#ethical for people to consume if that makes sense

[haeryna]

smut in the au would be nice 👀

i think once i get my rules set up i will! rules were not super important when i first started since none of the works i've posted are nsfw, but if i want to start doing that, then i'll have to set up some boundaries with everyone lol. but i think eventually i will post smut for this au!

[oh-katsuki]

im going to be so fr.... i hate it when im shopping for something, perusing online or in person for stuff in my size and approximate measurements... and a skinny woman says to me “you should try poshmark instead” 🥺. u should look on there for stuff because it’s second hand 🥺 u should go to good will and thrift stores bc it’s more ethical 🥺 like i really wish u would be quiet bc u know damn well poshmark doesn’t do returns and that goodwill rarely carries good shit in my size. like ma’am, i’m fat and that transforms the ENTIRE way i shop for clothes compared to you. clothes are made for bodies like yours.... i’m expected to make do. 

[transexualpirate]

hot take but i think that "fictional characters are fictional and liking or disliking them have no real life effect" and "the way you treat certain characters can be an indicative of your character in real life" are statements that can and should coexist

example: character A is violent and makes misogynistic comments. they're still charismatic and their arc is interesting to read/watch. person A acknowledges that the character is bad but they still enjoy consuming content from the character and they do so unapologetically. they're allowed to like the character, especially considering that literally everyone the character has harmed is also fictional. they don't pretend the character isn't violent, or misogynistic, they just like the character despite that. they post about it constantly. this is a neutral action that shows nothing about person A.

character B is a white man that makes racist comments, treats a black person in the show badly and gains money through anti-ethical means. they're still charismatic and their arc is interesting to read/watch. person B claims the character is flawed but overall misunderstood and all their actions are entirely justified. they're allowed to like the character, especially considering that literally everyone the character has harmed is also fictional. person B claims the black character that character B treated badly either had it coming or overreacted. all of person B's favorite characters are white men. person B goes out of their way to justify that all of their favorite characters are actually misunderstood and good people, and more people should like them. this shows that person B likely has some favoritism for white men.

just. you're allowed to like fictional characters even if they're awful fucking people but. and im not sure why this is controversial. the way you interact with media says something about you. this isn't necessarily a bad thing. does this make sense please

[txttletale]

Hey, I'm not here to say ai art isn't art. The whole "you need to be paid for it to be real art!" is goofy. But if I put a prompt into the tool and it makes something based on that prompt then I didn't make it. I didn't put the effort in, and in that sense it isn't mine. What I'm more upset about than whether or not it has soul or whatever (that's up for debate for a lot of human-made art too) is the taking of credit for something you simply did not do. I'm not sure if I've seen you talk about this particular thing cuz there's a lotta silly asks getting dunked on, but I'm curious abt this one.

you can absolutely make art without being the one physically producing it, by "telling someone what to do". directors are artists. choreographers are artists. graphic novel writers who write panel descriptions for artists are artists and indisputably have some share of the authorship of the resulting panels. the same goes for mangakas with apprentices, or for that matter renaissance masters with apprentices, and for art directors. removing the other people involved in such an arrangement gives you a greater share of authorship, not a lesser one.

& the idea that art requires "effort" is reactionary. it's a protestant-work-ethic-esque valorisation of effort for its own sake. art can be easy. many many technological innovations have created easier ways to do things -- did you know that graphic designers used to have to manually place every written character and image on a spread through a time-consuming and arduous process called paste-up? now the exact same work can be done in minutes with a few clicks because of digital typefaces. digital art also saw the exact same arguments being made against it fifteen odd years ago -- 'digital artists have stabilizers and shape tools and layers and filters and brushes and an undo button, they're not real artists because they're not putting in the effort'.

i think it's interesting how anti AI art crusaders have this curious contradiction in their arguments -- they (correctly) identify that a computer program has no agency, intentionality, or creativity, but when a human and a computer both contribute to a finished product they ascribe the computer full authorship. it just doesn't add up! mi-24 attack helicopter blushing demurely

[respectissexy]

The fact that so many DropOut personalities are wrestling geeks and reality TV superfans makes so much sense when you think about it. Pro wrestling and reality TV are the most popular improvised long-form entertainment content consumed in America. What they are doing on DropOut is WAY more similar to WWE or The Real Housewives than a lot of people would intuitively think. Sam Reich is basically running an experiment to see if this kind of highly parasocial long-term televised improv can be done ethically.

[starlight-bread-blog]

My Interpetation of The Southern Raiders: Part 1 – A\ang

Warning: The views expressed in this analysis will be very critical of Aang. If you aren't critical of him in this episode, you aren't going to enjoy this post. This is your chance to leave. I probably won't have a debate for personal reasons.

——————

The Southern Raiders is probably one of the most discussed episodes in the fandom. Everyone knows Zuko Alone is great, but the discussion surrounding this episode is a war zone. In this essay I will try to answer every question posed in the discourse. This is part 1 out of three. In this part, I will discuss A\ang. I believe that understanding both Zuko and Aang's decisions in this episode will give us great insight into Katara's. Because the this episode is hers.

——————

1. Is Aang's philosophy of forgiveness valid?

(1) "Revenge is like a two-headed rat viper. While you watch your enemy go down, you're being poisoned yourself".

(2) "You do have a choice: forgiveness". // "It's easy to do nothing, but it's hard to forgive". // "Forgiveness is the first step you have to take to begin healing".

This philosophy is indeed morally sound. Revenge comes from rage, a negative emotion that causes harm in the long run. Forgiveness is letting go of that rage, which is healing. I cannot write a full thesis, this essay is not about that. But on paper, I do agree with A\ang. He's right to say that letting go of rage is a better alternative than getting consumed by it. (However, his philosophy might not help some).

——————

2. Was A\ang being insensitive when talking to Katara?

First I must reiterate, a lot of people frame the conflict of the episode as one regarding the ethics of murder. In my interpretation, it is not. During this episode Katara was in a deeply emotional place. Her rage stemmed from intense grief and those around her should treat her as a mourner - with great sensitivity.

Now, was Aang being this sensitive with Katara? Well, in my opinion, very much so.

Imagine a scenario where A\ang just happens to meet Haru, and he's about to go on a quest to find revenge on who imprisoned his father. He tries to help him with the following sentences:

(1) Um ... and what exactly do you think this will accomplish?

(2) Wait! Stop! I do understand. You're feeling unbelievable pain and rage. How do you think I felt about the sandbenders when they stole Appa? How do you think I felt about the Fire Nation when I found out what happened to my people?

