#drug use is not inherently evil drug addiction is not evil

[ranma0]

If you think that the problem with Valentino is that he's producing and selling porn, then you're missing the point

The point is that he's abusive and sexually exploitative, this would be equally bad no matter what position of power he was in

What makes the porn situation uniquely bad is that his victims are both vulnerable and stigmatized for being sex workers

the perceived immorality of porn is another weapon that can be used against people like Angel Dust

And it's both telling and disturbing how many fans of this show seem to take the idea that both sex work and drug use are inherently evil at face value

Which is a belief that is both extremely puritan and victim blaming

[skinnymeanfaggot]

seeing h*zbin critiques in my youtube recommended makes me want to make a ripoff because the concept itself is good. angel trying to redeem some shitty ass people. reverse good place. places actual questions on morality

[ladygrinninghole]

obsessed with star trek repeatedly writing themselves into a corner by creating alien races that are supposed to be The Bad Guys when that explicitly conflicts with their previously established notion that no group of people is inherently good or evil.

first it was the klingons—they’re originally supposed to be this cruel, bloodthirsty, war-obsessed people—and then tng comes along and it’s like wait no maybe war and violence is a part of their culture and actually ties back to ancient traditions and philosophies so we have to be woke about it.

hey these are the ferengi and they’re supposed to represent everything we hate about capitalist society; they’re greedy, scheming, profit-obsessed, and they look like ugly little trolls to emphasize how much we fucking HATE capitalism. oh wait fuck here comes deep space nine and we have to recognize that they’re PEOPLE. okok what if the pursuit of profit is actually part of their culture and ties back to ancient traditions and philosophies. so we have to be woke about it.

this is the borg, they’re a hivemind race of cyborgs who have no sense of individuality and their only motivation is assimilating people into their society. they want to assimilate humanity and we are completely defenseless against them because their technology is eons ahead of our own and they’re incapable of being reasoned with. oh sweet we have a borg prisoner this is the perfect opportunity to commit genocide against them. fuck actually we can’t commit genocide we’re woke and communists and in space.

hey these are the cardassians, they’re part of a cruel and vicious empire which is supposed to be a representation of fascism and authoritarian regimes, they’re a cold, bloodthirsty people with no sense of empathy or compassion, their society literally references 1984 on multiple occasions, and they’re known for the insanely cruel and inhumane methods of torture they use against their prisoners of war. we hate the cardassians…….. except, here’s a cardassian kid who grew up on bajor, and……. fuck. he’s a person. now we actually have to consider his humanity. and being racist is actually……. bad.

this is the jem’hadar, they’re genetically engineered soldiers who have no sense of individuality and only live to defend the state. they’re all born addicted to a synthetic drug that’s manufactured by the state and administered by their masters—this is how they’re kept subservient. they’re ruthless and powerful and they’re incapable of being reasoned with because their only motivation is violence and killing. so we should kill them all, right? FUCK….. what if they’re actually people. goddamnit. now we have to consider their humanity.

hey these are the romulans. hey these are the founders. the list goes on. i just find it really interesting

[banana-with-a-bow-tie]

is being gay/trans REALLY a sin? Is being attracted to the same sex/wanting to dress as the gender you feel you should be really all that bad to christians? Why do christians care what people do with their own lives to the point that they tell them it’s “sin”

I'm seeing three questions here. 1. What is sin? 2. How do we know something is a sin? 3. Why do Christians care if people sin?

What is a sin?

In order to understand what sin is you need to understand who God is. God is good. He does not just possess good or desirable qualities. He is good. The word "good" comes directly from the word God because God is the very standard of what it means for something to be good. We can say things like flowers and sunsets and sharing are good because they are based on God who is the source of everything good (James 1:17).

God is also our Creator. He designed us according to His perfect goodness so that we could be like Him and walk in His good ways (Psalm 25:8; Hebrews 12:10). God would be unloving to create the world and not follow His goodness.

Sin, then, is our rebellion against God and His goodness. When Adam and Eve first sinned, they were tempted with the idea that they could be like God and decide what is good and evil for themselves. They wanted to be able to say, "God is not king, I am king. God's ways are not good, my desires are good."

This is a lie from the father of lies. Satan wants us to believe that if I just do whatever I think is best then I will find true goodness and satisfaction, but all it does is lead us further and further away from true goodness which comes from communion with God (Psalm 34:10).

2. How do we know something is a sin?

When Adam and Eve sinned, our communion with God died. We all like sheep went astray and turned aside to our own ways. (Isaiah 53:6). We stopped listening to God's loving care and instead started following our hearts, but our hearts are deceitful and wicked beyond understanding (Jeremiah 17:9).

We cannot listen to our attractions or our feelings because we are attracted to and find pleasure in things that God declares are evil, things that are contrary to His good design. If people did not find pleasure in things like cheating on your spouse or stealing, then they would never do it. They are drawn into wrongdoing by their own wicked desires (James 1:14).

But God is still good. He has not left us without a witness. He has given a conscience to people who are hostile to Him so that even they can recognize when their desires are not good. We all know inherently that lying is bad, that pride is bad, that fighting and anger are bad, because God has hidden His law in our hearts (Romans 2:15).

However, because we have deceitful rebellious hearts, we try to justify ourselves and explain it away and muffle the conscience so it can't bother us any more, like searing your hand with a hot iron so it can't feel anything (1 Timothy 4:2).

The only way we can know something is sinful is by God giving us new life and enabling us to trust in the goodness of His Word again. We can know with certainty that all sexual desire outside of marriage is sin because God told us it defies His character and people do it because they want to rebel against Him, so God gives them what they want (Romans 1:24-25).

3. Why do Christians care if people sin?

Ray Comfort tells a story about a man who hated homosexuals. There was a broken elevator in his building with a sign on it that said "DANGER! OUT OF ORDER!" The hateful man saw two lesbians approaching the elevator so he took the sign down so they would use it and fall to their deaths.

God has given us a clear warning in Scripture that following your heart is dangerous. It's like an addictive drug, numbing your mind with pleasure so you don't realize it's killing you. If someone you loved was overdosing in front of you, you wouldn't say "whatever man, live your truth." You would shake them awake so they could see what is happening to them and try to get them help. If I believe that God's warning is telling the truth, the most unloving and hateful thing I can do is not tell anyone about it. Woe to me if I see judgment coming and don't tell anyone how to be saved (Ezekiel 33:6)!

