone undeserving? if he is deserving, why exactly? if he wasn't the only elven god left alive, would he still be deserving of such a fate? if the answer is no, then he does not deserve to be bound. what gives rook the right to make this call? based on the convo they have before the ending where they plan to bind him to the veil, its not clear if rook binds him because they think he deserves to be bound to one of his greatest regrets, or because he's quite literally the only option. either way, i think there is an argument for it being cruel, and unearned coming from someone like rook, who really has barely been a victim of solas's sins outside of a 2 week time-out. literally harding binding him would've been far more satisfying. or imagine if fragment mythal went rogue and did it, or morrigythal did. mythal would not be justified either but at least it would be fucking banger and evil and interesting of her. anyway.

i think your point about what it means for the elves to lose their final living god, outside of mythal who is [redacted] ? is a fantastic point. through solas's binding, they also lose the veil-less future he represented that was promised to be a better world for them. would it really have been? probably not. solas clearly thinks so. but we will never know lol. the failure of the story to grapple with the dissolution of the elves entire belief system is one of its most egregious ones, and i think this is a symptom of it. dragon age's elven lore got itself into a weird spot by veilguard and i think they just abandoned it rather than attempting to write themselves out of it. i love stories that grapple with the average person's culpability as complacent in imperialism. this is part of why fullmetal alchemist is my fav story of all time and you should watch it (fullmetal alchemist:brotherhood on hulu please im begging. but you have to watch the "brotherhood" one not the other one. its complicated dont ask). veilguard seemed to want to do something like this, but they got themselves into weird spot with the elves because their evil, slavery-based empire is a thing of the distant past, and in the present they are systemically oppressed and have no social or political power.

usually in these sorts of stories, someone currently living in an imperialist society who is directly benefiting from that imperialism is confronted with their complacency and asked to rise to the occasion of standing up for what is right, despite their material best interest. they often sacrifice their privilege as a benefactor of imperialism in the present to attempt to make up for the evils that system has inflicted on others. fmab does a wonderful job of this. there is at once both an acknowledgement that no, this is not literally YOUR FAULT, you did not order a genocide or press the nuke button, but you have benefited from it and/or participated every day of your life, whether that is through the stolen land you live on, the fact that you have never seen war in your home country, the way you can buy whatever fruit you want at the grocery store any time of year, or the way your tax dollars fund the bombs being dropped on children thousands of miles away, and you do have a moral obligation to do whatever you can to fight back. i believe this is a very important lesson for the average american (and canadian since we are talking about bioware), and anyone that lives in an imperialist country, that a lot of people have not yet learned ... lol.

this feels along the lines of what veilguard was going for (or maybe they werent and this was accidental, idk which is worse), but it fails because the elves are not currently benefiting from their past empire, like at all. actually, they live in squalor and at risk of constant violence from human empires. they have experienced centuries of genocide, violence and slavery at this point in modern thedas. the imperialistic success of the elvhen empire has absolutely no bearing on their current lives, it provides them with no privilege, and it gives them no culpability in its evils. they are thousands of years removed from it. and its not like "oh the british empire was dissolved 50 years ago so imperialism is over" no. because britain's wealth and power are a direct result of that imperialism, thus they do still benefit from it presently, even if the "official empire" is dissolved. this is true for most empires. but with the elves of thedas, they have none of the power or privilege that the elvhen empire accrued through its evils. if anything, it is tevinter that benefits most from the lost elven empire considering how much of their society is founded on its technology, and the fact that. you know. they are currently, modernly, presently an empire based on slavery. OF ELVES. so why, then, does veilguard present the elves as culpable? why does the angry titan harding creature say they are "thriving" at the titans expense? why does bellara take personal responsibility for the evils that elgar'nan and ghilan'nain commit when she had nothing to do with them? the messaging with this is so strange. it would make sense if elves were still the ruling class but... they're not. the only remnants of the empire that they have access to is their own bodies... which are systemically, bought, sold, and mutilated. though the game does erase much of the racism they face in what i can only assume was an attempt to make this work.

the combo of this + solas's trick/fight endings for what is fundamentally, according to this game itself, a desire for a better world for elves and spirits, no matter if it is misled or his methods are violent, is a depressing, bleak message that i find to be irresponsible to be sending in 2024 and considering the real world groups of people that elves are based on, most notably of the dalish as indigenous north americans. veilguard sees elves lose not just their understanding of their past, dissolving their entire worldview, their conception of their cultural identity, and their relationship to their religion, all without sufficient (or any) exploration of how devastating such a process would be, but by imprisoning solas, erasing his followers and supporters from existence, and binding him to the veil, it also robs them of the possibility of a more just future... while asking you to cheer because he deserved it. dont try to make the world a better place unless you do it the right way. work with the world as it is. your attachment to the past (when you werent being genocided regularly) is a disease. you deserve to go to jail because you tried to change the world in a way that that was too disruptive. get over it! move on! rot in jail!

[daisydisciple]

Ok thought not fully formed yet but I think everything would make a lot more sense if we thought of "sin" as more along the lines of "something that weakens your connection with God" and less "a morally bad action in the secular philosophical sense."

In modern secular philosophy, usually we only think of an action as "bad" if it causes measurable harm to society/the environment/another person etc. No victim = no crime. This makes perfect sense when we're thinking about regulating behavior with laws, rules, and, to an extent, social norms. The goal of this kind of thinking/regulating is to create a harmonious, free, and safe society in our mortal/temporal/earthly condition.