(3) I don't think so. I think it's about getting revenge.

(4) Haru, you sound like Jet.

(5) The monks used to say that revenge is like a two-headed rat viper. While you watch your enemy go down, you're being poisoned yourself.

(6) Haru, you do have a choice: forgiveness.

(7) No, it's not. It's easy to do nothing, but it's hard to forgive.

(8) You did the right thing. Forgiveness is the first step you have to take to begin healing.

Everything makes sense, right? The pieces fit.He just talks about his cultura\personal values, nothing about what Katara needs at the moment. He could have had this exact conversation with Haru without changing a thing.

Therefore his lines are impersonal and thus preachy. In this conversation he doesn’t show signs of trying to convince Katara not to end her mother’s killer because she is, fundamentally, a good person and couldn’t live having committed murder. He shows signs of trying to make her obey his cultural ethos. This is highly insensitive. Katara was in a very emotional place, filled with rage and grief. And his response was, intentionally or not, to impose his own cultural principles onto her.

But his lines weren’t insensitive just because they were preachy, some of them were judgmental and even harsh. When A\ang is first confronted with Katara’s intentions, he says:

A\ang: Um ... and what exactly do you think this will accomplish?

You can tell from his tone and how the rest of the conversation plays out that he does know what Katara thinks this will accomplish. He asks the question as a form of disapproval - that he thinks that going after Yon Rha won’t accomplish anything. He’s not being genuine, he’s casting judgment on her. He’s almost looking down on her and Zuko, looking down from a moral high ground and sarcastically interrogating the two. Another line that sticks out is

A\ang: Katara, you sound like Jet.

He says she sounds like the man who wanted to flood an entire village full of innocent civilians. He’s insulting her, and greatly so, all the while wanting to keep a moral high ground. This is incredibly rude and condescending.

In the next scene, right after the intense argument concludes, it appears as though A\ang comes around to the journey Katara was about to go through.

A\ang: I wasn't planning to. This is a journey you need to take. You need to face this man.But when you do, please don't choose revenge. Let your anger out, and then let it go. Forgive him.

While he’s still discouraging Katara, it’s not outright condescending. But it’s as clear as day that he’d just preferred if she didn’t go on the journey at all. When he sees Zuko and Katara taking Appa to find Yon Rha, he says:

A\ang: So you were just gonna take Appa anyway?

Clearly disapproving of Katara. He doesn’t want her to go on the journey to find inner peace, he wants her to forgive the man who killed her mother right here and right now. He couldn’t change her mind on the subject, so he’ll advise her the next best thing. It is worth noting that in the beginning, before he advises her, he cracks a joke.

A\ang: It's okay, because I forgive you. [Pauses.] That give you any ideas?

Overall, A\ang’s behavior is unsympathetic and callous.Instead of placing his focus on Katara’s wellbeing, he preaches about Air Nomad teachings and goes as far as insulting her. Even when he comes around, it’s not because he realized his mistakes, it’s because he knew he couldn’t change her mind. And then he makes a humorous remark while giving him his supposed new found advice. The answer is: Yes. Aang was very insensitive when talking to Katara.

——————

3. Did A\ang know what Katara needed?

I don’t think he did. A\ang thought Katara needed to forgive Yon Rha, and as we previously established, without going after him. But even if we look at his second advice, she still doesn’t follow it.

A\ang: This is a journey you need to take. You need to face this man. [Katara situates herself on Appa's head.] But when you do, please don't choose revenge. Let your anger out, and then let it go. Forgive him.

Katara explicitly didn’t forgive Yon Rha, and yet the whole point of the ending is that she’s in a better place now. No matter what Zuko says, A\ang didn’t know what Katara needed. And considering that his lines in the episode were as impersonal as they were, it isn’t a surprise.

——————

In conclusion, A\ang’s behavior in The Southern Raiders is questionable at best. He might have had pure intentions, and had a good message, but the way he put out the message was degrading and preachy. And in the end, he didn’t know what was the right thing for Katara.

Continued

[centrally-unplanned]

Oh since I mentioned it before and am catching up now, I thought I would explain why I think Severance is just a "fine" show - well produced, great sets, but thematically confused. It is trying to do two things that sit in tension with each other: be "capitalist drudgery" and also "sci fi corporate dystopia".

(Spoilers ahead) In the lore of the show you see people who get "severed" (Aka split brains that swap periodically with no continuity of memory between them) outside of the core group who work at the Big Lumen HQ - like a rich woman who swaps into her alt to give birth so she can skip the painful parts. This is the economically logical use of the technology, ethics aside it makes sense as a consumer good. Working at Lumen is often portrayed as a productive extension of that - we can get focused workers who can do sensitive tasks with minimal distractions and maximum corporate control, and the actual person can "skip" the drudgery of the work. If I told you just that, you would expect these workers to be sort of desk-chained, doing intensive work, probably clandestine in nature.

But we only half-see that - the other half is as Office Space pastiche of irrelevant busywork, vapid corporate team building, and a truly gargantuan amount of time spent totally fucking off in the hallways generally unsupervised. Those both are "anti-corporate" but they are very different critiques! Take the pregnant lady - she and her alt are not, in any way, closeted off from the world with no knowledge of who she is. Arranging that would be a colossal waste of time! The lady lives her normal life and then just swaps into her alt for unpleasant stuff, of course her alt knows the deal. In the same way, if these workers are, in their primary identities, completely free agents as they seem to be, there is absolutely no reason for their workplace to look the way it looks. Why wouldn't you tell Dylan he has a wife and kids at home who his work is putting food on the table for to help motivate him? Why are any of these people motivated by the dumb workplace incentives if - like Helly - they all have memories of the facts of the outside world? Why would these guy's primaries ever consent to have zero ability to ever perceive their other selves, even as they "come home" with bodily injuries? If the world was a Corporate Dystopia that would make sense, they have no choice, but Office Space isn't a corporate dystopia.

And Helly, what are you doing?! You don't live in a corporate dystopia, you run it, you are the CEO-heir of this whole company doing the Severance thing as a publicity stunt. So if it is a stunt, why aren't you stunting it? Tell your alt she is the heir of a massive fortune, we are gonna have fun here, give her a cushy job and pose for some pretty workplace-glam shots. Or, I don't know, just lie and say you got the severance surgery when you didn't! Why would you torture yourself into a suicide attempt for a photo op? Since the actual work they are doing is constantly portrayed as nonsense, the Office Space critique, she clearly wasn't needed down there for the actual job. Which isn't even that bad to do as a job, you could absolutely just pay people well and be honest and not-creepy and they would do it.