Christians aren't trying to control you or force you to follow their personal preferences. Some people who profess Christ do that, but mostly we have met a God who loves us, who saw us hurtling in a downward spiral of guilt and shame and earning eternal punishment for our crimes against Him, and choosing to show us forgiveness in an unfathomably kind way.

Every single one of us has disobeyed God and tried to take His place on the throne. We all stand guilty before God not just for things like murder or homosexuality, but for lying and envy and idolatry. We have broken God's laws and because He is good, He cannot leave evil unpunished. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Every single one of us dies because it is what we have earned for ourselves. We deserve for God to give us His wrath and anger for waging war against Him (Romans 1:18).

But God is rich in mercy and abounding in love even to those who hate Him. We owe God a righteous life, but none of us are righteous, so God decided to wipe away our debt by living the perfect life for us. God became a man, Jesus, lived a perfect life, then died on a cross, taking the wrath of God we deserved, then rose again on the third day, proving that the price had been paid, then He ascended to God's right hand to offer Himself as the reason people can stand before God as righteous.

God does not delight in the death of the wicked. He does not want you to keep trying to find your identity in yourself. He wants you to know Him and His love for you. He wants to wipe away your sin and make you white as snow. What you need to do is confess your sin to God, which means to agree that you are guilty of rebellion against Him and that He is truly Lord, and you must believe that He will forgive your sin and give you eternal life because of what Jesus did for you on the cross. God is faithful and just to forgive the sin of anyone who asks Him (1 John 1:9)

I care about what you do with your life because I love you and because God loves you, just like a Father loves His children and wants what is best for them. I don't want you to miss out on the amazing gift of grace God is offering to you. Don't let Satan keep deceiving you. He promises you peace but all he can give you is death. Every promise of God will always come true (Titus 1:2)

[annabelle--cane]

I guess the thing that makes me not so fond of Jon's addiction allegory is that it's only coherent to a certain extent? Like I think people sometimes forget that he's actively violating these people

anon, through no fault of your own you have accidentally hit upon my sleeper agent trigger phrase. I have layers of answers to this.

so first off, yeah, it's not a 1:1 direct metaphor, it's a soupy dream logic fantasy plot device with flavors of a lot of different things. there's quite a lot of addiction in there, there's some abuse of power, there's some cyclical nature of trauma, there's a dash of disability, there's a few notes of gendered violence, there's a good bit of just. violence violence and being kind of a motherfucker because goddammit it feels good to be an active agent about something in your life, even if it's just choosing to be a worse version of yourself than you strictly need to be. a lot of tma's worldbuilding is very allegorical, but apart from aspects of individual statements nothing really matches up quite 1:1 with a real world counterpart, and if more things did then it probably wouldn't be a fantasy show anymore.

secondly. okay to contextualize this answer a little bit I have a kind of hypothetical video essay project about vampirism and addiction that I like to spend a few hours thinking about every so often but am almost certainly never going to make because the full research burden required is a lot higher than I actually have the time to properly do. but because of that I've spent a lot of time sorting through why framing vampires as addicts really works for me in a way that it doesn't seem to for everyone, and I think a lot of my thoughts on that also apply to jon. there's going to be a bit of a detour here before we get back to talking about tma, but we'll get there, I prommy.

I've seen a lot of people take issue with various paranormal addiction allegories because, a lot of the time, the act that is meant to metaphorically represent the act of use itself is something that is directly and inherently harmful to others, e.g. drinking human blood, handing over power to your hedonistic Evil alter ego, holding the cursed amulet and going crazy going stupid, slurping trauma out of the head of some guy you ran into on a boat to norway, etc., and yeah, I do get that. substance use is not inherently harmful like that to anyone except sometimes the user themself, and addicts are not inherently fucked up and destructive people; those are dangerous stereotypes that often lead to the demonizing of a whole group of sick people.

here's the thing for me, though: those are definitely truths I want explored and represented when it comes to portrayals of non-allegorical actual addicts, but fantasy fiction isn't for showing the world as it is, it's for showing a subjective fun house mirror version of reality where certain aspects are minimized and magnified depending on how it feels to live through it. and yes, absolutely in real life drug use is not an inherently evil act and it does not make you an inherently evil person, but... doesn't it kind of feel like that? sort of? absolutely no one is living their best life nor on their best behavior while experiencing any kind of major mental illness episode, and when it comes to addiction you've got a very clear tangible symbol of when The Episode is happening that it feels like you have much more control over than when it comes to other illnesses. it's also a thing where people are a lot more likely to be openly angry and distrustful of you if they find out it's happening. so you mix together the ideas of "I know I get worse as a result of doing this one specific thing" + "I act less like myself when I'm using, it rearranges my priorities and I care less about hurting people because that's what happens when you're experiencing The Horrors" + "society at large/people directly around me are pretty quick to say that doing this is evil," and you get the subjective emotional result of "I hurt people by using and it makes me monstrous." I tend to respond to those kinds of paranormal allegories like they're just cutting out the middle man of those subjective fears. "using makes me monstrous" -> "using is monstrous."

anyway. jon archivist.

don't get me wrong, I totally understand if this aspect of metaphor doesn't gel for some people and they only like taking it exactly as far as the text explicitly makes them, but I really get a lot out of reading jon's connection to the fears as addiction precisely because he does genuinely awful things to people as a result of it. he's a person in a very bad physical and mental place with little to no support who is constantly being told by both allies and enemies that he's already a monster just by being alive, and he copes with that by secretly falling further and further into an compulsive act of consumption that skews his priorities and makes him care less about hurting people because at least sometimes getting to be the cause of pain makes him feel a little bit less powerless when he has to be the subject of pain the rest of the time. then he's found out and is made to stop, and he has to grapple not just with the physical toll of withdrawal but with knowing there is a not insignificant part of him that will excuse any act of malice if he knows he'll feel better afterwards.

the end of tma is very explicit in the fact that the rules of its world are shaped by the subjective worst fears of those who live in it, it's "an exercise in unreliably reality" as jonny sims put it once, and I think that principle extends backwards in some ways to apply to the rest of the show. I don't think the fact that there are only entities of fear and not hope or love is meant to be a full commentary on the total nature of the real world, it's a reflection of what fear and suffering can make the world feel like. eric and melanie both go to really harsh extremes to extricate themselves from the fears and live peaceful lives, and in both cases something happens that foils their plans (getting murdered + the apocalypse, respectively), but I don't think the intended message is to say that is definitively how real life works, they are metaphors for the limits of individual agency in larger systems and represent two types of worst-case-scenarios. similarly, I don't think reading jon as an addict implies that addiction inherently involves violence or that the reactions of those around him were completely unjustified, it's just a subjective exploration of the kinds of fears that can come with addiction dialed up to 100.