In contrast, Sin as a religious (Christian) concept is more concerned with the state of an individual soul and that soul's relationship with God. It is possible for something to be a sin and yet be a "victimless crime." (Arguably the "victim" here is actually the "perpetrator" but you know what I mean.) The goal of this kind of thinking is to help the individual be in harmony with God.

I think the problem here is when we conflate the two uncritically. Yes, there is a lot of overlap (murder, for example, would draw you further from God and also is harmful to the murder victim/their family/society.) But the two concepts are not one and the same. Just because a behavior is sinful doesn't mean it can and should be forbidden by law, rule, or even social norm. Likewise, just because enforcing or encouraging a certain behavior is beneficial to society doesn't mean that behavior is or isn't a sin.

I think this conflation is a source of miscommunication and misunderstanding. Lots of people seem to interpret calling a behavior sinful to mean "if you do this you are an bad person who is actively harming society."

I also think that's why people get so turned off by the concept of all sin being equal in the eyes of God. That isn't the same thing as all morally bad actions having equal weight or consequences in society. The point is that all sin separates us from God, and what His plan requires for us is for there to be zero separation. (That's where Jesus comes in). The point of saying all sin is the same in the eyes of God isn't to say that murder and not praying are equivalent in secular morality. The point is that someone "guilty" of not praying needs Jesus just as much as a murderer. (Because! We all need Jesus completely and equally.)

So anyway I guess my point is that Christians need to recognize that just because something is sinful (separates a soul from God) doesn't mean that that thing should be illegal or against the rules or even socially shamed.

But! Non-Christians should also understand that the concept of sin is distinct from secular morality. If I say that something is a sin, don't take it as me saying "anyone who does this is evil and depraved and deserves to be executed by firing squad." girl I sin. we all sin.

[demonsinmywindows]

okay so we all know saiki is a genius. we all know this. I’d love to elaborate.

Saiki can pretty much passively absorb everything he learns, and it seems like he doesn’t really forget anything. Even when he has those ‘uh oh’ moments that we’ve seen, it’s always been because of a distraction and not because lack of knowledge. Bc he absorbs so much information from his direct surroundings, it takes almost nothing for him to learn what’s required of him. ie; how he’s expected to act, the best route to get somewhere, what he learns in school etc.

Consequently, it takes him very little effort to accomplish the ‘regular’ academic expectations for his age. We’ve seen him do a years worth of homework in the blink of an eye… (here comes my hc)

Thus he has a lot of time on his hands. And Saiki is innately curious. To bide his time, he likes to delve into obscure topics, to learn things that are completely unfamiliar to the average person. So Saiki knows a lot, and Saiki reads a lot. At the very ~least~ he knows all about advanced quantum physics, from Kusuke’s mind. Now this MAY be me projecting, but I like to think that Saiki loves to research all things history and philosophy (the average person is not often thinking about these things beyond the surface level).

As a result, his classmates often see him reading about some of the most random and specific subjects ever (after all, what exudes ‘don’t talk to me’ more than reading a dense book?). They come to know that Saiki is the one to go to if they have any questions about ANY general knowledge (see also: kaido asking saiki for homework help even though his own class rank is much higher)

And maybe some of them wonder: why? Why does Saiki perform averagely at school, when he seems so interested in learning? Maybe someone finally asks him about some miscellaneous inconsequential fact���. and the next thing they know Saiki is spouting facts at a mile a minute. Oh you’re asking about Alexander the Great? Did you know that he died so young because he became paralyzed from contaminated wine and then was buried alive? Did you know Alexander’s lineage supposedly traces back to Achilles himself, suggesting that the events of the Trojan War have basis in truth? And if that is the case, what could have caused the decade long Mediterranean sea journeys of Odysseus and Menelaus who were descendants of the Minoan sea experts?

Okay anyways. Moral of the story, Saiki is a secret NERD and you cannot take that away from me. I live by the fact that he is just a random scholar of all things.

Plz expand, I would love to know ur thoughts/reactions

[germiyahu]

"If you describe a horrific and detailed act of racism committed by an IDF soldier or a Kahanist or other anti Arab extremist (say Baruch Goldstein's massacre), you'll find that a huge majority of Jews condemn him, his philosophy, his actions, denounce him and consider him a poor practitioner of Judaism"

No they don't, that's the whole fucking point.

Whenever IDF soldiers kill Palestinians the only reaction from Israelis you would get is them bringing up how military service is mandatory in Israel so you can't be mad at the soldier, how this is an extremely complex two-sided "conflict" where both sides are equally wrong and equally victims, how everything is the fault of the entire government of Hamas and Bibi (but just Bibi, they will never hold anyone else in the government accountable) and gaslighting people into believing that this is an isolated incident that doesn't normally happen and that the Israeli committing the crime will actually face any type of justice.

And this assuming that they would even acknowledge a crime has been committed instead of calling it "blood libel" and using what happens as a segue to talk about anti-semitism even more.

So you clearly don't know any Jews because Baruch Goldstein is one of the least controversial figures in Jewish history to condemn. Like, he probably has defenders in Israel but they're definitely a pretty small minority, and you'd be very hard pressed to find any diaspora Jews who approve of his crimes.