Now, I know that the work will likely turn out to not be nonsense in the Office Space way, but instead be part of some elaborate experiment or psyop or w/e. But then the coin flips back, if this is a CIA wetwork shop why are there Waffle Party Sex Dances in a Founders Museum? Why can these people literally just quit at any time?

I have no doubt that a writer could work double-time to fill all these holes in future episodes, but that is a minimal saving grace - thematics isn't about plot holes. Office Space is not a story of corporate power run amok, the bosses are just as powerless as the employees, and that is the point. Meanwhile if you want to tell a Black Mirror story, you tell that instead. As a viewer I am meant to feel like the "innies" are trapped and powerless, but I really don't because they aren't - their outies and the wider world are just being stupid. So I don't feel that emotion in the story when watching the episodes. You can't write around it now.

Admittedly some of this problem is downstream of a general problem in western "prestige" TV where they feel like they really need to JJ Abrams this whole thing with the mystery box plot. The show would be much improved if you knew the general stakes of this project right out the gate, and were watching the hapless workers trying to figure it out what you already knew. Then you could make those stakes align with your themes/tone and commit. The current drip-feed meanwhile just keeps things confused.

Doing that would also let you cut the episode count in half, but that is a problem with all shows - I can't really judge this one in specific for that.

[frumfrumfroo]

A few years ago, I was discussing The Last Jedi with a classmate and he said something like “It was a good movie, just not a good Star Wars movie”. At the time, I chalked it up to the fact that he was a teenage boy who was probably parroting the vague and irritating criticism that the movie faced at the time. Years later, I began to think about that moment more and more. Despite hearing that critique so many times, hearing it from him made me reflect on the concept of “getting” Star Wars and what fans perceive as “getting” Star Wars.

What the last few years (and the stream of post-TROS shows) have taught me, is that a large portion of fans don’t actually get what Star Wars is. The same is true for those who are currently planning the future of the franchise. They don’t see the value in the mythical framework of the series or care to understand it, it seems like they overlook it entirely. They’re so consumed by the fidelity to “the lore” that they can’t take step back and see the (mythical) elements that drew them to the story in the first place. It feels a bit arrogant of me to say that, but it’s a feeling that’s been bothering me.

Yes, part of the core of the problem is that even the people who actually like SW that DLF hired seem to be mostly fans of the old EU who are fundamentally unconcerned with what SW is actually about. People who prioritise 'lore' and minutiae, who think trivia is worldbuilding or that 'worldbuilding' is what defines the GFFA.

Whereas what actually defines the GFFA is the themes ('love people, that's all Star Wars is' -George Lucas). The universe exists to tell the story and the story exists to communicate the themes. It is character-driven, not plot or setting driven. Things making emotional sense is the only thing that matters in the OT, the logistics are irrelevant and incidental. It's not sci-fi and never has been, there is no interest in explaining the rules of the technology or codifying the Force into a structured system. There is no exploration of the relationship of society with technology because this is an epic fantasy story focussing on the conflict going on in the human spirit between selfishness and love; it's about the coming of age of an individual where the entire setting is established to facilitate that. SW is a story about individuals and their journey to ethical adulthood.

TLJ is written to the mythic archetype and themes of SW, its basic narrative shape is absolutely textbook exactly what anyone who understands literary criticism should have expected. It is exactly what a SW sequel to TFA should and needed to be. Which is why so many people doing that kind of analysis were able to accurately predict its main story beats.

The lore fans who want 'realism', video game power system Force magic, and the kind of moral ambiguity which is foundationally incompatible with SW are not fans of the story, they are fans of the trappings. These are the people who dismiss Vader's redemption as a unforunate incidental that 'everyone' can ignore because the rest of RotJ is good (paraphrase of an actual post I saw).

THE moral victory, the protagonist's moment of vindication, the entire POINT of the story and this dude thinks it's like, an accidental blooper that just kinda snuck into the edit because he wants Luke to be a standard American hero and not to have his worldview challenged.

I am totally comfortable saying they don't get SW no matter how much trivia they've memorised and merch they've collected.

[dross-the-fish]

huh Why do you write Edward like THAT?

Honestly? There's something fun about writing a really villainous character. One who actually does awful things and makes all the good people around him question how much they are willing to look the other way if it serves their purpose. Edward serves not only as a villain but as a reflection of the evil otherwise good people will excuse out of "necessity" and I hope to pose the question. "At what point has necessity become convenience? At what point are you looking the other way because you've bonded with him?" I want Quincey and Watson in particular to start asking these questions of themselves and to feel tested by Edward's presence in their group. Edward does all of the things the rest of the crew won't. He is not burdened by their sense of ethics and while he does care for the people he loves he's not even above hurting them. He's cruel, selfish and he's self-aware enough to hate himself for being like this, especially when he's Jekyll. He also knows that he's being used because none of the others are willing to go the lengths he will to get answers or to defeat their enemies. Adam is on a redemption arc, Erik is tired of killing, Theo is terrified of giving in to becoming the monster she can feel consuming her more with each passing year. Larry will never forgive himself for what he's done as a werewolf. Selma has crossed several lines already and is re-evaluating her stance on monsters. But it's Watson and Quincey in particular. The ones who have never fallen from grace, that Edward has the most resentment for. He DESPISES them both because being good is easy for them. They don't have temptations or vices so they automatically condemn people that do, even while they consider themselves kind and generous. Meanwhile both of them are allowing Edward to do whatever he needs to cure Larry and Theo. They won't cross any lines themselves and Edward knows that they tolerate him because it means they can continue to view themselves as untainted. it's Edward doing the killing, the unethical experiments, breaking every law known to man and god. It's Edward who is evil. Not them... ...right? I also really wanted to write a foil to Watson, someone who is an unquestionably good person. Someone effortlessly kind and humble. Of all the members of the crew Edward hates Watson the most and a lot of that hate is envy. Watson represents everything Jekyll is meant to be, everything Jekyll was externally. An upstanding middle aged doctor with a good reputation and a flawless track record. Watson is the real deal through and through. Jekyll/Hyde hates him and wishes he could be him and then hates him twice over again for that envy. I enjoy the challenge of writing a character who is an objectively bad person while still making him feel human. Part of me wants to see how far I can push this without making him completely irredeemable.