[an-excellent-choice]

A random thought but I am what you would consider as a new fan in dragon age. So, for me the common discourse/hate surrounding Cullen in the games is really shallow.

(I am referring to the character not the voice actor, I do not give a shit about that guy and about his bullshit)

I see a lot of hate on cullen and how either he is so fucking bland or evil because he is a equivalent to a cop in dragon age. which while I can see the comparison it just go and shows how people cant really handle an overarching flawed character story arc when they aren't this witty or sassy person.

Cullen is great example of how a traumatic experience can sway you to extremism (you know like Bolin in Korra) He wasn't inherently bad, hell he trained in a very lenient and peaceful circle without any issue or complaints on his side.

(reminder that the Cullen trained in was very chill and balanced if you think about it. Anders stayed in that circle while doing his multiple escape attempts and they never made him tranquil. Other examples include all the kissing allowed in the circle and the fact the you can save the circle in DAO if you save the first enchanter)

Then everything went to shit in that relaxed circle.

Cullen was tortured and was forced to watch everyone around him get killed by the very things that he was warned what mages was.

If you think about it he probably blamed majority of what happened to leniency of the circle to the mages which is why it isnt a surprise that he would be supportive of strictness of the circle in kirkwall.

A lot of people hate on Cullen because of da2 which i understand but this part of the story is kind of like anders in da2 act 3 or loghain in dao for him.

He is part of his life where he is as closest to monster he could be but you know why he isn't the worst is because he has a line that he didnt cross which was killing allies/ civilians. He later also acknowledges in DAI the pain and atrocities he caused in DA2.

He is aware of his biases and is trying to redeem himself by helping in the inquisition as an independent faction. He left the templars.

He hates how the templars has treated him and his faith to be weapons of abuse. While he was a perpetrator of the abuses of the templars, people forget he is also a victim.

Templars are required to intake lyrium to be part of the order. This system literally uses these drugs to make them addicts and gain control on them. I dont know about you but that shit isnt really comparable to being cops.

He is literally a recovering drug addict in DAI and the reason why he is doing this is to show that templars can do it. They can leave the order.

Extra: I love cullen because he is so complicated and he is trying his best. Does this mean I want to see him in DATV? Fuck no. If him being brought back into story requires for the voice actor to be hired for it. no fucking thanks. His story is done and I'm happy with that

P.S also extra note about people saying he is creepy because he had a crush on the warden in DAO while he was a templar is a stupid point.

I dont care if the author originally wanted it to seem creepy, they completely failed on that mood and they forgot characters can also write themselves a story if you are not careful.

Cullen was incredibly shy and knew how inappropriate his crush was. He literally ran away from any flirting attempts. It is not bad to have a crush with someone you shouldn't have on, AS LONG AS YOU KNOW THE BOUNDARIES AND DONT LET ANYONE CROSS THOSE BOUNDARIES. which he didn't.

[hanaruri-tunes]

Your latest HC post got me thinking. Do you think the bros ever tried to give MC some food or drink that had their “essence” in it? Maybe they’d also kick back and watch as MC slowly becomes addicted to it, wanting more as the days go by and probably begging to know what’s in it so they can recreate that delectable treat they gave.

Oh my god wudhydsjhf I didn't even think about that but yeah, each demon in the devildom is probably well-aware of the properties of their semen so they can in fact use it as "enhancement" on food. Pretty evil. Okay really REALLY quick and short headcanons on that idea, based on my earlier headcanons of course:

Lucifer

Has definitely thought about it but he feels like doing this would be "stooping too low" and it's not "classy" to use such a tactic to win you over, because yes the avatar of pride has SOME standards. But I can definitely imagine that once you're in a relationship with him he would let you taste some of his "essence" in food. THOUGH TO BE CLEAR he makes you aware of it, like, he warns you so you know beforehand what's in the food.

Mammon

Also has definitely thought about it but he feels too guilty to do that to you. Even if he does end up putting some of it into your food of drinks he always chickens out at the last moment with a dumb excuse like "oh the choco milk is probably too cold already, I'll bring you another cup NO- t-this cup's no good forget it, don't even take a sip of it-"

Leviathan

Similar to Mammon (as in, he feels guilty) but his inherent possessiveness over you wins over and he swallows back his guilt and shame (also, if you find out you'll definitely mock him for it which he looks forward to.) Not like you will though since his semen has hypnotic side-effects, he'll ask for things from you like flashing your panties at him or hugging him or whatever then he'll make you forget any of it happened because he's a coward haha.

Satan

Hmm he's a difficult one to grasp for me- But I suppose the idea would cross his mind though he'll never act upon it. He'll imagine it for sure but even if demon seeds taste good and aren't all that "dangerous" to consume, making you drink something that came from him without your knowledge doesn't sit well with him. If you ever do it, he wants you to drink it because you want to while exactly knowning what's inside the cup.

Asmo

Zero shame, zero guilt. Tries to do it at every occasion he gets but you (and the brothers) are already well aware of his intentions so you're not allowed to drink anything that Asmo has supposedly "prepared". Of course the reason why they're so protective is because he has already succeeded a couple of times in the past and your face looks way too cute under his seed's influence. The aphrodisiac aspect of it being way too strong and overkill it gets everyone too hot and bothered while looking at you, it's almost painful for them to see you in that state without being able to act upon their desires in front of the rest of their brothers.

Beel

To be completely honest I don't even think the thought would cross his mind djshdjz. It probably only would once you guys are deep in a relationshio and having sex, since he has tasted you and liked it he suddenly realizes he can "feed" you as well. "Oh- did I ever tell you that demons' semen have special tastes and side-effects? Would you like to try?" He's pretty genuine about it, no ulterior motives. Just wants to "feed" you.

