#ethical frameworks

[santong]

Will Artificial Intelligence Replace Most Jobs

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a ubiquitous term, woven into the fabric of our daily lives. From the moment we wake up to a smart alarm on an AI-powered phone to the personalized recommendations on our favorite streaming service, AI’s influence is undeniable. But perhaps the most significant question surrounding AI is its impact on the future of work. Will AI replace most jobs, leaving a…

[billa-billa007]

Social Justice and Divine Justice | Exploring the Differences | Woke up

social justice and divine justice are distinct concepts with different focuses. Social justice deals with the pursuit of fairness and equality in human societies, addressing societal issues and inequalities. Divine justice, on the other hand, is a theological concept concerned with how a higher power administers justice, often in the context of religious beliefs and moral order. While they are separate ideas, they may intersect in discussions about morality and ethics in society, as some individuals and groups may view their pursuit of social justice as aligning with their understanding of divine principles or moral duty.

[thedupshadove]

Okay concept. Bruce Wayne becomes the target of the Leverage crew...only thanks to his Nebulous Contacts, he's heard of these people, and recognizes what's happening halfway through the con.

Since being targeted by the Leverage crew means that you're the asshole, his response is to pull them aside and be like "Please tell me how I've been the asshole and how I can fix it."

I'm not sure yet whether the inciting wrong against the client-of-the-week is something he's being wrongly blamed for, something his subordinates did without his knowledge, something he let happen through passive carelessness, or something he genuinely did on purpose (and might take some convincing to even see as wrong) but I think any of those options have potential.

[qiu-yan]

i'll write a more in-depth post later, but imo one of the reasons for the level of disagreement in this fandom is that many of us readers can see what mxtx is trying to imply about ethics through her work and simply do not agree with her base premise. like i think that there are some conclusions about the various characters in mdzs that mxtx wants you as the reader to draw. you can kind of tell even if you don't agree with those conclusions. more importantly, though, you can also tell exactly what kind of moral philosophy mxtx (consciously or unconsciously) favors, and what she treats as the granularity of morality, so to speak. the most commonly-held positions in the fandom are those mxtx intends for the reader to reach using her own beliefs about ethics as fundamental axioms.

the problem, then, is when the reader does not agree with mxtx's unspoken axioms of morality. if you come into mdzs with a moral framework different enough from what mxtx has (consciously or unconsciously) used to write mdzs, then of course you're going to come to different conclusions regarding the characters or even the object lessons of the story.

or rather, in simpler terms: the rammies, mxtx....the rammies....

[thought-42]

Spent the afternoon at a bioethics seminar and now just fully disconnected to the concept of being a fucking person

[chthonic-cassandra]

Ended up ranting at length to my partner about one of the things that makes me angriest in fiction, which are novels identifiably based upon real world crimes that got media attention and have living victims who were not consulted about the process, and who it's clear the author was not imagining as potential readers or interlocutors with the text.

[thatonebirdwrites]

DEO: Department of Extra-normal Operations

This will be an essay that looks into the ethical problems of the DEO. For the purpose of this essay, I am not concerned about the showrunners reasons for their decisions for how the show presents the DEO. I care only about examining the worldbuilding and stories inherent within the world created. So let's dig into some philosophy and theory. Whee! [Minor spoilers]

To start, this department was first created within the Superman/Supergirl universe in order to analyze alien activities after Superman reveals himself on Earth. It's made in retaliation to the appearance of powerful aliens that those in power deem possible threats. Already, the DEO's beginnings are rooted not in true protection but in stopping and eradicating what those in power deem a threat. It's roots start with dubious ethics.

Let's examine it's history:

It was led by Hank Henshaw, who is vehemently anti-alien. Henshaw is also slated to have ties to Cadmus, which experimented on aliens and attempted several rather horrific and genocidal attacks on aliens. (Note that in Supergirl: Season 2, Kara and Lena thwart Cadmus' activities. Lena Luthor saves the day by modifying an alien killing virus to be harmless to all living creatures. Bits and pieces of the worldbuilding around Cadmus showed that the aliens experimented on came from DEO facilities.)