And aside from that, because yes people do defend the IDF when they are presented with similarly horrific sounding stories... but look what happens, most of these stories turn out to be exaggerated or completely false to begin with! This isn't about starry-eyed Jewish supremacy vs Muslims just doing an oopsie and they had good reasons for it, this is about truth. That's the key element. It's a little ridiculous to whine that Jews won't full throatedly condemn bombing a hospital and killing 500 people when that turned out to be a lie!

Baruch Goldstein was a terrorist, he factually provably committed horrific crimes. Osama Bin Laden was also a terrorist, he factually provably orchestrated horrific crimes. If you ask the average Jew to defend the former, they'd be equally as uncomfortable as if you asked the average Muslim to defend the latter. There are always going to be braindead terrorism fanboys in both groups, duh. I'm talking about the average person.

And here you are, deciding that no, the average Jew is a savage devotee to terrorism and genocide, just like every other Jew Hater online. It's becoming a bit stale. See that last part in particular, this is about a deep envious rage you feel that Jewish people "get away" with doing/thinking/saying "The Bad Thing" and you feel a need to bring them down a peg. You frame a very real thing (like blood libel is not trivial and Jewish people do not actually talk about it frivolously), as a privilege, a cheat code. You're jealous because you probably belong to a demographic that can't "milk" it's own historic oppression and tragedy, so you feel that Jews shouldn't "get" to.

But this is the real world, where exaggerating the alleged crimes of Jews is demonstrably linked with an increase in antisemitic rhetoric (check), harassment of Jews and Jewish institutions (check), and even violence (they just thwarted a planned terrorist attack in Brooklyn, very much the last roadblock to a liberated Palestine).

Anyway my point was that if you zoom out to more and more abstract concepts, a greater percentage of both Jewish and Muslim populations will probably support them. And I think it's telling that "a Jewish state founded on war and large violent population transfers" has a higher moral burden on it than "a Muslim state founded on war and large violent population transfers."

Ask a Muslim if they support "Pakistan exists" and how many would disagree? Realistically? But you dare act disgusted and shocked that a similar number and percentage of Jews support "Israel exists"? My entire question is why "This is a country that has done bad things and it exists amid ethnic conflict" is even on par with "this niche cult within a giant religion (literally they admitted to it) did a massacre on civilians."

If that's the moral equivalence then we're done here. I'm not playing games like that.

[navree]

You keep saying refusing to vote for Biden on moral grounds because of Palestine is ineffective because Trump would be worse, but that really isn't the point. Largely (with the exception of a few extremists and a contingency of people who wouldn't have voted anyways) the philosophy of a movement that has people withhold their vote is to force a significant policy change that wouldn't have changed otherwise. Its a form of protest. I understand from your perspective, election-focused and pragmatic, it is a threat to whoever is running, but if Biden had wanted the votes being withheld he would have capitulated.

Not that this isn't a moot point since he's out, but whatever.

See, this is intensely fucking dumb.

"force a significant policy change" it would not. One, because Biden is the president of the United States, and Israel is not one of those states. Short of sending the CIA to, idk, assassinate Netanyahu in his bed, which most of these people would be against I think because of how much they bitch and moan about US foreign policy at any given opportunity, he cannot actually make an independent foreign power do what he wants and what is electorally convenient for him. Like, I'm very sure Biden would love it if Netanyahu and his partisans stopped acting like fucking freaks for five minutes, if only so that it would stop being a PR nightmare for him. But that's not happening, because he cannot control what Netanyahu does. He could vastly reduce the support the US is providing Israel, and in my view he should, but that's not going to stop what Netanyahu and the Israeli government is doing. Because, I hate to break it to you, but the reason they're carpetbombing Gaza is because they want to be carpetbombing Gaza, and even without US aid they will continue to do it, even it just means with older and less effective weapons. Ultimately, the change that leads to a ceasefire and an end to the war is going to come from the actual parties involved, not Joe Biden.

Two, you've already gotten the significant policy change. Biden has, on multiple occasions now, come out in favor a ceasefire. He has actively been working, along with the Qatari government, to try and broker some kind of peace agreement between Israel and Hamas, but those two keep on fucking it up because they're both run by bloodthirsty psychopaths who don't care one iota about the people they're meant to be governing and only on killing whoever they want. That's been open fact for months now. And it has meant fuckall. The people doing their moral purity about how they'd never vote for Biden were still doing it, just moving the goalposts on what they wanted. First it was ceasefire, then it was 'no ceasefire until [insert impossible demand here] is given', because moving goalposts is what these people do. It's the same mentality as people who saw that Biden was doing COVID stimulus, or cancelling student loans, or reclassifying marijuana, and decided that the issue now was that he wasn't doing enough of it. It's a movement that's been consistently comprised of dogs that caught the car, and are angry that they caught the car because now they can't complain, and they don't want to actually affect meaningful change, they just want to complain because that's easier. And if that's what these people have been doing for his entire presidency, why on Earth would any reasonable person suddenly believe it's different on this one specific issue?