Belphie

This little fucker is the most devious little shit ever. EVERYTIME he's on cooking duty he does it. Since I headcanon that his have hallucinogen effects, at first no one exactly knows what's wrong with the food. With Asmo it was obvious since his aphrodisiac effect is 100% straightforward: pure pleasure. But Belphie? Might as well be slipping drugs in there dryjghfhd ANYWAY, he loves seeing you confused or impressed, a bit lost in your magical "daydreams". You start to like it and even praise his cooking not knowing how the hell he does that (you assume he just applies some sort of spell on the food.) But once the brothers find out/understand what he does to you, they're furious, and Belphie is banned from cooking duty which was probably about 30% of the reason why he started putting his juices there in the first place djhehdhz

[pinkandpurple360]

Hey pink did you saw the new 4chan leak?

https://desuarchive.org/co/thread/145383112/#145394767

But the main thing for me was that Leviathan is a queen obsessed with fashion, and in principle, Envy is based on fashion(i already love her omg slay queen 😔)

We can’t assume these are real. So let’s talk in hypotheticals.

Leviathan sounds like “Him” from PPG. Using a drag queen who is evil, to embody jealousy is…a choice. A choice that could become queer phobic at light speed. I think the sins are more important to the story and world building, than stolas and his entire Bridgerton family bullshit only a few stolitz stans care about. And really, everyone is gay in hell? Everyone?

I think the idea of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sins is childish. But especially sin embodiments who are pure good and didn’t at least work to get that way, is plain oxymoron. Sloth Lust and Gluttony are not better than Wrath Envy and Greed. One half is focussed on self indulgence, the other on harming others directly. BOTH are bad.

I wish she did a little more research into how hierarchy and power works. But this is a millionaire we have to remember …

There are no good monarchs, drug lords, and factory owners, if there is an oppressed working class and caste system. Even ‘nice’ gentle personalities can be part of the supremacist caste.

It makes a lot more sense to me if they are all morally dubious. Beelzebub and Asmodeus are both favourites, making them “nice” just because they’re faves, requires explaining their role in oppression as “they can’t help it” that writing is cowardly?!

“Asmodeus didn’t have a choice but to build fizz robots in his factory, and didn’t profit off it!” -> but that’s ridiculous. He’s not a helpless woobie. He should’ve had agency and decide to willingly work with mammon and sin openly, then changed when he grew close to fizz.

“Beelzebub hates the caste system and pounds but she can’t change it!” -> she feeds off of her subjects, keeps them happy and drunk, can’t handle negative emotions. She caused Ver to become an addict and enables her. The hell pounds is the same as a government leader not understanding how bad the foster care system and not prioritising it. She was the biggest potential for a morally grey character.

Why are you throwing out moral ambiguity and extremely interesting story elements??? !!

The only one that does make sense is Belphegor. This demon has been described throughout as an inherently neutral entity. One that refused to pick a side in the hell vs heaven conflict.

If I can add alternative.

Lucifer - a deadbeat leader too obsessed with himself to see the damage he has done and how his nation is suffering. he becomes malicious if questioned. Callous Neglect. He is malicious.

Beelzebub - The epitome of an addict. She is too engrossed in feeding off of energy like a parasite to enact her duties as a leader. She ‘cares’ about her subjects when they foul her mood and don’t feed her. Her addiction causes her to blackout frequently and forget years of memories. Her nature prevents reel growth. But she quickly removes and discards them. Like most government leaders she doesn’t prioritise having any improvements made to the foster care system, or more closely hells equivalent to puppy mills. She likely allows the system because she has no idea how to handle hellhound overpopulation. Think of her as being a teenager in charge of a bunch of babies and children. She lacks the maturity required. She’d rather sneak out to the club and give her baby a piece of bread to gnaw on while she’s gone.

Bee is the sin with the most gray morality potential but Vivienne medrano is terrified of moral greyness, the closest attempt is Alastor and Blitzø/imp. Bee is not malicious and dangerous. But she is not good either. As she is immortal, she doesn’t understand mortality and the fear around it. Marie Antoinette is actually a perfect figure to invoke, she was interested primarily in indulgence, while not the most malicious of the royals, not pure evil, but she was complacent and deeply classist in a polite seeming way.

Asmodeus - Because lust is a social sin, requiring interaction, it makes perfect sense that Oz would want his citizens to mingle with each other beyond castes and with himself for maximum pleasure. Lust also thrives off subverting power dynamics. I think him being non malicious but obsessively lustful and defensive of his sin, makes perfect sense to me. Like Bee, he cares only about having a good time. Any malice is hidden so the citizens don’t flee. But like porn does to the mind, it numbs it, erodes someone’s integrity emotional intelligence and their decision making skills. It really irks me that the Vees are a far better “sin of lust” symbol than Asmodeus who has become quite pathetic?

Basically, his “Ozzies” characterisation would be perfect if it wasn’t a facade.

Beelzebub - She’s a drug Lord. Enough said. She’s the embodiment of the evils of the Pharmaceutical industry. She’s also too lazy to be confrontational and violent. The real bel is like this.

[macbethz]

ok i said i would stop drowning screenshots and posting them but I think this is genuinely so insidious i need to talk about it. This is on a post with TENS OF THOUSANDS of notes, with many reblogs featuring this attachment. I saw it because it was reblogged by people I follow!!

This language is horrifically harmful towards addicts, let's get that out of the way. The image of the addict is rendered disgusting and filthy for pure shock value, with the most "extreme" drug possible, to in turn make AI seem horrific. I'm fascinated by the fact that this kind of conservative rhetoric is adopted by leftist tumblr users the second it decries something they don't like. THERE IS A REASON the same people that consider addicts to be scum are speaking out against AI in this specific way, just like the same reactionaries that consider modern art a scourge on the earth and a pollution of traditional artistic values are making statements about AI art. The value of art is once again equivocated to the labor that went into it.

THIS is the natural endpoint of treating AI as just an objective moral evil in its own right rather than examining the conditions around it that are actually causing damage with it's use. The positioning of AI as a "vice" is juxtaposed with drug use as a "vice" just by its very nature - "using ai is bad because its bad." Even if we dive deeper into it, the argument becomes "using AI is bad because it makes you happy too easily, which is also why drugs are bad" Which like. Is a fundamentally conservative and reactionary stance.