[hypergamiss]

Discovering the craftsmanship of vintage pieces is a slap in the face. It reveals how modern life is one big profit-driven scam. Everything's engineered to break, replaced by an even cheaper version. Cars, gadgets, even the food we eat – it's all designed for planned obsolescence, not to last.

They tell us it's "innovation," but it's really just maximizing profit. They hold advancements hostage, keep us on that treadmill of constantly needing the new, the slightly shinier, the ultimately pointless.

This greed…it's suffocating. Every purchase feels like feeding the beast, every bill a reminder of this rigged system, every questionable fee added on never makes sense. I try to be an ethical consumer, but there’s barely anything ethically made available to purchase. I have to hunt for things or give in because they are not easily available. And I would say that I have pretty good access and people to help me source things. It’s insane.

[mariacallous]

The rapid spread of artificial intelligence has people wondering: Who’s most likely to embrace AI in their daily lives? Many assume it’s the tech-savvy—those who understand how AI works—who are most eager to adopt it.

Surprisingly, our new research, published in the Journal of Marketing, finds the opposite. People with less knowledge about AI are actually more open to using the technology. We call this difference in adoption propensity the “lower literacy-higher receptivity” link.

This link shows up across different groups, settings, and even countries. For instance, our analysis of data from market research company Ipsos spanning 27 countries reveals that people in nations with lower average AI literacy are more receptive toward AI adoption than those in nations with higher literacy.

Similarly, our survey of US undergraduate students finds that those with less understanding of AI are more likely to indicate using it for tasks like academic assignments.

The reason behind this link lies in how AI now performs tasks we once thought only humans could do. When AI creates a piece of art, writes a heartfelt response, or plays a musical instrument, it can feel almost magical—like it’s crossing into human territory.

Of course, AI doesn’t actually possess human qualities. A chatbot might generate an empathetic response, but it doesn’t feel empathy. People with more technical knowledge about AI understand this.

They know how algorithms (sets of mathematical rules used by computers to carry out particular tasks), training data (used to improve how an AI system works), and computational models operate. This makes the technology less mysterious.

On the other hand, those with less understanding may see AI as magical and awe inspiring. We suggest this sense of magic makes them more open to using AI tools.

Our studies show this lower literacy-higher receptivity link is strongest for using AI tools in areas people associate with human traits, like providing emotional support or counseling. When it comes to tasks that don’t evoke the same sense of humanlike qualities—such as analyzing test results—the pattern flips. People with higher AI literacy are more receptive to these uses because they focus on AI’s efficiency, rather than any “magical” qualities.

It’s Not About Capability, Fear, or Ethics

Interestingly, this link between lower literacy and higher receptivity persists even though people with lower AI literacy are more likely to view AI as less capable, less ethical, and even a bit scary. Their openness to AI seems to stem from their sense of wonder about what it can do, despite these perceived drawbacks.

This finding offers new insights into why people respond so differently to emerging technologies. Some studies suggest consumers favour new tech, a phenomenon called “algorithm appreciation,” while others show skepticism, or “algorithm aversion.” Our research points to perceptions of AI’s “magicalness” as a key factor shaping these reactions.

These insights pose a challenge for policymakers and educators. Efforts to boost AI literacy might unintentionally dampen people’s enthusiasm for using AI by making it seem less magical. This creates a tricky balance between helping people understand AI and keeping them open to its adoption.

To make the most of AI’s potential, businesses, educators and policymakers need to strike this balance. By understanding how perceptions of “magicalness” shape people’s openness to AI, we can help develop and deploy new AI-based products and services that take the way people view AI into account, and help them understand the benefits and risks of AI.

And ideally, this will happen without causing a loss of the awe that inspires many people to embrace this new technology.

[sloowoorants]

Thoughts After Watching Hannibal

About two months ago, I saw some Hannibal fan art on Twitter. It looked pretty cool, and I just so happened to have some free time, so I thought: why not watch the show? It's just a normal crime thriller, right?

I expected the type of show that's relatively light yet still intriguing, filled with sarcastic humor, starring a typical grumpy-but-genius protagonist. (This is vaguely the type of show that I’m generally into: Inside Job, Sherlock, House, Suits, Mr. Robot….)

I was so, so wrong.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, could have prepared me for the bat-shit crazy fever dream of a show that Hannibal is: bizarrely artistic gore, incessant cannibalism puns, completely unpredictable romantic subplots, torturous sex scenes that feel like angry acid trips, a multitude of absolutely unhinged psychiatric conduct, esoteric cryptic dialogue which require five google searches and a whole thesaurus to understand, two lesbian murderers "milking" a guy for his sperm to inherent his family heirloom, long scenes of intense and unabashed eye-sex, clumps of dog fur sticking to sweaty bed sheets…and a literal fucking social worker crawling out of a horse, alive and breathing and everything, covered in whatever acrid substances come from a horse uterus.

I ended up watching all of Hannibal in a week, hastily devouring it in just a few sittings.

In no way am I a professional film analyst or critic, but after having stayed up for nights on end, every single one of them spent under my blanket binging episodes until devilish hours of dawn (and barely comprehending the plot from the sheer speed I was consuming the show at, but also from sleep deprivation), I have cultivated a skull full of thoughts on this blessed masterpiece, and I need to rant about it. Which is exactly what this post is.

I am going to separate this ranty-meta-ish thing (I think a “meta” is what it’s called? I’m not sure, I don’t use Tumblr a lot) into two parts: one, about the representation of morality in the show, and two, about the intimacy between Will and Hannibal. It’s not super well written, my grammar is a bit iffy, but I hope you still enjoy reading this, and remember to take everything I say with a grain of salt. After all, I am just some guy with unrestricted internet access, a keyboard, and a little too much passion for the media I love :)

Part One: Hannibal Lecter’s Morality

Hannibal loves art. There is no episode in the entire show where he doesn’t reference some artistic thing—He plays the piano, he plays the theremin, he frequents the opera, he draws, and he finds peace at the birthplace of the Renaissance, Florence. His love for art is why he kills, he transforms people he considers to be “inferior” and “ugly” and elevates them into art. He is acting out his own sense of justice, creating meaning from the meaningless.

In a way, he must have a certain degree of respect for his victims to do what he does. He could have just killed people and disposed of their body in a dumpster, but that’s not his style. Even if he doesn’t “care” about his victims in a traditional sense, there’s this unique honesty and attentive in his murders. Hannibal cares enough about his victims to make them art. And I’m not just talking about the way he displays their bodies, I’m also talking about his cooking, because a big part of art is also cuisine.