Henshaw dies when Jeremiah Danvers "kills" him when saving J'onn J'ozz, who then takes Henshaw's place until exposed. He recruits Alex sometime before his exposure (Season 1). After J'onn is exposed in Season 1, Lucy Lane takes control. Then after J'onn helps Supergirl defeat the murderous Kryptonian Non, J'onn received a presidential pardon and was reinstated as director. He kept Henshaw's guise for publicity sake.

The show makes it clear that J'onn choses to be the Director to change the DEO. Yet, what evidence is there that this actually happens?

So that's the basic history.

We have a clandestine agency that has unethical procedures that doesn't change under a new director.

The DEO picks up aliens and throws them in a cell to never be seen or heard from again. This would likely terrorize the alien neighborhoods. This is never truly address in any meaningful manner by the Superfriends or Kara.

In fact, if anything, the show positions the DEO as being Good if Alex, J'onn, or Lucy are in charge (Kara, ironically is not in charge of the DEO at any point). However, the DEO becomes Bad if Lex Luthor or Lauren Haley or the real Hank Henshaw are in charge.

This creates a rather large ethical problem.

First of all, the worldbuilding builds up the argument that certain people are good and certain people are bad. The person we see skirting between those two extremes, and living in a morally grey area the most, is Lena Luhor. For the purposes of this essay, I'll put a pin into Lena's characterization and focus only on the DEO.

Secondly, we are told again and again what Kara/Supergirl's ethics are: justice and truth. Yet when we examine Kara's actions within the context of her DEO Supergirl duties, we are confronted with the following:

She must hide her identity, even from her best friend Lena, and thus deceives regularly. Her reasons for not telling Lena are rooted in the pressure from those at the DEO to not tell Lena but also in Kara's intense fear of loss. However, Kara will demand truth from others despite her hypocritical actions. This doesn't seem to fit solidly in the "good" category.

Her "justice" is defeating criminals. Humans go to the police to eventually have a fair trial. However, aliens are not afforded that same right. Her justice for aliens becomes judge and jury. Since she professes to "not kill," she at least doesn't extend that to executioner. This again doesn't fit solidly in the "good" category.

Thus, by examining Kara/Supergirl's actions, we see a disconnect with what the show claims is "good:" truth and justice. Yet, there is no true justice for the aliens fought and captured; their rights are rescinded (if they had any at all).

This is why the show must tell us who is "good" and who is "bad," because people's actions do not fit the show's claims of what "goodness" is versus what "badness" is. Thus the worldbuilding ends up defining Kara's actions as always "good" even if those actions cause harm to those around her.

[Side note: This isn't to say that Kara is "bad." It is to say that the binary within the show's worldbuilding lacks nuance for the complexity within Kara's understanding of the world and how she acts within that understanding. This binary simply cannot allow for such a complex examination as there is no room for it.

Because of this binary, the show actually butchers Kara's character to make her past "not good" actions as somehow "right" and "good" in the end. We see this with how Kara's harmful actions toward Lena (the lying, duplicity, deception etc) is turned into "I did just one mistake" when it wasn't one mistake. It was years of harm, but because the show paints Kara as "good," Kara is not allowed growth.

This binary of good versus bad is already nonsensical in the worldbuilding since Lena Luthor's very existence throws this entire frame out the window. Her actions, always with the intention to do the least harm and try to improve the world, don't fit neatly into the binary. The story often punishes her for this. (She breaks the binary too much I suppose.)

Yet when other people's actions fail to fit neatly into the binary, the show whispers: "Hush, don't look or think, believe us when we say this person is good and this person is bad.']

To reiterate: It's okay to capture aliens and disappear them without any right to trial If the Superfriends are doing it. This good/bad definition collapses ethics into meaningless words since the activities and procedures of both the "good" people and "bad" people don't differ in terms of impact on alien communities. This lack of differentiation is why we must be told who is good. Otherwise, how would we know?

To dig a little deeper, in Season 4, when Kara is on the most wanted list, she learns very little about the true plight of aliens. During this time, the DEO becomes "bad" under the control of Lauren Haley. Lena Luthor and Alex Danvers, who are both working with the DEO still, also work against the DEO but only to clear Kara's name. So justice is done for Kara's sake but not for the other impacted alien communities.

Once Kara's reputation is restored and she's no longer deemed an "enemy of the state," Kara returns to working with the DEO, as it is now labeled as "good" again because Alex is back in charge.