I'm making this post as someone who dislikes AI, who works in game art and has literally experienced the effects AI is having on the industry I work in right now, including losing actual, tangible work to it. THAT, the MATERIAL consequences of AI art, is the discussion that should be happening in leftist spaces, not the positioning of AI as an inherent evil.

[lord-squiggletits]

Wanted to send an ask as well to hopefully provide some distraction from…recent events.

Are there any parts of world building in the TF IDW universe that you wish were explored/expanded upon more? Or that you want to explore in your writing? Like certain aspects of pre-war Cybertron, cybertronian culture, post-war Cybertron, etc?

Okay this is actually perfectly timed for a rant I wanted to go on about the way mnemosurgery is written in IDW1 because I hate how JRO basically made it an ontologically evil field of medicine both intrinsically and in terms of the average person who does it, like

First of all I want to preface this by saying I'm not accusing JRO of having any particular beliefs, this is just my commentary on how things came off and how his writing style contributes to both virtues and flaws in his writing. So I might say "he's basically saying this" but in the sense of "unfortunate implications, accidental or purposeful, in his writing."

But like... it makes me so mad because the worldbuilding around mnemosurgery kind of makes no sense to me? It seems like a really fucking wasted opportunity to cast basically every mnemosurgeon in the continuity as evil and to make it so that even just doing mnemosurgery is basically a toxic, destructive act that will literally kill you? Honestly, I don't think JRO even came up with mnemosurgery as like, "here's a thing that exists in this world and how it works" so much as, he took a character-first approach to writing (as he always does) and wrote mnemosurgery to work whatever way would work best for Chromedome and other character-related conflicts and plot points.

Like, mnemosurgery can view/alter memories from a living person but from a dead person it can only get moments from right before death. Makes sense. Mnemosurgery slowly kills you every time you do it??? Uh... honestly that comes off more as a handwave to make it so that any time the LL needs information they can't just needle it straight out of whoever's mind they need bc of course Chromedome can only do it when it's really important after all. Mnemosurgery... is only ever used for brainwashing people? Like, literally every mnemosurgeon except Chromedome is evil (and cartoonishly so, for Trepan and Sunder, like literally unredeemable monsters in every way) and any time they actually enjoy their field of medicine it's bc they're a sadist that likes to manipulate and oppress people? Kind of... uncreative.

Mnemosurgery is ADDICTIVE?? You're addicted to needling people's brains because mnemosurgery is ontologically evil and then it literally kills you? Okay like... do I even need to explain how tone-deaf it is to incorporate addiction of all things into the worldbuilding here? "You're an addict which makes you dangerous to society. The good ones stop doing the addictive thing because they're morally strong/care about others/aren't hedonists, but the bad ones who only care about doing their drug of choice are evil because the fact that they don't quit shows that they don't care about other people and OF COURSE the main/only fate that awaits addicts is their inevitable death by their own addiction!" Like, we get enough of that shit in real life, JRO. Did you really have to take an already heavily stigmatized condition like ADDICTION and slap it onto your ontologically evil mnemosurgery where the evil ones are evil because they love abusing/manipulating people and don't care enough about dying to stop being addicted to mnemosurgery? Come the fuck on.

Like, I understand that "the science of studying/altering memories" is heavily laden with nightmare fuel as is, and I don't have a problem with that (and stuff like the Institute) because the mind/memories are an intrinsic part of personhood, so any scientific field around it (or any government that wants to sponsor it) will abuse that knowledge just like with any other field of medicine. But to use human examples, why the fuck does mnemosurgery have to be inherently evil? What about stuff like Alzheimer's that degrades ppl's memories to the point of not even remembering a few seconds ago? Wouldn't it be beautiful if mnemosurgery could help with that? What about psychological issues where maybe people with intense PTSD/trauma/etc could have their worst memories be removed/dulled so that they become mentally stable enough for psychiatric/therapeutic interventions to become effective? What if someone has a TBI and wants help recovering the memories they lost?

What about non-scary, non-medicinal applications of mnemosurgery? What if someone just really treasures the memory of a particular day with their best friend and visits a mnemosurgery every couple years so that information creep doesn't slowly alter their memories of that precious day? What if it was possible for mnemosurgeons to intensify memories, so that maybe someone could have a happy memory intensified and think of it any time they're sad, struggling, having mental health struggles, etc? What if mnemosurgeons could take/copy memories from people's brains and convert them to video format in a way that other people could watch it? Imagine the sheer potential present in that when it comes to preserving history through literal firsthand testimonials of what happened! What if a mnemosurgeon could transfer memories from one person to another-- what kinds of breakthroughs in empathy, communication, and understanding others could happen if you could LITERALLY see a conflict from another person's perspective? In those ways, mnemosurgeons would basically be able to act as a hybrid of doctor, psychologist, diplomat, mediator, and archivist all in one!

But no... instead we just got "Mnemosurgery is evil and pretty much only used for brainwashing, 99.8% of all mnemosurgeons are evil creeps, oh by the way it's also addicting and will literally kill you if you do it too much." SMFH.

[bookwyrminspiration]

alright! just in case, quick housekeeping: this blog is vehemently queer, including pro-trans/ace/aro/neos/queer/fags/etc, pro-choice, sex-positive, black lives matter, anti-racist (which is systemic and connected to everything), anti-capitalist, free palestine, police should be defunded and the money reallocated to public resources, the land should be returned to the Indigenous Peoples it was stolen from, legal doesn't equal right, don't trust anyone telling you voting does nothing, everyone has something to unlearn, sex workers are valued and should be protected/respected, pleasure and kink are value neutral, media censorship is bad and cannot be reliably moderated ever, "fucked up" media should be allowed to exist, AI "art" as it exists currently is theft and so is the writing, drug use and addiction is value neutral and addicts should be supported, certain diagnosis/disorders aren't inherently evil or abusive, all mental health struggles deserve support/accommodations, food/water/housing is a basic human right, healthcare should be universally free, education including higher should be universally free, disabled people are invaluable to society, fatness is value neutral, car-centric city planning sucks, children are people, golf-courses suck, etc.

i've certainly missed several points but you get the gist. if you don't like it, leave

[lioneliness-etc]

What’s your opinion of popular Batman fanon tropes like pit madness or Tim being a coffee addict? I’m not a pit madness fan because I think it’s problematic and excuses abuse but I do love Tim having a passion for photography and stuff like that! What’s your opinion :)

Wow I really didn’t realize people would actually ask me things and so I never actually checked my inbox 😓

Personally I’m no stickler for canon, but how much I enjoy a fandom trope is depends entirely on how well it’s used in fic/art. I’ve read great fic that uses fanon tropes in really interesting and unique ways (or just explores the ramifications of a trope in a deep way). I’ve also seen people who really like to adhere to canon and seen great stuff from them.