He follows a strict code of his own ethics, it’s almost like he’s acting out his “duty” to kill, to eradicate and transform the lesser “scum” of the world. To be killed by Hannibal is almost an honor, like being killed by God personally, skin to skin. Wouldn’t you feel a sense of divinity and fulfillment if God killed you with his own hands, knowing that he respects you enough to choke you himself, then turn you into an elegant display? Every kill of Hannibal’s is filled with passion – Which poses the question, does he kill out of hatred or not? When I think of violence fueled by hate, I think of sex or race based violence. But that’s not Hannibal. He kills victims he considers to be rude, yes, but is it a humiliation? Is it degradation?

This whole "elevate-swine-into-art" thing is also shown through the way that gore is generally portrayed throughout the show, and not just Hannibal’s murderers. It’s very interesting the way gore pretty in Hannibal. It’s often meticulous. It’s meaningful.

These murders are all aesthetically pleasing. For me, it creates a cognitive dissonance: on one hand, I know that these are painful, brutal murders, one the other, they’re kind of nice to look at, which makes me think—Have I ever for a second, while watching Hannibal, considered the crime scene to be beautiful? Have I ever viewed one of those scenes as art rather than gore? As an artist myself, do I understand Hannibal’s obsession with beauty? And if so, what type of person does that make me?

And I love the way this show makes us really think in Hannibal’s shoes, because of how unconventionally it portrays him as a villain. Usually, shows will provide villains with a backstory, but that doesn’t extend beyond just creating sympathy. In Hannibal, the villain is humanized. We understand him. We empathize. And what does that make of us?

Have I ever, in all seriousness, rooted for Hannibal instead of Jack Crawford? Have I ever thought someone deserved to die in the show? Have I ever looked at what Hannibal was cooking, and thought it looked delicious, despite knowing that its human flesh? Have I ever been annoyed at innocent patients of Hannibal, like Franklyn, because I viewed them from Hannibal’s perspective?

On top of that, Hannibal’s philosophy makes sense. I find myself agreeing to a lot of the things he says.

For example, this dialogue from S2e12 "Tome-Wan", when Will finds Mason Verger and Hannibal in his house, and Hannibal asks Will if he should kill or spare Mason Verger:

HANNIBAL: Murder or mercy?

WILL: There is no mercy. We make mercy, manufacture it in parts that have overgrown our basic reptile brain.

HANNIBAL: Then there is no murder. We make murder, too, it matters only to us. You know too well that you possess all the elements to make murder. Perhaps mercy, too. But murder you understand uncomfortably well.

Does Will only have the capacity for mercy because he has the capacity for murder? Does mercy only have meaning in the context of murder? Is our own compassion a reflection of our violence?

With that said, are the things that I believe to be evil still evil when I throw away my moral believes? Is morality only meaningful in my own perception? And if so, how much am I contributing to evil if I am the one judging it? Do I create the evil that I so adamantly detest? Does deciding what is murder and isn’t not murder require the ability to, and intrinsic understanding of, murder? Can the morality of life and death be so clear cut, separated into different categories?

These are the types of questions that the show makes me ask, which is part of the reason I love the show so much.

I also love how the show puts a dark turn on empathy. Empathy is way too often portrayed as one of the best traits of all time, many claim it to be the most important aspect of mankind, but Will’s empathy is what ends up making him go on a downwards spiral: He is drawn to the darkness because he can understand it. He chose to teach at the FBI academy because he gets to feel like a killer without actually killing.

It made Will miserable, being able to understand killers. It gave him all sorts of guilt and self-hatred and confliction, which was why he was so damn miserable at the start of the show. And on top of that, no one really cared about him, Alana only had a whole “professional curiosity” thing going on (yes, I know that Alana’s character is one-dimensional because Hannibal’s female characters are poorly written, but even with that in mind, I still think that a huge part of Alana’s affection towards Will was in fact just curiosity), Jack was constantly pushing Will past his limits, so the poor dude didn’t have any connections to anyone until he met Hannibal.

And after Hannibal clocks him immediately when they first meet with the whole “your  values and decency are present yet shocked at your associations” situation, Will experiences his first kill: Shooting Garet Jacob Hobbs. Ten. Times. Then he confesses to Hannibal that he liked the feeling of killing him.

But Will can’t let go of his morality, it’s the only thing he’s been able to hold on to this entire time. It’s his lifeline. He holds onto it so dearly because he needs to convince himself that he’s a good person, that he’s not a killer, and that he’s doing the right thing. Yet, he knows that letting that morality go would be so freeing. He wants to. Hannibal helps him let go of it, and we as viewers can’t help but be on Hannibal’s side, because Will’s corruption arc is so gratifying. We like it, deep down we root for it. And what does that say about our relationship with our own morality? Does our morality tie us down? Do we crave to be free?

Will’s killing style is different from Hannibal’s, though. He’s passionate, reactive, and he doesn’t care about the process of killing, or the display body (before you say “the firefly man”, I believe he was imitating Hannibal’s style instead of curating his own), as long as the person is dead. He kills them from a sense of righteousness, like a vigilante justice. Was it wrong for him to find a sense of pleasure in killing Garett Jacob Hobbs? Does finding pleasure in killing corrupt his righteousness? Is it worse to kill out of passion, or kill meticulously? Is Hannibal’s style of killing more respectful? Is Will brutal? Just because Will kills out of a more conventional moral judgement and Hannibal doesn’t, does that make him better than Hannibal?

Another way the show convolutes the concepts of good and evil is using religious symbolism.

For example, from S1e02, “Amuse-Bouche”:

HANNIBAL: Killing must feel good to God too. He does it all the time, and are we not created in His image?

WILL: Did God feel good about killing?

HANNIBAL: He felt powerful.

(Shocking that this line was from the literal second episode. This show got intense so fast.)

And Will’s quote from S3e02, “Primavera”:

WILL: God can't save any of us because it's...inelegant. Elegance is more important than suffering. That's his design.

Is God an artist? Does that justify what He does? Are we only creating taboo out of His works to comfort ourselves? What does it mean to view the world with a purely aesthetic vision?