Three, cool you're protesting, then what? Your protest is utterly unserious and completely meaningless if it's not going to have any tangible effects, so what's the next step? You've decided to make your moral purity stance an issue that the vast majority of you learned from infographics on Instagram rather than listening to the voices involved (which is why the red triangle brigade is still a thing on Twitter), so what happens now? No political party is ever going to capitulate entirely to it, because the constituency is just too small (that "uncommitted" gambit was only getting like 10% of the vote wherever it was happening, Biden won over it as a literal write-in candidate in at least one state), so other than the compromise that's already happening, the goalpost movers are gonna withhold their votes because blah blah blah my morals. And their next step is, what? Trump gets elected. And their movement, which has no thought or serious effort put behind it or any actual attempt to provide material aid to the people actually suffering, has helped put a man who is going to be far worse for it in power. The "significant policy change" is going to be that Trump gives Netanyahu whatever he wants and he proceeds to wipe Gaza off the map. The "significant policy change" is that President "Trump Heights" actively makes things worse for the people this protest is supposed to help, as a consequence of that very protest.

It's not about me only being concerned with being "election focused" or some cold hearted bitch. It's about me, as a person who thinks what Israel has been doing since the start is godawful and deeply horrendous, realizing that this entire "protest" is not only asinine but will result in deeply negative consequences and very real harm for the people this protest is purported to be for, and being sickened by that. I live in the real world, and in the real world action speaks far louder than intent. I don't have to acknowledge that the protest wants this or that outcome or what the hypothetical impossible asks that are never going to be answered are, because I understand that they will not matter. What matters is what you get out of your protest, what gains are received, how that protest actually affects change, not the change it gives wishy washy lip service to.

[mirroredmemoriez]

John Kramer and The Denlon's

Cracks everything in my body. It's time to yap. I keep going on in many posts about the fact John is just as flawed as those he tries to ''better'', so I want to go over one of my main comparisons in a tad more depth than I have before. John Kramer and Jeff Denlon honestly are very similar when it comes to their backstory and need for revenge due to grief. Even though John always states that he tests people so they become grateful for being alive- It's very obvious in some cases, he's doing it for his own type of gratification too. For example, Cecil Adams who caused Jill Tuck to miscarry and then Cecilia Pederson who scammed John. He didn't put these people in traps just because of his philosophy, but because they were also very ''close to home'' for him.

The loss of a child is very integral to both John and Jeff's character. Both of these men crave justice.... However, the way they want it and how they achieve it isn't exactly the most healthy thing. It leads both of them to neglect their partners, Jill and Lynn. (Just took a break to eat leftover spaghetti I am legit lost in the sauce- I don't plan out these little rants I do, so I just go where rambling takes me.) When it comes to the major differences between them, Jeff is more rage fuelled, at least in how he carries himself. His anger manifests more verbally and physically than John- Which is his downfall, alongside him not listening or acting when needed. This is a bit of a reach, but another thought nonetheless and nothing I say needs to be something I'm 100% on anyway. Danica Scott, the only other witness to Dylan's death didn't cause Jeff's son's demise, however her lack of action and fleeing the scene made her someone Jeff would want to take revenge upon anyway.

Amanda, although she had more involvement with Gideon's death, seeing as she was the one to convince Cecil to rob the clinic, didn't take physical action either. However, outside of her just being a drug addict- It is debated whether or not John always knew about her role in Jill Tuck's miscarriage, another reason for her to be tested.

We've also got basic comparisons such as the fact Jill and Lynn are both in the medical field and having mentioned Lynn again? Her demeanour is more like John than anybody else I have brought up in this post I'd say- I can't really word well why I think that, but it's there anyway. (Another thing to add is how in Saw 3, John in his delirious state starts getting confused and thinking Lynn is Jill.)

Might as well slip some others thoughts in here too whilst I'm fucking rambling this much- I don't have too many complex thoughts on Jeff Denlon I guess, I basically seem him as an example within the Saw universe about a person who cannot let go enough that it results in his trauma and vengeance taking over his life and ending it too. He's not a evil or terrible man, just very flawed. He had some of the physically easiest traps in the franchise to complete, but because he never made an effort to heal and instead remained stagnant within his grief... He takes too long to take action and morally flip flops all over the place when it comes to what decision he'll make- It's that or he doesn't assess the long term consequences of things such as never forgiving. I personally don't think he ever has to forgive someone like Timothy Young- However, I do believe he let's it impact his life and those around him too much. Corbett didn't deserve the neglect she faced and she herself is a child grieving her sibling. Grief and forgiveness are very hard topics to navigate, but I honestly as a viewer felt the most bad for Corbett more so than Jeff or even Lynn. Coming back to Lynn, I believe she ''learnt'' the most or at least came to terms with things faster within her trap than Jeff. She didn't have time to dwell or not be fast paced with her choices, because her life was connected to John's. She was doing her best not only to stay alive, but to get back to her family even if it was dysfunctional. (Me when I come back to this in my drafts weeks later, time to attempt to find the wave length I was on whilst doing this before.) It's an interesting though to picture different people in other traps. For example, if Lynn was going through Jeff's test. Would she have reacted faster than him and made clear cut decisions? Could she forgive? Jeff is no medical professional and his rage wouldn't let him care for John to the best of his ability so we know he'd fumble that, which is why I'm more so focused on Lynn in his test. Lynn's grief is more ''subtle'' compared to Jeff's and as an audience it's hard to pinpoint what her thoughts and opinions of those involved with her sons death would've been. She turned to antidepressants and her fractured marriage led her to having an affair, not to mention the child neglect. But when it comes down to it, we don't see as much as a drive for revenge and justice within Lynn as we do Jeff. This would mainly come down to screen time, setting and general context but it's an interesting thought of how she'd handle someone like Danica or Timothy if they were right in front of her.