I think it’s totally fair (and necessary) criticize fanon tropes for perpetuating problematic ideas, but I also think that there are often ways to write these tropes in nuanced and meaningful ways

For example: I 100% agree with the criticism that the historical retcon and fanon depiction of Jason Todd’s parents criminal, drug addicts, and inherently abusive leans into EXTREMELY classist and pro-incarceration beliefs that I simply will not stand for.

But… I also think there should a place for Jason fics that DO discuss parental abuse, addiction, and the incarceration of family members. ESPECIALLY for fics that are willing to confront the complicated emotions and dynamics this can cause, especially for a child.

The same goes for Tim and fanon depictions of abuse/neglect within wealth and privilege.

The reality is that all of those topics are experiences that DO HAPPEN to real people. They shouldn’t be excluded entirely from art or written off as inherently problematic interpretations without evidence.

I would hope, however, that writers and readers think critically about how any tropes, fanon, or canon for that matter, are being used. I also think that people should avoid using them as “easy” excuses, or sticking to stereotypical depictions of certain topics. Remember that addicts and incarcerated people are not evil or unloving, that abuse is often way more complicated and insidious than simply hating your child or partner, and that victims don’t always react in ways that make sense to others or that society deems acceptable.

And for fucks sake don’t assume that fanon interpretations are inherently shallow or that adhering strictly to canon is inherently better. (And obviously don’t read anything that you think might trigger or have a negative effect on you, or that you just won’t enjoy!)

This became a long rant and a bit preachy, but it’s something I’ve been thinking about for a long time.

Personally I think Tim likes energy drinks and very sweetened cold brew lol!

[cheddar-baby]

ok i've gotten two asks now to elaborate on my beef with street photography so.

Street photography as a genre gets so easily caught up in bad ethics. Its something you run into a lot with them where they'll know the laws of pubic photography like the back of their hand. But never even considered if its ethically alright to document strangers in public then sell the images without that persons consent. Its a genre of photography that pulls in a lot of people doing poverty tourism, a lot of the most famous street photographers have a huge portfolio of homeless people, drug addicts, or people living in poverty in third world countries. Which comes with them patting themselves on the back for "drawing attention" to those issues but in reality they are making their living directly off the backs of those people's misery. Those people don't see a penny of it and they don't get the rights to their own image. Imagine you are having the worst day of your life. A person walks up to you, takes a photograph then you see your face on a banner marketing a show at the guggenheim. Its ghoulish.

Even outside of that your public image completely lays in the hands of those photographers. They get to permanently paint how a huge selection of the world percieves you. If you happen to get documented by someone like Martin Parr who intentionally photographs people looking their worst that is now your public image. Its an inherently invasive medium that can very easily be used to profit off other peoples misfortune. This isnt to say that its just entirely evil though you can definitely do it in a way that the people involved aren't taken advantage of. Theres street photographers i enjoy who took beautiful images that are deeply pivotal to the history of photography. However, their work is forever tied to the fact that it is taking advantage of strangers for personal gain.

[mx-ryder]

Some thoughts on Hazbin Hotel

I literally just watched HH this week, followed by binging Helluva Boss on YouTube right after. And my Dash is full of HH and HB stuff now. And the other day I saw someone posted their thoughts on the show, including one specific take that it falls right back under the typical "Sinners are bad but hey, we can fix them!" sort of trope. (I really don't know if I'll be able to find the post again, if I do, I'll reblog/link it here or something).

And hey, I'm not gonna argue that it doesn't, per se. I just think there's a bit more to it than that.

c.w for general religious trauma talk, SA mentions, drug use/abuse, alcohol use, addiction, gambling, probably other things I'm not thinking of

(Also please don't feel like you have to read this. It's literally just me rambling because I haven't been able to stop thinking about this topic all fucking day, so I wrote it down to get it out of my head. Obviously if you read it and want to comment/continue the discussion, feel free. Just please. Be respectful.)

Now.

All my thoughts on HH are very much colored by my past experiences with religion, US christianity, specifically. More specifically still, the sort of christianity that makes people believe that "home schooling" their kids, isolating and indoctrinating them away from anyone who might make them question it all, is the best course of action. I grew up bouncing from church to church, from home schooling co-op to co-op, all so my bio-mom could find the exact group to echo her own sentiments back at her.

Among the things I grew up believing were great ideas such as:

Sexuality is inherently disgusting, and something you should always be forcing down/avoiding/punishing yourself about. Masturbation, porn, sex before marriage, dressing "immodestly", and any sexuality outside of heterosexual were inherently evil and worthy of punishment. Sometimes that punishment was being assaulted, because really, she should've covered up, right? Girls, sometimes girls as young as 12-13 (if not younger) were villainized for wearing tank-tops and shorts, because they were causing the boys to stumble and immodesty was a moral failing on their part.

Drugs, alcohol, substances in general, are bad and wrong and using them, or heaven forbid becoming addicted, is a moral failing on your part. You are a bad person for consuming a drug, and therefore deserve to fall into addiction, houselessness, starvation, and/or abuse.

Poor people deserve it. Accepting help of any kind is leeching off good, hard-working people. Your worth as a person is directly tied to your ability to be a "productive member of society."

Any mental health issues are your fault, and are either because you don't believe in jesus hard enough, or because you're inherently broken and sinful and therefore unsaveable. There is no room for sympathy or empathy for anyone struggling.

There's a reason these are the same stereotypical archetypes you see in this sort of show. The queer sex-addict. The gambler. The "weirdo" who isn't like other people and enjoys "weird" things, or enjoys things "too much". Even just the party-girl character. Because these aren't just stereotypes. These are actual entire groups of people who are ostracized and vilified just for being who they were born to be, for making choices christians don't like, or for being sick.