It’s these quotes that really allow me to see from Hannibal’s perspective: To him, there is no ultimate purpose of the world, there is no end goal to achieve, just the creation of beauty, and that’s terrifying to think about. Even as an atheist, it’s hard to digest the belief that there is no purpose to anything. We spend our entire human lives looking for meaning. But Hannibal doesn’t see it that way. Life and death are just futile processes to create art, and there’s no bigger point behind it. The cycle of life is supposed to be art. In a way, he’s like the God (sounding like Hannibal here), giving people meaning by making them into art, just like how God designates meaning onto every creature he makes.

And the show has a lot of art parallels, not just with Hannibal’s murders. Here are some that I’ve noticed:

(Parallels, in order from left to right, top to bottom: Nude From Back by Picabia compared to a shot of Bedelia from the back, The Persistence of Memory by Dali compared to Will’s clock drawing, Le Double Secret by Magritte compared to how Will saw Hannibal after visual overload from light therapy, Ophelia by Millais compared to Bedelia sinking into the bathtub, Portrait of Pablo Picasso by Juan Gris compared to Will’s hallucination of himself falling apart in a mirror, Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan by Ilya Repin compared to the cliff scene.)

I’m not the only one that has noticed these. Here is cool blog that focuses on artistic references in Hannibal, they’ve also noticed some of the ones I noticed: The Art of Hannibal.

Bryan Fuller probably didn’t do these on purpose while directing. But it still unintentionally solidified this theme artistic divinity. So I think Bryan must, to some extent, understand Hannibal’s obsession with making art out of death, because of the way art is subconsciously woven into the show. I don’t know though, just food for thought.

Anyways. Will, at the end of the show, while being cradled in Hannibal’s arms, both of them covered in blood that appears black in the moonlight, says to Hannibal: “It’s beautiful.”

And all that morality fleets and becomes insignificant in the face of aesthetics.

To Hannibal, beauty is moral. To Will, morality is beautiful. Have the lines begun to blur?

Part Two: Hannibal and Wills intimacy

“For [Hannibal and Will], two people who have been wandering their whole lives through a world in which they have not really experienced any viable form of connection with another human being—because they’re two extremely unusual people—and then they meet.”

-Hugh Dancy quote from SDCC 2013

Hannibal loves will. He drew him and Will as Patroclus and Achilles. He was ready to run away with Will in S2. He surrendered himself in S3 just because Will rejected him. And lets not forget the little twitch in his face when Francis attacks will. And when this dialogue happened (S3e12, “The Number of the Beast is 666”):

WILL: Is Hannibal in love with me?

BEDELIA : Could he daily feel a stab of hunger for you and find nourishment at the very sight of you? Yes. But do you... ache for him?

It is my belief that Will also loves Hannibal, although I understand that it’s not as agreed upon in the fandom as Hannibal’s love is. I think Will is just a little bit more reserved with affection, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t love Hannibal.

But one thing is for sure—there is a lot of homoeroticism in the show:

So, whether you think the love is reciprocal or not, the show is still, to put it lightly, really gay.

Hannibal’s love for Will is dark, possessive, powerful. Will is the only one that is capable of understanding Hannibal, and Hannibal was willing to risk literally everything just for Will to connect with him. He goes to extraordinary lengths just to make Will a murderer.

But even throughout Hannibal’s ruthless manipulation, which Will eventually becomes aware of, Will still stays for Hannibal. Because deep down, Will was willing to give up his own innocence to have that connection. Because Hannibal was the only person that could really understand Will too, no one else would be able to accept his dark tendencies.

S2e02, “Sakizuke”:

WILL: I don’t know which is worse. Believing I did it, or believing that you did it and did this to me.

(I remember reading a really good post by endlessly fascinated on how Will was actually being manipulative by saying this quote. I can’t find it though. If someone finds it, please tag me!)

Will eventually grows just as obsessed with Hannibal, as Hannibal is obsessed with him. Proof: telling Jack that he wanted to run away with Hannibal, telling Hannibal that he can’t get him out of his head, and that his inner voice is starting to sound like him him, and the “where would I go?” when Hannibal tells him not to leave his side, and the “one could argue, intimately” when Chiyoh asks him how he knows Hannibal, and the “before you and after you” when Hannibal asked him where the difference between the past and the future come from…I could go on forever. Will has never felt so grounded before, not in the way when he’s with Hannibal, with him, Will can see his own reflection, and he’s never been able to see that before.

And oh, the love language between them is violence. Will tries to kill Hannibal (someone tell me how many times, I forgot), and Hannibal tries to eat Will and a plethora of other fucked up shit. But in my eyes, none of those were out of hatred. Both of them trying to murder each other is out of love, out of acceptance, and out of forgiveness.

S3e06, “Dolce”:

HANNIBAL: You dropped your forgiveness, Will.

HANNIBAL: You forgive how God forgives.

And, S3e03, “Secondo”:

BEDELIA: Betrayal and forgiveness are best seen as something akin to falling in love.

HANNIBAL: You cannot control with respect to whom you fall in love.

No one can control who they love, or who they forgive, which is why Hannibal forgives Will and stabs him in the same breath. He is forgiving, not letting go.

Will forgives Hannibal too. He forgives Hannibal way too many times, throughout all the manipulation of Hannibal. Think about just how much insanity he’s endured: drugged, gutted, encephalitis abused, hypnotized, framed for murder, a serial killer was sent after his family, had his brain literally almost eaten, and despite all that, Will still forgives Hannibal—it was not a conscious decision. We cannot control who we forgive.

If Hannibal is a fallen angel, then Will is God to him. And God is indifferent, sometimes even cruel. Like Hannibal said himself, good and evil has nothing to do with God. Will forgives Hannibal, but that doesn’t mean he still doesn’t want to hurt Hannibal; just like how Hannibal forgave Will, but still gutted him. In that moment, Will forgave indifferently, so he could get back to revenge. They both forgive like blades, they both forgive with pain.

Doesn’t God forgive through punishment? God will forgive you for your sins but you still have to go to hell, right?

Violence is a pillar of stability in their relationship, it’s how they understand each other, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, the smile on Will’s gut a permanent reminder of Hannibal’s hurt, and all of Hannibal’s scars a reminder of Will’s hurt.

I see all of their trying to kill each other is affection. Hannibal doesn’t try to eat Will because he hates Will, he tries to eat to immortalize him, to keep Will as part of him forever.

And through that violence, Hannibal helped Will let go of his morality. Will had spent forever trying to repress himself—Molly was a failed attempt to escape into normalcy. Will definitely thought about Hannibal those years Hannibal was in prison.