This is why I say she learnt the most from her test compared to Jeff in his? After everything she went through with Amanda constantly up her ass and power drilling through a guys skull- All Lynn wanted was to reunite with her family. Like, the only time we see Lynn exert full physical violence is in a deleted scene where she attacks Amanda.... And even then that is because she wants the key for her collar more so than a drive to murder the other woman. On all accounts, she actually won that scuffle as well.

But then for example Jeff when he finally encounters John? He just can't help himself! Lynn literally is on the floor bleeding out, reaching for him not to leave and this man just can't NOT go and fulfil his need for vengeance. He'd literally just acted upon it before too by shooting Amanda, though that is more understandable giving the context of the fact she shot Lynn..... I think overall this is why so many people dislike Jeff but they just can't word it? Like he's been dubbed ''slow ass motherfucking Jeff''- But it's not really the speed of execution, it's either the lack of long term critical thinking and or the fact he's indecisive? Jeff doesn't have the weight of a contraption around his neck and or his life truly on the line like his wife.... However, somehow Lynn is still managing her test better than him with a freaky little lesbian on her ass and doing backhouse brain surgery on some random old dude with a fucking power drill. I'll also bring up the fact that like John and Jeff, Mark Hoffman has a pretty similar drive and motive to the both of these men. Just like how Jeff saw his sons death, Mark saw the aftermath of his sisters murder for example. All three of them feel justified in their actions against those who have wronged them and etc....

And as I always bring up in character studies like these, the perceptions from the audience are so interesting- Especially when you start comparing characters. It will come as no surprise when I say, I am a pretty active Tumblr user... Through this? The interactions with media and popularity of characters from Saw on this platform are decently clear. First I'll get it out the way that screen time plays a big role in making characters fan favourites. Although, Adam is a subversion to this as he's only in one movie (alive) and likely the most popular Saw character- Anyway! Using John, Jeff and Mark as examples here still... As previously stated, these three men can be considered quite alike in some aspects! But our perceptions of them are quite different due to how they're presented and what we know about them. John is an older sickly man, his life being cut short by the fact he has terminal cancer. His wife miscarries and later on then becomes ex-wife and then also somewhere down the line he gets scammed by a fake cancer treatment....All in all? Dude's kinda got fucked over. But what I haven't mentioned yet in this brief is the fact that whilst most of this is going on, peepaw is designing elaborate death traps and testing people in them slash indoctrinating some into his fuckass ideology! He as a character get's quite a neutral response and or a 50/50 split? He's Jigsaw, the face of the franchise.... There is a decent amount to discuss in regards to him. However, when it all comes down to it it I wouldn’t say he’s favoured as much as other characters.

Moving to Jeff, he witnessed his own son get killed in a hit and run and the grief and injustice of that basically made him spiral into neglecting himself but also his family. He cannot move forward from the loss of Dylan and this is why during his test he is so slow to act- I think one thing to mention here too, is this is something John likely accounted for. Jeff’s test is designed for him and the challenge isn’t that of " OH CUT YOU ARM” it’s for him to overcome his grief and to choose whether to forgive or let those involved with Dylan’s passing die. It’s easy for us as viewers behind the screen to think that he could’ve done almost everything faster. But we’re not Jeff. It’s shown time and time again mentally he just cannot move on and the only reason he is making progress though the test is due to its nature, average therapy? Jeff just wouldn’t go because he refuses to confront HIMSELF in regards to his own grief and would rather wallow in fantasies of revenge.

Mark Hoffman? Obviously the case I’ll bring up with him is that of his sister's murder. Angelina is his only close relative, with no other mention of Mark’s family in the franchise really. So, when she is killed in a case of domestic violence and he also sees her dead body? Yeah, that’s certainly the kind of thing to fuck someone up mentally. Which is why Mark then developed a drinking problem to cope and started to display more erratic behaviour such as shooting a man three times who’d actually surrendered beforehand…. By the time Seth Baxter his sister's killer is released from prison via a technicality- Mark has no quarrels with taking his revenge via abducting him and placing him in a Jigsaw like trap. However, as we all know, this trap is by no means escapable and is only being used by Mark as a scapegoat to get away with murdering Seth. This act then kickstarts his life as an apprentice for John when he himself is abducted.

(I legit forgot this was in my drafts- Months later. I’ll post this now even if it’s not really complete…)

[transmutationisms]

I read your review of Poor Things and I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the section in Alexandria? It was horrifically executed on many levels but narratively, that part of the film is about Bella learning about class structure. She rebels against the cruelty of society through charity then by working as a prostitute, during which time she has cruelty inflicted upon her instead. Finally, she realizes that God’s creation of her was ultimately cruel, and then she runs away with her ex-husband-father only to realize that her prior self-mother was fundamentally characterized by cruelty, especially to her “lessers.” She then decides once again that she does not want to be cruel, but then she achieves this by taking God’s place as the doctor-patriarch and ruling his household with a new pet goat. The entire film is also about Bella learning about feminism: the arbitrary oppression of women is not only nonsensical, it’s bad! But then the ending has her reproduce almost all those power structures and cruelty she claims to reject, and has the unfortunate consequence of positioning her as ultimately equally cruel/callous as God, the guy she meets on the boat who shows her all the starving people, and her former self-mother, etc. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on why this is or like, what the director’s message was beyond self-contradiction and taking cheap shots at starving people?