And that brings me to Angel Dust. Who, by the way, I wish I could've been given a content warning about, because holy shit Ep 4 and Addict hit me really fucking hard. My friend recommended the show to me without having watched it, so I went in not expecting that sort of storyline to punch me in the gut out of nowhere.

Anyway! Angel Dust! Literally named after a drug. A gay porn star who flirts shamelessly with anyone and everyone, who proudly shows off his best films to his friends, who secretly hates his job, not because of the sex, as we come to find out, but because he's under the thumb of a fucking psycho who treats him like shit and actively physically, sexually, and mentally/emotionally abuses him. He's basically been trafficked, and hates that he doesn't have any say in what happens to him in front of the camera. It's a horrifying position to be in, and one that left me a little shaken up, tbf.

The take I'm mostly writing this based on is that Hazbin Hotel falls into the trite tropes of "rich white girl attempts to fix people who are below her" and specifically mentioned disappointment in how Charlie didn't try to argue that Angel Dust didn't deserve hell based only on his addiction or sexual past, but that she instead claimed that she could "fix him."

And I just . . . think that's a little bit of a black/white take.

For the first part, what would people rather she do? Put all her time, effort, influence, and power into trying her damnedest to help her people, who are being slaughtered by the thousands every year just because Adam is bored? Or sit at home and use all that time, effort, influence, and power to make rubber duckies like her father? She could just ignore everything going on, call it hopeless, give up, and ignore the suffering of her people. Would that be better? Would that satisfy this weird little "she's just a rich white girl with privilege" gripe?

Charlie is a rich girl. A princess. Someone with huge amounts of privilege, power, influence, etc. But you know what? She's also stuck in hell. She was born there, through no fault or choice of her own, and because of who her parents are, she is trapped in literal hell, with no hope of ever, ever ascending to heaven. She does not get a chance at redemption, because she was born to the wrong people. She is a young woman who was born into horrifying circumstances, living in a world that she frequently expresses disgust for (her frequent discomfort with sexuality, her disgust toward the cannibals, her dislike of violence, even necessary self-defense).

And she still loves her people and wants to see the best in them.

She would be completely justified in hating everything about hell, her life, the people around her, her parents, heaven, everything, really. She has every right to hate her entire existence, but she puts all that hatred for the system into her efforts to fucking do something about it. Why is that a bad thing, just because she was born into a position of power and authority??

And now on to Angel Dust.

Charlie never once makes a judgement call about Angel or his habits, his work, or his personality. She expresses discomfort with the sexual nature of his work (tbh wouldn't be surprised if she's a sex-repulsed ace), but she does not think he's a bad person because of his work. Nor does she think that he needs to stop doing his work in order to become a better/good person. When she tries to get him some time off, she's explicitly doing it because she wants him to have time to decompress and participate in activities at the hotel, not because she wants him doing less of his specific kind of work.

She never condemns his partying, either. She has a bar in her hotel! She defends him partying, right to heaven's face, because she knows everyone present has partied, everyone has enjoyed a drink with friends. There is no condemnation of his partying activities, and I don't think she ever makes it seem as though Angel needs fixing.

What I got out of that episode, watching Charlie passionately defending her friend in front of the worst fucking person in the universe, was that people do not need to be fixed, but some love and support can help them make better choices for themselves. Angel still has a good time. He still has his job (contract, y'know, but would probably be in the industry regardless). The only thing different about that particular night of partying is that he's out with people who care about him, and who he cares about.

Even Cherri, though she expresses some joking disappointment that he's spending so much time worrying about Nifty, doesn't actually seem that put out by it. She teases him a little, but leaves him to do his thing. And his thing is making sure his friend, who is less experienced at partying (and who is significantly smaller/more vulnerable than most other people), is safe and okay. His thing is defending his friends from an extremely dangerous person, at massive risk to his own personal safety.

And he didn't do any of this because he'd been "fixed" or because he'd "changed." He did it because, for possibly the first time ever, he has people around him who love and care for him, and who want the best for him. And who he loves and wants the best for in return. He said himself that he stays out of his mind on substances, allows himself to be drugged and assaulted, puts on this persona of care-free-crack-whore-who-only-thinks-about-sex, because he is trying everything in his power to dull the pain he's in. Because he doesn't believe he deserves any better.

And this, this is what Charlie is trying to show Heaven. She is trying to show them that there is nothing morally damning about alcohol consumption, or even drug use, sex work, or anything that makes Angel who he is. She's trying to show them that, with some love, care, and support, with a safe place to call home, with their base physical and emotional needs being met, people don't need to resort to the sort of destructive behavior heaven/Adam is condemning! People can choose to engage in these behaviors safely, consciously, and with people around them who want them to be safe and have a good time.

Then we get on to the idea that this entire episode ends on. Heaven doesn't know how people get there. They don't know what it takes to be "good enough" for heaven. Sera herself admits that Adam was just "the first soul in heaven," all but admitting that he's just there because he defaulted into it. (Though that does make me wonder, what about Abel? He would have died long before Adam, and considering how long Adam lived, and that there were plenty of other people around by the time he would have died, where were all those souls going??).

And Adam is the fucking worst! He is literally the worst, most selfish, violent, vulgar soul in the entire show, but he is allowed in heaven, for reasons no one even understands.

You know what the difference is between Adam and Angel?

Adam can't be fixed.

His behaviors are all destructive, not to himself, but to others. He insults, abuses, hurts, and kills with abandon. He made this weird, shitty deal with Hell and Lucifer because he wanted to murder innocent souls, because he was bored, and the rest of heaven doesn't even know about it. He has free reign to be an absolute piece of shit to everyone around him, damaging people left and right, and he will never face any sort of justice for it, because hey, he's already in heaven!

But Angel? Angel's behavior is all self-destructive. Again. He gets fucked up to dull his immense pain. He allows himself to be drugged and assaulted because he believes he deserves it. Because he's been told, for who knows how many thousands of years, that he's a whore anyway, so why shouldn't he be free to use for anyone who wants to take him? He has been beaten down, physically, emotionally, sexually, until he's a shell of a person who is struggling to find any reason to continue his shitty existence.

And he hurts only himself.