Ironically, the only person in Kara's friendgroup that questions the DEO is Lena Luthor. (Who in Season 5 will have her 'villain arc' only to be redeemed to the good side again at the end of Season 5. She's the only character, who is labeled a villain at one point, that is allowed true redemption.)

We learn very little about what alien communities actually think about the DEO and about Supergirl in particular. The most we get is the Children of Liberty plot line of Season 4; however, this plot line doesn't ever give us a solid viewpoint from impacted alien communities. Instead, we are confronted with:

We are told what alien communities are like and how lacking in rights they are. Very little of this is shown directly outside of "criminal aliens." Or the brief glimpses within Manchester's arc. However, Manchester is viewed as 'in need of redemption' despite having very real grievances with the state of things. The show then tells us that Manchester is 'bad' and the 'good' J'onn and friends must stop him.

The second time we see alien daily lives is Nia's return to her hometown, which is attacked by supercharged humans. This blended town of aliens and humans serve as an outlier. Nia actually admits that the town is unique and not representative to most aliens' experiences. So again, we don't see a direct experience of alien life in National City or other major cities.

Aliens either have significant powers that humans can justifiably find scary or they are human-like with little to no powers. Both are treated the same for the sake of the Children of Liberty plot line, which serves as an immigrant allegory. @fazedlight and @sideguitars did excellent analysis on this and the problems of these allegories based on the worldbuilding and story itself. (Note: thank you to fazedlight for finding the post in question! Click here o read their analysis.)

This makes it easier for the show to pretend that the DEO is "good" when the Superfriends are in charge. Since we don't meet alien families harmed by the DEO's actions, we never truly get an alternate perspective. Even Lena Luthor's critique of DEO is spat upon by the story, where her alien friends fail to truly counter her valid points. Instead, it's presented in the good/bad binary, which erases all nuance and ethical considerations.

Let's also consider the start of the Supergirl career. Kara is captured by the DEO 12 years after her initial appearance on Earth. However, prior to this moment, we had learned that Kara had nearly been taken by the government -- specifically Henshaw's control of the DEO. Jeremiah Danvers agrees to work for the government in exchange for Kara's freedom from being a government asset.

However, her saving Alex's flight puts her in the crosshairs of DEO, and eventually she is captured. Upon which she learns J'onn is in charge (not the original Henshaw), and J'onn's goals are revealed. He allows Kara to fight her first alien fights as Supergirl. Here we see that J'onn's methods have not actually changed anything about the DEO. The alien fight results in that alien being captured. Supergirl/Kara never hears what happens to the alien she fought and captured. No thought is given to the rights of that alien or if a fair trial will be given. Instead, we are told the alien is a "criminal' as if that somehow justifies the brutal treatment.

After Alex reveals she's an agent with the DEO, Kara fully trusts the agency.

So Jeremiah gave up his life to make sure Kara wasn't being used by the government, only for Kara later on working for the DEO, which is part of the government. Thus Kara ends up used by the government after all. The irony here.

Kara's blind spot here is:

she's privileged. A white-passing, human-passing alien. It's easier for her to hide as a human and not be clocked as an alien. Also, she's white, so less likely to deal with the complications of racism. The most she has to deal with is sexism and the DEO's procedures. This means she doesn't experience the worst the DEO and the systems that uphold it dish out to aliens.

Kara hasn't really interacted with aliens outside her friend group. She's relatively sheltered since coming to Earth due to Kal placing her with the Danvers and having to hide herself. She has no real knowledge of how aliens survive on Earth. This means she has nothing in which to compare the DEO's claims.

She blindly trusts Alex when it comes to DEO.

We don't see Kara questioning what happens to aliens until Season 3 (if it happens in season 1, I apologize as that season is a bit hazy for me). Here Psi saves Kara's life during a perilous mission. Kara then asks about her accommodations and finds out she has no window in her cell. She then demands Psi be given a cell with a window.

However, notice who Kara takes with her on that Season 3 mission: LiveWire (human but due to an accident became Livewire, so she's not an alien but a meta-human) and Psi (who is labeled a meta-human). So the two incarcerated people that Kara chooses are meta-humans and not actual aliens.