so i would quibble a bit with the idea that bella's experience in the maison-close is exclusively or even primarily portraying sex-for-pay as a site of cruelty. i think it's more depicting paid sex as work, and work as unpleasant and repressive, and that's why the maison is the site where bella gets involved in socialist politics—if moral philosophy is the arena by which she responds to the injustice of the poverty in alexandria, then labour politics plays the analogous role where the maison is concerned. her problems there aren't inherently with the idea of being paid for sex, but with specific elements of the work arrangement (eg, she suggests that the women should choose their clients, rather than vice versa). ofc she has some customers who are cruel or thoughtless or rude, but i didn't read the film as suggesting that was universal to sex work, and the effect of the position is more to demystify sex, for bella, than to convert it into being purely a site of trauma or misery. now i don't think this film offers a particularly blistering or deep analysis of sex work or socialism or wage labour, dgmw, but i do think the function of the maison is different narratively to that of the alexandria section.

anyway to answer your actual question: yeah so this is really my central gripe with the film. lanthimos (slash his screenwriter tony mcnamara) spends much of the film gesturing toward bella's growing awareness of several hierarchical structures that other characters take for granted: the uneven nature of the parent/child relationship (god took her body and created her without asking); class stratification (alexandria); the 'civilisation' of individuals and societies via education and bio-alteration (bella's talk about 'improving' herself; her 'progression' from essentially a pleasure-seeking child to an educated and 'articulate' adult). these three dimensions often overlap (eg, the conflation of 'childishness' with lack of education with inability to behave in 'high society'), though, most overtly, it's in that third one that we can see how these notions of improvement and biological melioration speak to discourses about the 'progress' and 'regress' of whole societies and peoples, and voluntarist ideas about how human alteration of biology (namely, our own) might produce people, and therefore societies, that are better or worse on some metric: beauty, fitness, intelligence, morality, longevity, &c. this is why i keep saying that like.... this film is about eugenics djkdjsk.

the issue with the alexandria section to me is, first, it's like 2 minutes (processed in the hollywood yellow filter) where the abject poverty of other people is a life lesson for bella. we're not asking any questions like, how is that poverty produced, and might it have anything to do with the ship bella is on or the fantastical lisbon she left or the comparative wealth of paris and london...? secondly, everything that the film thinks it's doing for the entire runtime by having bella grapple with learning about cruelty, and misery, and the kinds of received social truths that lanthimos is able to problematise through her eyes because she's literally tabula rasa—all of that is just so negated by having an ending in which she bio-engineers her shitty ex-husband, played as a triumphant moment. i don't even inherently have an issue with the actual plot point; certainly she has motive, and narratively it could have worked if it were framed as what it is: bella ascending to the powerful position in the oppressive system that created her, and using her status to enact cruelty against someone who 'deserves' it—ie, leveraging her class and race within the existing social forms rather than continuing to question or challenge them. if that ending were played as a tragedy, or a bleak satire, it would at least be making A Point. but it's not even, because it's just framed as deserved comeuppance for this guy we were introduced to in the 11th hour as a scumbag, so it's psychologically beneficial for bella actually to do the sci-fi surgery to him that literally reduces him to what's framed as a lower life form. unserious

[alaskan-wallflower]

what each of the boys major/minor in

note i have my own version of post covid. it’s an AU and I recognize that. What I’m doing is an AU. so. keep that in mind.

Cartman

Cartman majors in business

i mean-look at how he was in Dikinbaus. He would be really good at business. He’s really good at bribing people to buy his shit

He’s also smarter than people give him credit for. He just has no motivation.

He minors in food science.

I like to headcanon that once Liane realized she was spoiling Cartman she kinda locked in (like she did in HumanCentiPad) and teaches him how to cook.

He actually comes to enjoy it and he seemed to have some knowledge of food science beforehand so

Stan

Animal science major. You can’t convince me otherwise.

He becomes a veterinarian in the future. He works with pets, though he got a job at a zoo at some point (he hates putting animals down)

Hes really gentle with animals. He’s one of those people that thinks dogs are better than people/hj

He minors in biochemistry

I already know some of you are thinking ‘Oh WhY nOt MuSiC?’ but like…realistically I don’t think science and music would really clash together when it comes to jobs

I think he recognizes that. So he does Crimson Dawn on the side when he’s free.

Kyle

This was the toughest ngl

He majors in Psychology

I like to headcanon he becomes a therapist. He likes helping people. Hes compassionate. And no, I don’t wanna hear the ‘Oh He DoeSnT UndErStAnD dEprEsSiOn How CaN hE dO pSycH’ like he was nine at the time

I think he would be the type of person to do research on the side about mental diseases because he wants to learn

And hear me out on this. He originally wanted to major in law. I feel like his dad would be big on ‘having his oldest son carry the family name on’ but Kyle ends up not enjoying it so he drops out

He double minors in political science and philosophy

He seems very high on his morals, so I think he would find interest in philosophy, a place where he can express his moral opinions

And he’s great at debate. So I like to think he would go into political science. Not just because he likes debate but also so he can say he’s ’qualified to talk about this because he’s a minor in political science’

Kenny

Okay okay but imagine Engineer Kenny

He’s creative. He has the ideas. He has the ability. I like to think he worked a lot of odd jobs and got really into building things. And he decided he wanted to do that in his life.