S3e13, “The Wrath of the Lamb”:

HANNIBAL: When life becomes maddeningly police, think about me. Think about me, Will.

Will definitely missed the hunger, the violence. We can see this though the passionate way he killed the Red Dragon. He probably held Molly’s gentle hands and desperately wanted to feel something more. To feel something dangerous. Something that could simultaneously revive and ruin him. Molly never understood him the way Hannibal did, and he will never love her the way he loves Hannibal.

He did think about Hannibal when life became maddeningly polite. He probably fantasized about what they’ve done, what they could’ve done, and the feeling of freedom when he’s with Hannibal.

And Hannibal waited for him patiently, staying exactly where he was three years ago. And when Will eventually pushed them off a cliff together, Hannibal showed no sign of resistance, and just let them fall.

“I think [Hannibal]’s feeling that embrace and that’s the first thing that he’s feeling, and even as he’s plunging into the Atlantic, he’s first and foremost thinking about the man he’s holding onto and the man who’s holding onto him.”

–Mads Mikkelsen on Hannibal’s thoughts during the final scene

Their violence is something that we as viewers may never comprehend, but we can all understand their intimacy. Isn’t it what we all want, after all, to be seen?

Anyways...

Hannibal is a great show! 10/10, would recommend. Although, the lighting kind of sucks. Bryan, if there is a season four, please make the show brighter, for the love of God.

Thanks for reading this! :)

[osameru]

Safety Things I’ve Scripted for my Teen Wolf x Hogwarts DR!

This is all subject to change and only posted for a reference for myself to use here and there.

🖇️🖇️🖇️

—> I handle gore and fear very well; there will usually be a big bad to fight, in hogwarts or around beacon hills or even anywhere I’m summoned as the acting Mother of Magic. This means I might have to see, smell or hear things that might terrify me, but being able to handle witnessing things like these would make my life a hundred percent easier and less stressful.

—> I am not easily scared nor do I feel the feeling of all consuming fear; again, if I come across something terrifying, I don’t want to lock up and see which one I am from freeze, fawn or flee. I want to be brave and be able to seek reassurance from myself and my own personal strength.

—> I do not easily get traumatized, I handle trauma very well, and I can process things healthily and easily; shit’s scary during a magical war and any supernatural battle! Even with my previous safety features, things can happen, and just in case, I want to be able to heal quickly and process/handle the things that happen to me.

—> I can protect myself and others easily, and I’m never gravely injured or hurt beyond repair; i’m shifting to hogwarts x teen wolf… i’m shifting to battle, no matter how lowkey I’ve made the ‘plot’ and ‘enemies’. I need to make sure in case of anything, I can use my magic to protect myself from danger, and my friends and family. Also, this is hand in hand to the regular precaution of ‘i can’t die’.

—> I can put together context clues easily, solve cases quickly and figure things out almost immediately; i want to be in the know! i need to know actually, to be able to protect my territory. Stiles won’t be the only one making connections and solving cases.

—> I’m not really put in difficult positions, such as having to kill, having to make huge ethical decisions for others, given extreme responsibilities from the ministry; self explanatory, to be honest. Yes, I’m important to Beacon Hills and magical society, but I don’t want too many responsibilities, which will crush my free time and emotional well-being.

—> I don’t accidentally harm others when I don’t mean to, physically, emotionally or even with my magic; magic might be hard to control with how much of it I have! I don’t know yet, so it will pay to take precautions. Also, I hate hurting the people in my life emotionally, so this a major precaution for me.

—> My sense of pain is more muted and easy to control; while I can feel pain, it’s not too intense and painful. It’s mostly a warning for me to know where my body is hurting.

—> I have great comprehension, understanding, communication and listening skills; so many things in life can be avoided if you simply communicate and COMPREHEND. My life isn’t a fanfic, so I would rather avoid these tropes and not have to endure a fall out or fight over a misunderstanding!

—> I’m never EVER cheated on, physically or emotionally or anything of the like; you got me fucked up if you think I’m shifting somewhere to be CHEATED ON. And no, I don’t gaf about your ‘anything can happen once you shift!!!’ Hey, ever considered thats because YOU believe that? Lydia and Allison’s stupid petty drama can stay far away from me as possible. Everybody can see through your narcissistic good-girl not-like-other-girls attitude, Allison. And Lydia’s not even that bad, but her TV show character development is going to take a while in real life.

—> I’m incredibly good at (defensive and offensive) magic; a war is a war. I’m going to survive no matter what, and I’d rather win. I also don’t want to face intense magical exhaustion or have the Nemeton seep or give me too much magic.

—> I’m great at seeing through lies and reading between context clues; again, no misunderstandings!

—> Anyone who has ill intentions towards me and actively acts about them is divinely punished and then goes through a long lasting period of karmic retribution/suffering; UNLESS I don’t wish them to AND they have apologized enough for it.

—> People do not have any gossip on me that is bad or smears my image; as a popular media figure, and someone who’s gone to school/is going to school in a small town, gossip is huge. With so few people in the Hogwarts year and less in Beacon Hills, I refuse to be used as a pasttime conversation piece. The media can report factual things on me and minor unharmful rumours, but nothing that can deface me or ruin my public image.

🖇️🖇️🖇️

[lilac-hecox]

i don't tend to interact with fandom discourse (or fandom much these days really) but the RPF discourse, especially in regards to smosh, has always dumbfounded me?

after seeing the mess on smoshtwt i fear the culture in fandom and online in general has been very disjointed and a breeding ground for mass hate. RPF has been around since the very beginning of fandom culture; quite literally some of the top fics are RPF if i'm correct, and it is something that will happen regardless of a 'callout thread' on twt

the general rule of RPF has always been "keep it to the designated space", and most writers follow the "if the person i'm writing about states they are uncomfortable with it i'll stop". and hey, as someone who has had RPF written about me (yes it was sexual, and yes it's happened to me written by a friend and someone i don't know that well/only sees a persona of me!) i frankly do. Not. Care. it is totally okay if YOU care about it happening to you, or mention that X person doesn't like fanfic being written about them, but you cannot police other people's boundaries- the point i am making is that

1) not every person cares if smut is written about them. from personal experience i don't care, and from what smosh has done/said multiple times by making a shit ton of videos reading fic, creating their own (which is sometimes just as horny??) and stating we don't care, get kooky with it!!! from the times it's happened to me i laugh at it because i know that honestly the writer isn't seeing it as ME. the best way i can describe it is making a goofy mini cardboard cutout and making it act out the stories that make you giggle and kick your feet. smosh knows that even more so, given they are putting on a persona and choosing what we know about them, because none of us do know them personally!!