So again, we never see Kara interact with aliens outside her friend group unless she is interrogating them. Once the DEO is done with interrogations and the case "closed," those aliens disappear into these windowless cells. Which, need I remind that solitary confinement is labeled as torture for a reason?

Yet that is where aliens that are dubbed "too dangerous" end up by those with power. No rights given; left trapped in solitary confinement with (likely) no windows to never see the light of day again. Of course, because we are told the "good" people do this, it is thus "okay," despite it not differing in methodology with what the "bad" people did.

2. DEO's procedures don't match law. This is especially true when alien amnesty is put into law.

DEO changes NOTHING about their procedures after alien amnesty is put into law. This means that although aliens now have a legal right to a trial, the DEO does not provide this for them. No captured alien is given this right.

This means the DEO doesn't operate within the law.

So if the DEO can disregard laws if they so desire, then what is to stop them from terrorizing any citizen regardless of whether that citizen or alien or human?

What exactly is the ethics of the DEO?

Is the ethics dependent on who is in charge? But if one compares the tenure of the directors: Henshaw, J'onn, Lucy, Alex, Lauren, and Lex -- we see no difference in how the DEO acts.

They all target aliens and give them no rights. The aliens vanish into the cells never to be seen again. This includes some meta-aliens.

Some will claim that while the Superfriends are in charge only criminal aliens are thrown into solitary cells with no hope of release.

But that begs the question: Why do the Superfriends get to be judge and jury and/or executioner? What makes their decisions good but Lauren Haley's or Lex's or the original Hank Henshaw's decisions bad?

Why do the Superfriends get to decide that criminals get no right to a fair trial? Why do they not interrogate what is causing the criminal behaviors in order to change the conditions to avoid aliens resorting to "criminality" as defined by them?

In the end, it does not matter why an alien or meta-human engages in what the state has deemed "criminal" behavior; the methods used in capture and the end result is the same regardless.

The families of captured aliens see the same results regardless of whether "good" people or "bad" people are in charge of the DEO.

While alien amnesty is in law, the DEO, who is under Superfriend control at the time, does not alter their procedures to give the aliens they capture any rights. We never see the aliens or meta-humans captured ever given a fair trial. Nor do we see any programs to reform "criminals" or give them any chance at parole or redemption.

The only method for dealing with aliens and meta-humans uses a carceral prison system that is based in solitary confinement torture. Even the interrogation procedures used have elements of torture to them. In fact, many of the "interrogation" procedures use leading questions to entrap and force a confession under duress. None of these methods are conducive toward reform or fixing a system that deprives those captured of all rights.

Alternate systems for dealing with criminals are never explored. We never see transformative or restorative justice utilized. Both systems would require extensive dialogue with the communities harmed by the "criminals," and if there is one thing the DEO fail at consistently is dialogue with the impacted communities. Instead, their approach is top down, where their ideas of what is right and best is pushed down upon the communities they claim to serve.

Part of this lies with the fact the Superfriends can't engage in dialogue as long as they adhere to the oppressive methodology and practices of the DEO. Reform has failed to alter the ethical violations within the DEO. Alex Vidale wrote an excellent book called The End of Policing, which digs into the attempted reforms for police and how they have consistently failed. Vidale writes:

“At root, they [reformers] fail to appreciate that the basic nature of the law and the police, since its earliest origins, is to be a tool for managing inequality and maintaining the status quo. Police reforms that fail to directly address this reality are doomed to reproduce it.”

The DEO at its root was created to manage the inequality inherent between human rights and the lack of any rights for aliens. It was also created to control aliens and maintain a human status quo. The Superfriends attempt at reform fails to address this reality, and thus were doomed to repeat it.

Vidale continues:

“Police argue that residents in high-crime communities often demand police action. What is left out is that these communities also ask for better schools, parks, libraries, and jobs, but these services are rarely provided.”

Services to better the conditions of so-called "high-crime" communities are not shown to be rendered in the Supergirl world, while the Superfriends are in control of the DEO. It is not more policing that is needed, but more services which do not get provided for most of the show's story and worldbuilding. Thus, the communities that struggle with survival, who often must resort to "illegal" or "criminal" ways end up with only punitive measures that continue the cycle.