I like to think he’s actually really smart. He just doesn’t really have the best home situation so he isn’t given as many opportunities as he would’ve liked.

Although I also like to think that he would buckle down in high school and actually gets into the top five for his class. He applies to pretty good schools and gets a near full ride for some of them. But anyway, I’m yapping too much

As for a minor, he, like Kyle, double minors. in accounting and math.

He wants to make sure nobody has economic issues like he had. And he has a leg up in what he does because he’s dealt with money his whole life practically.

He’s fairly good at math. Plus he’s already got a leg up, like I said.

ahe really pushes himself in college to become someone who can help people who were in the same situations as him. So he works hard and actually does good.

[alushroom]

i wonder how common it is for people to build their own spiritual philosophy from scratch.

i read feminist lit here and there, and do a lot of exploration and study into religions, spiritual philosophies, occult practices, etc to pick and choose what works for me, and this year these two things (fem lit and spiritual study) collided in a way that's made me shift into probably building my own spiritual philosophy, because of how bleak spiritual philosophies are for women.

i got into buddhism this past year, then discovered that traditionally, women can't reach enlightenment, or can only reach it if reincarnated as a guy....... i know this has changed, but i always prefer to go to the source of a philosophy and i hate to say it ladies, but this shit is fucking everywhere. we are demonic matter to these philosophies. so now i'm just building my own thing. the inevitable conclusion, tbh. i just didn't wanna face the mammoth task but to be true to myself, i have no choice. i do not want to go down some spiritual rabbit hole of wonder to then be slapped with a 'you are not actually welcome here' in some form. anyway my study thus far is further proof that misogynists are little freaks that still have a 'boys only' sign on their rotting shelter they're so desperately trying to keep together as they also build around it, destroying the land around it as well as, eventually, the shelter itself, and that anyone - even a fucking buddha - is not immune to being a woman hating idiot.

i urge both women and men to always research deeply into these things. can you morally trust a spiritual (and therefore sacred) philosophy if part of its history is exclusionary to a group of people because of how they were born? not very sacred to me.

[j-partneringrime]

tr!aimros… they’re making me go insane…

my thoughts on that conversation earlier today, (updated from the one I posted on twitter) just to say first, I love both tr!ros and tr!aimsey, their characters are SO good, flaws and all. also I’m not as filled in with as much of ros’s lore as I am with aimseys just FYI. I know this may end up sounding like just saying everything wrong with tr!ros but I promise it’s not, it’s just that this is purely about their argument/conversation from earlier, and no offence to tr!ros but she was kinda… completely the one in the wrong (sorry tr!ros <3) tr!aimsey DEFINITELY isn’t perfect but in this argument, ros was definitely the most aggressive and unreasonable and aimsey was basically just trying to get through to her and show her their point. Anyway on to the actual thoughts…

tr!ros is so far into the hole of her ideals, that she can’t see any different opinions, even those of her best friend, she repeatedly says she’s disappointed and can’t believe aimsey didn’t come talk to her before attacking owen without seeing that she is still right now only taking owen’s side and keeps defending him and his actions everytime aimsey tries to talk about their feeling, this is literally showing that if they did go talk to her beforehand she would’ve done the exact same thing she’s doing right now, she’s spiralled too far to hear a word of anything else.

She asks aimsey to talk to her and when she does, she ignores it and counter points defending owen and defending yellow, over and over again. She’s fought with aimsey and betrayed their trust multiple times now and is still asking if they don’t trust her enough to talk about stuff, when obviously not, like yes they still care about her, of course, but that doesn’t equal trust, especially recently with ros constantly ignoring aimsey’s advice despite their constant effort to try help her and talking yesterday about how she was a secret plan but wouldn’t tell them because “trust me, it’s for your protection”. Ros wants this friendship to be good again but doesn’t want to change any of her ideals so is constantly expecting aimsey to let go of their beliefs and their, very valid, criticisms of the kingdom and ros herself to fix it. When that’s not a trusting, healthy friendship, a trusting friendship would be both of them trying to help each other and talk to each other. So for ros to hear aimsey talk about what owen said to them and hear them say how much and how deeply it annoyed and effected them, which already is a lot more open that aimsey normally is and ignore it all and just defend owen, and then say that it’s not like aimsey to be upset by that, which is incredibly untrue with the things owen said, and it shows how ros is currently doing, mentally, where she can have her friend say to her how annoyed they were by these things being said and still think it’s not like them because her head is so filled with these ideas of what she “needs” to do and having aimsey be so against it that she can’t think of aimsey’s feelings and emotions right now because lately aimsey saying their opinions have been mostly against ros’s ideals and plans, and they’ve been trying to help ros calm back down and get out of that mindset, which ros has mostly been ignoring, given the fact she hasn’t changed her mind at all and if anything, has gotten worst. So to see how much that disregard of aimsey’s thoughts and worry’s has gotten so far that even when they are directly telling her how something is effecting them, she can’t believe it and say it’s not like them. Aimsey hasn’t been open with ros recently because ros hasn’t been open to them either, that them actually opening up to her again is unusual to her now.

Ros starts saying how much aimsey has changed without noticing at all that she has also completely changed, and to see that not only has she changed and her morals been warped so much but she also can’t even see it anymore.

