#ceterisparibus for the defendant I guess

[ceterisparibus116]

How could anyone hate matt murdock? He's truly the best character and I'm so looking forward to seeing him again in his new series 💗

Disclaimer: I'm using "you" here generally, not at you, anon. 💚

Here are a couple reasons I've seen:

He's "self-righteous" - which by itself is such an interesting concept to me, because...what's the difference between being "self-righteous" and simply having a strong moral code? Is it the fact that Matt wants other people to live by his code? To which I ask: doesn't everyone want everyone else to live by their code? If not, do you really believe in your own code?

He hurts his friends - which, yes he does, that's true, but also: his friends hurt him. Daredevil is a complex and grounded show in which people hurt each other, even the people they love. Furthermore, this critique ignores the way that Matt's mental illness and trauma contribute to his harmful choices.

He makes the same mistakes - which, yes he does, but that's what makes him human? Also, again, that's what mental illnesses like depression do: they loop the same harmful thoughts through your brain and make it so, so hard to break cycles of destructive behavior.

He's a liar - yep, but that gets real complicated when you look closely. First, we have to distinguish between "lying" and "withholding information." Was Matt obligated to tell Foggy and/or Karen about his senses and his vigilantism? By what logic? Personally, I don't think he was. (Yes, his secrets hurt Foggy and Karen, but the fact that some people are hurt does not automatically mean that the choice that led to the hurt was morally wrong.) But even if you do think that Matt was obligated to tell Foggy and/or Karen about his secrets, and certainly if you think Matt was obligated to tell them about Elektra and the fact that he survived Midland Circle, we come back to the issue of mental illness and trauma. I could (and have, lol) write a whole essay on how Matt's secret-keeping is directly impacted by his experiences with Stick, Elektra, and even Foggy. Again, that doesn't excuse his behavior, but it definitely helps explain it.

He's a hypocrite - to which I say, first: everyone in the show has degrees of hypocrisy. But also: how much of a hypocrite is Matt, really? Is it hypocritical for a person to want their friends to make safe and smart choices, without showing the same regard for themselves? Hypocrisy doesn't mean "I hold two opinions that don't make sense from your perspective." Hypocrisy means "I act counter to my own moral code." But although Matt absolutely acts in ways that don't make sense from other perspectives, they do make sense when you understand his worldview: a worldview that a) sees himself as essentially expendable compared to other people; and b) sees himself as more capable of withstanding threats than others. His actions are perfectly consistent with that worldview. And although Matt occasionally acts counter to his own moral code (such as by desiring/attempting to kill Fisk), he shows a remarkable lack of hypocrisy by the way he always eventually comes to a point of realizing that he was wrong, rather than ignoring his own behavior or attempting to excuse it.*

So yeah. I don't think anyone has to "like" Matt; but some of the takes I've seen are so hostile or even angry that I worry about how those people treat real-life friends who struggle with depression, trauma, unhealthy coping mechanisms, etc.

In real life, people are imperfect. Sometimes they're imperfect in really ugly, harmful ways. That doesn't mean you have to be best friends with such people or trust them with every part of yourself - but if your only reaction to them is hate or anger then, frankly, I think something needs to change in you.

*Honestly, if I'm going to talk about hypocrites, I'd point to Foggy. His "People have bailed on Matt his whole life, and I'm not gonna be one of 'em" line from S3 was sweet, but it completely failed to acknowledge the times when Foggy has bailed on Matt. (Or even if Foggy believes that those times don't count as "bailing," it ignores the fact that Matt probably does see those instances as moments of rejection, abandonment, etc.) I had to rewind when I first watched that episode, like, "Wait, did he really just say that?"

Contrast this with Matt's apology to Foggy and Karen in S3, where he bluntly says that they both deserved better from him, and he makes no attempt to downplay or justify his behavior.

Anyway, anon, a semi-related essay that you might also be interested in is this one, where I talk about things I think fandom gets wrong about Matt.

[ceterisparibus116]

Dear Ceterisparibus,

I am at my wit's end.

I'm trying to cite a felony complaint in APA format for this: (https://murderpedia.org/male.B/images/blake_robert/felony_complaint.pdf).

I have no idea how to do this.

But I have it like this so far:

(People of the State of California v. Robert Blake and Earle S. Caldwell, 2002)

People of the State of California v. Robert Blake and Earle S. Caldwell. (2002). https://murderpedia.org/male.B/images/blake_robert/felony_complaint.pdf.

I have a feeling both the in-text citation and the reference page entry are wrong. Purdue says there should be a volume number, but I don't see one??

Please help. Either I'm stupid or Google has failed me.

Disclaimer: I have never in my life had to use APA (for which I am thankful) and I couldn't find anything online on how to cite a criminal complaint specifically (rather than an "opinion"). But I'm taking my best guess!

I would say your in-text citation looks right, with the possible exception that it could be shortened to "(State v. Blake and Caldwell, 2002)" or "(State of California v. Blake and Caldwell, 2002)" but that's purely me being used to legal shorthand and may not be what you need to use.

I think your reference page entry is correct as is! I'm guessing the volume number thing is because Purdue thinks you're citing a legal opinion rather than a criminal complaint. Usually if you look up how to cite a case, you get instructions for how to cite an opinion, not a specific document that's part of the case. The criminal complaint isn't the judge's opinion, so it's not the "case" - it's just a document explaining what the defendant was charged with. Because legal opinions get published in books, they always have a volume. But I can't think why a criminal case would have a volume. So I think your reference page entry is right!

Does anyone else know better?