I mean, okay, he does piss off Husk sometimes, crosses boundaries/etc. But he and Husk pretty clearly fix that between themselves. There's no lasting damage there, and idk if anyone else noticed, but he stops that behavior pretty much entirely after that ep.

Angel is hurting. He is hollow, and hopeless, and trapped. And he does not need to be fixed, nor does Charlie ever attempt to do so.

All she does is reach out a hand, and say, "Hey, I see that you're struggling. This place is fucked up, isn't it? Maybe I can help."

Charlie is a flawed person. She takes her privilege for granted. She feels the immense weight of her choices, and the pressure of having taken responsibility for a people who may never want her help. She messes up, because somehow, she's endlessly cheerful and optimistic, despite her upbringing and the world she grew up in.

Charlie is flawed. But she's trying her fucking best. She isn't trying to fix. She's trying to help.

We all need some help, every now and then, don't we?

[chronic-escapixt]

Thoughts on my favorite sociopath:

I’ve been thinking about why Kai’s trauma and abusive family dynamics were so little explored or acknowledge in TVD. I realized that his trauma is tied to themes of prejudice. He was discriminated against by his own family for his siphoning abilities.

I was watching a breakdown of TVD on YouTube and they mentioned the racial dynamics of the Bennetts in the Civil War era Mystic Falls, but rushed past it saying that the show deals with vampire drama & supernaturals so it wouldn’t have time to touch on racial issues or prejudice. I couldn’t disagree more. The show touches on real life issues all the time: drug addiction (directly with Jeremy in season 1 and Stefan with his blood lust), the Mikealsons are textbook generational trauma (they kinda touch on prejudice that Klaus experienced as a bastard child with a werewolf daddy), and Liz deals with cancer in season 6 that can’t be cured with magic, to name a few. That being said, the plot deals with real life issues that the writers deem relevant, so they easily could have touched on issues of discrimination through Bonnie (and the Bennetts in general) and Kai Parker! Whether they would have done a good job at this is another convo, but the writers shouldn’t get a pass from dodging these relevant issues bc there’s supernatural stuff going on…

Back to Kai, there is a deleted scene in S6E15 where Kai is shown in a vulnerable light. I think this was deliberately cut bc Plec wants us to view Kai as fully irredeemable. Damon, Stefan, and Klaus have killed innocent people at random for much less and they are redeemable (plus they have many more victims).

Kai should have been redeemed. I don’t think he is inherently evil. His demons are born from intense prejudice-based abuse that he suffered from his whole life. When comparing these villains, it’s important to note that violence for the sake of ego, paranoia, or careless noms is not the same as a victim reacting to the trauma imposed on them.

[bilbobagginsomebabez]

the whole "gangsters don't deserve therapy" b plot is fascinating as an artifact from the transitionary period as talk therapy was popularized.

mental health intervention in the cultural imagination broadly went from being locked up in a mental asylum (scary, harsh, punitive and similar to prison) to emotional support with extra steps-- some guy asks over and over how that makes you feel, you eventually say out loud how it makes you really feel, and then ??? healed. probably a magic therapy laser. [therapy is obviously more than this.] there's nothing particularly special about honesty with a stranger, even if they're professional advice givers, so the next step in this logical progression is people who need/use/like talk therapy are emotional babies while people who need institutionalization are scary/polluted/Dangerous. talk therapy is delegitimized as a medical intervention and is just paid emotional support for extra sensitive people.

it's an excellent example of how criminalization stigma works by making criminalized actions more dangerous and then using that manufactured danger as evidence in support of criminalization. the classic example is drug use. when you make drugs illegal, the user is forced to forge criminal connections and enter dangerous situations and risk exposure to tainted substances in order to use the drug. if they face an emergency when using, they do not contact emergency services out of fear of punishment and more people die. if they want to stop, there is little help to be found and they rarely ask anyway out of fear of getting in trouble, keeping addiction rates high. these dangers are portrayed as inherent to drug use and used as justification for both opposing drug use universally and punishing those who make the mistake of getting caught up with them. but when drugs are legal, users to the store and go home. or a concert idk their itinerary. a safe place to get fucked up, not situations where they need their wits like getting away with a crime. if there is an emergency while using, they call for help and lives are saved. if they want to stop, they seek medical treatment and addiction rates fall astronomically. despite its efficacy, just letting drug users have drugs is seen as obscene, chaos, anarchy, inviting problems.

and then you make a show about a mobster getting talk therapy. and just like giving drugs to an addict, it doesn't make sense. this is a man that is scary/polluted/Dangerous due to his actions and his choices, not an extra sensitive person who needs more emotional support than others to get through the day. he does not deserve the extra emotional support for sensitive people, he deserves to be punished, kept locked up in a room away from normal not dangerous people so whatever makes him dangerous can be identified and forcibly altered. supporting him at all in any way without forced alteration must be dangerous, must be basically helping him better endure the emotional pain of crime and hurting others. like facilitating the harm he does to others by removing the obstacle of emotional difficulties that accompany it.

and this thought process was real enough to the show that it is causing the therapist negative social consequences. her husband and counselor are bullying her into dropping the client, and her new understanding of crime and its causes is alienating her from her more judgemental peers. and tony IS scary, he is predatory and scaring her through this period. he's had her followed, got her date beat up, stole her car, kissed her, and regularly erupts with belligerent tirades before storming out of their session. a very very difficult patient, but not altogether uncommon if the practitioner treats severe and persistent mental illnesses (SPMI). and instead of getting the support from friends and family that a practitioner would normally get wrt treating SPMI in a patient, she is blamed for it. if you didn't want to be treated that way, you shouldn't have taken on an evil dangerous patient and given him the wrong kind of therapy that makes him more dangerous. she can't ask anyone for help without being blamed for needing it.

because tony is so ruthlessly stigmatized, because our punitive culture cannot imagine a path forward without exacting vengeance upon him and claiming their pound of flesh, she and her work are stigmatized by association, her professional boundary as a doctor treating a patient with a right to medical care is is dissolved, and the intervention is made more dangerous through her inability to treat tony the same as any other patient and activate her own support networks in reaction to difficult work accordingly.

still in season 1 so idk how this is gonna pan out, but if it continues on this trend, i think the show probably had a significant impact on people's respect for and understanding of what therapy is and does. i bet the sopranos was to therapy what will and grace was to the gays