Aimsey’s entire philosophy this whole time has been, murder is ok sometimes but not just murdering for the sake of it, which they dealt with again right before this, with pangi offering to help with killing owen but them denying it because the reason he wants to do it is just because, which isn’t what they believe in, and ros knows this so to see them trying to kill owen should be enough to show that they have good reason for it and for ros to not even really listen and just deflect all their criticisms and upsets into them being in the wrong because she just won’t accept or listen to anything wrong with owen or the kingdom itself even after constant talk for weeks with aimsey about how they don’t like the kingdom that much and think ros deserves better.

And the fact that ros can’t see why aimsey is disagreeing because she’s trying to protect her so why would they disagree with that, even after many, many times of them saying that they don’t want or need to be protected, and when they say it again this time, ros literally says that she doesn’t care because she wants to protect them and protecting them is a good thing so it doesn’t matter if aimsey disagrees because it’s a good thing they’re doing. She’s so far gone in this idea that even when she’s saying she’ll protect aimsey and they say, for the millionth time, no, stop, I don’t want you to do this or need you to, she still doesn’t listen, she’s going on about protecting aimsey but ignores aimsey’s own words that they can handle themselves, which ros knows they can anyway (even if they have died 8 times).

They’re supposed to be best friends but right now neither of them are because there’s such a divide between their ideals and how they handle them right now and there has been for a while but it keeps coming back up and just getting worst because both of them refuse to actually fully address it, they begin to talk about it and they both say their thoughts and why they have these thoughts and ideals and they begin to try sorting them but then they just… stop, once they start connecting again at all, they instant grab it and dont let go and just basically stop all efforts to fully fix their relationship because doing so would mean addressing it again and getting mad at each other again and the second their friendship starts feeling normal again, they don’t want to go back, completely not realising, or more likely, ignoring that it will all just come back up again and this has happened multiple times now and happened again in this conversation, as soon as they talked about the upcoming blue party and going together and started talking normal again, they latched to it and just starting saying goodbye and left while they were still on good terms. They just need to both go in a room and not leave until they’ve actually sorted all their problems and genuinely talked about it, instead of just saying all the problems to each other and just not doing anything about them… SOMEONE SAVE MY DUO!!!!

that’s all my yapping for today, probably. I’ll just say again that I love tr!ros and think they are a good person, just very conflicted right now, and she was the main one in the argument so she just ended up being talked about more. This is written terribly btw because I wrote it while still watching the stream, so it was a lot more rushed and less checked over. Although I did do some sight fixes and additions when posting this on here compared to twitter, like the whole ros wanting to protect aimsey thing, can’t believe I forgot to write or mention that earlier!!!

Anyway someone please save tr!ros from herself!!!

And I’m sure now that they’re friends again and have “forgotten” the past that nothing else will happen and they’ll stay friends forever!!

sorry aimsey for mentioning your eight deaths nine deaths, at least you’re still alive right!! (that is not a good thing to them, but death hates their ass soooo)

[lxmelle]

KFC breakup.

I’m seeing it from a slightly different perspective which is still kind of aligned with what my thoughts were over what Geto meant when he posed the question:

Are you Gojo Satoru therefore the Strongest? Or are you the Strongest therefore you’re Gojo Satoru?

Was this hinting at how he wanted Gojo to think about who he is, because he cannot be by his side anymore following his choice. Leaving him with this question.

He wished to push him away. Never asked him to leave with him despite needing strength to realise it. Was he intending for Gojo to remain as the Human Satoru, who was the Strongest?

Since he said, “if I were you, this foolish dream would not be impossible”. So he took on the role of what Gojo could’ve done, to do it to the best of his ability, knowing he probably wouldn’t be as strong, but was committed to anyway.

And tried to leave Satoru as the one who could retain humanity? (And he did, trying to realise Geto’s own dreams because Geto did model humanity for Gojo and he made it his own set of morals and philosophy - which he did fulfil as best as he could).

More context:

Spoiler for chapter 261:

I’ll loosely translate:

Yuta says don’t become a monster all on your own, please. Gojo turns much like Geto did in chapter 78.

He then recollects his memory of Geto when Yuta expressed this concern for him, he thought to himself that it was an impossibility to not become a monster on his own. He was left behind then (when Geto left) and then in the white panel, that he has to catch up to him.

I think there is a parallel with how he has decided to proceed with the plan to kill mercilessly. To opt for moral greyness for the sake of his students and their future. Even if it is a future without him.

This is paralleled with what Geto was trying to do. Protect Gojo. Keep him humane. Since, he opted to do what Yuki thought was crazy. Since, he opted to do what he told Gojo not to do at the hideout in retaliation for Riko’s death.

Chasing after Geto could possibly mean he wished to repent for not killing him then and there, but I think it’s more about what Yuta said and the futility of it, with the burden he now bore to fight Sukuna and protect by weatherproofing the future. He had made up his mind like Geto did. Even if he isn’t alive to see it. To try his best for an impossible dream.

He seemed to understand and think about Geto’s motives then, and wished to wield his strength as The Strongest with a solid purpose this time. He would do it to protect those he cared about. He would chase the same dream as Geto. To catch up to him and not be left alone, for this (meaning/purpose) was all he had of his best friend lover all along.

That’s my interpretation anyway. Thoughts?