2.) people have a weird sense of self morality these days. i'm sure there is a real term for it but nowadays people especially online care about being an absolute angel, completely perfect, and making sure you know it. a ton of people who criticise RPF/dark content consume it unironically and enjoy it privately, even when they turn around and send the craziest death and doxxing threats over a writer. and even if you don't like that content and are trying to be an activist for victims or RPF subjects, it truly doesn't help anything; you're more likely actually sending genuine threats to a victim than helping one, and i don't think that celeb or content creator will see your tweet 'defending' and be like "thank god my hero!!", getting into those designated spaces which are usually tagged correctly and locked and spreading it to spaces that DON'T want to see that shit means YOU'RE the one spreading it to mainstream. there is a sort of high horse mentality that is unfortunately rampant

the final point when it comes to RPF is the reason why, and god help me, why is it bad?

that isn't me claiming it's morally or ethically or whatever right or wrong- people's argument for why it's wrong is because it's "gross", which then turns into "it's dehumanisation". that is a completely acceptable answer; however, i bring it up because i don't understand how writing platonic/fluff/non-smut is any less dehumanising than smut? i think dehumanisation is already a tricky word to use, but following the logic of: putting real people into scenarios, dialogue, relationships, personality and quirks you write is taking away from who they are as people = dehumanisation, then surely non-smut is just as bad? i've read plenty of RPF in which the people are in a very physically affectionate and emotionally involved relationship, stuff that if i read that written about me and my coworker i'd have the same reaction of "this isn't that accurate/this is kind of funny/maybe i don't want to see this but you do you"

truly, i believe the surge of RPF mass attacks is because of both purity culture and the weird relationships people have with morality. no, people do not have to like RPF, but when you choose to publicly pull content out from its designated spaces to then encourage hate on it, THEN you are the problem. it is only ever smut that is the problem, and i fear if the person you're writing about goes "you can write it, but don't show it to me" then why do some other random people on the internet who know as much as you about the person get to dictate their boundaries?

did NOT mean for this to get this long!! i've been in fandom spaces since it's creation and seeing the kind of spaces twt gives.. yikes, and i truly think when someone gets all this shit for it they deserve good messages

even as mostly a spommy/amangela lover, you're works are brilliant!! smosh has made some crazy ass content, and deserves some crazy ass fics to accompany it. perhaps in the future i shall dedicate a fic to you, as a sort of "I Survived Smoshtwt's Hate Campaign" badge lmfao

Honestly, very well said! And aw, thanks!

[thousandyearphantombunker]

“The titan said Belos is evil tho! Are you stupid the show said he was evil!”“Masha said lil’ bro just got jelly that his brother got a girlfriend! He doesn’t have depth and his ending was supposed to be unsatisfying!”“But James Ironwood losing his arm is supposed to represent him losing his humanity”“Jason Rose said that James could’ve always become evil and sided with Salem”“They literally called him genocide general!”“But in this Q&A they said the puppies survived they just lost their laser powers! And in the tie-in material, they showed everyone was fine! You just hate Starco!”“The show/tie-in material/a fucking Q&A said blah blah blah!”These arguments are shit. TOH- “God says witches are evil so it is his duty to kill them!” is a pretty horrible justification for killing someone except when the titan says it to Luz. I don’t think Luz is in the wrong for killing Belos, he was a genocidal maniac and child abuser and genuinely irredeemable- nobody who hates the ending of The Owl House complains about Belos being irredeemable, they complain about the show flopping the cult critical message, how hunter’s possession felt like needless shock value, the show not properly setting up the collector or how the coven system/conformitorium’s writing is a mess or how Eda becoming a teacher makes as much sense as Toph becoming a cop and you can go ‘but the show said-’ what the show said had unfortunate implications, was uncomfortable to abuse survivors, and I can’t forgive the ass-pullery of the trailer-bait nightmare sequence or how in the hexside crew became irrelevant! When people complain about how Belos was handled nobody complains about him not getting a redemption arc- they complain that hunter should’ve been there to see belos die or how they hate Luz’s power up. RWBY -James Ironwood’s and Penny’s character arcs and deaths felt so ableist it’s actually uncomfortable to watch, I have ASD my sister, and like half of the people I know have PTSD, I don’t know any amputees but I’ve seen plenty making noise about how shit the writing was. Good, they should be mad! The show’s message about prosthetics/amputations was toxic! Not mention for all the hopeful messages Team RWBY screams at the top of their lungs about trust they knowingly broke Ironwood’s trust for very poorly defined reasons! while I do think ruthless pragmatism is a bad thing, team RWBY offered no alternatives, he wasn’t a villain- he was facing an ethical dilemma and got fucked over. And SVTFOE- I shouldn’t have to buy tie-in materials to understand the show- tie-in material should be a bonus not a supplement or requirement, I Don’t have to buy the ATLA comics inorder to understand the show, I don’t have to read all of Lord Of The Rings to understand the movies. It doesn’t matter how the show was supposed to be interpreted or how the audience is supposed to feel, and It’s perfectly valid for the audience not to care about damage control spinoffs (cough cough Steven Universe) or Q&A’s or whatever. I’ll admit sometimes the audience is fucking stupid and completely media illiterate but can we stop acting like anyone who doesn’t blindly consume product and go with what the writers said are stupid? I know im not articulating this well but I’m pissy rn and I’m having trouble deconstructing whats wrong with those kind of arguments but god there is so much wrong with these arguements

[confuselibrarian]

Let's be honest, there is no way to consume true crime ethically (or produce it, but that's another story). As someone who has consumed a lot of true crime in the past, I can confidently say that at the end of the day, what leads someone to seek out this content is nothing more than morbid curiosity. I've gone through every possible excuse in my head to try to justify my entertainment. But there is simply no way to escape reality.

"But I consume it to study people's minds!" Watching a 40-minute video of a woman putting on makeup and telling how a child was brutally molested and murdered is not studying. Do you want to study? Go read books written by experts in the field, read articles, etc.

"But I consume it to learn to defend myself!" I'm sorry, but how is true crime going to teach you how to defend yourself? I don't even know how to answer this one because it simply doesn't make sense. There is already a niche of content focused on personal safety, if that is what you are looking for perhaps you should consider consuming this instead of content monetizing the deaths of real people. Or take self-defense classes, I don’t know.