It's only in Season 6 when the Superfriends are no longer with the DEO that we start to see them engage in dialogue with the community in general (Kelly's arcs in particular touch on this for the lower income area that she tries to help, which is shown to be a mixture of nonwhite humans and some aliens).

If J'onn and others truly are seeking to reform the DEO, then that requires them to be in dialogue with the affected communities and to put forth new procedures that provide rights to those impacted. This is never done.

3. The DEO suffers no consequences for its actions.

The "Bad things" that happen under the "Bad" directors -- original Henshaw, Lauren Haley, Lex -- aren't ever addressed. Nothing really changes; instead the "Good" guys get back in control and things continue.

Was any reparations made for those harmed by the bad actors? Are the families impacted ever given compensation? We see some aliens rescued from Cadmus in Season 2 and Lex's Power Plant in Season 4, but what of the families of those murdered by Lex and Henshaw? The show fails to address this.

Instead, we are told that the "good" people are now in charge again and only "criminals" are being taken and incarcerated with no rights.

The concept of "criminality" depends entirely on who is in a position of power to dictate what constitutes "criminal" acts. One of the biggest problems with "criminality" as a concept is that it fails to interrogate the why these behaviors happen. What led to the "criminal act?" Are the people engaging in the act just "bad" people?

Often when basic needs are not being met, people may engage in acts of desperation to meet those needs. These actions may fall under what that society deems as "criminal." However, if the people's needs were met, then they wouldn't need to engage in desperate acts to meet their needs.

Another reason for "criminal" behavior stems from people who lack rights in a society. The oppressed will often fight against their oppressors using a mixture of methods (sometimes nonviolent, sometimes violent) in order to win their rights and transform society for the better. Until they win that fight, their actions are labeled as "criminal" by those in power.

Some rarer individuals may engage in acts of harm because they enjoy it such as Lex. However, this is actually very rare. Property crime and burglary is far, far more common. Yet, even those engaging in horrific violent crimes are still afforded a fair trial. Something aliens in the Supergirl universe are never given.

There's quite a few scenes where the aliens fought by Supergirl are engaging in robberies/burglaries or other property crimes. Those that seek to violently mass murder is actually rarer, and often the big villain of the season. At no point does anyone in the show reckon with the reasons someone may choose to engage in "criminal" behavior. Instead, all "criminals" are painted as "bad" regardless.

J'onn professes to be "reforming" the DEO to stop its reign of terror among alien communities. Yet, the most crucial components in changing an oppressive system? We don't really see him utilize them until Season 4, but by then the DEO is in the hands of Alex, who continues the procedures put into place by J'onn,

Paulo Freire writes in Pedagogy of the Oppressed concerning the "radical" as in the person seeking to end an oppressive system:

"The radical, committed to [human] liberation, does not become the prisoner of a 'circle of certainty' within which reality is also imprisoned. On the contrary, the more radical the person is, the more fully he or she enters into reality so that, knowing it better, he or she can transform it. This individual is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into a dialogue with them."

J'onn recognizes that the DEO's methods are wrong and unethical. When he takes over and poses as Henshaw, he wishes to transform the system. Except, this is where he fails, because he justifies his changes by claiming that now the DEO only locks away forever criminal aliens.

No thought is given as to why these aliens are making these decisions. What pushed them to rob a store? What pushed them to attack? Did they feel like they had no other choice? Was there no opportunities other than to rob for what they needed? Or to fight against a system that they deem is harming them and their communities?

These questions are not analyzed at all by J'onn or the Superfriends. They do not listen to those most impacted by the DEO. The only time we see J'onn seem to listen is when he is trying to work with Manchester in Season 4, but that results in Manchester being presented as bad in the end, while J'onn is shown to be good. Where he tried to redeem Manchester.

Yet Manchester had valid points about the treatment of aliens. His methodology in fighting back against what he saw as oppressive system is problematic, but he listens far more than Kara and the Superfriends to those being harmed by the systems that created the DEO.

So J'onn and the other Superfriends are failing to engage in dialogue with those harmed by the DEO. They fail to unveil what is truly horrifying with the DEO: incarcerating aliens in solitary confinement with no fair trial and no hope of ever seeing the light of day again.

The justification that because they are "criminals" this is somehow okay erases all the contributing factors that may make up the circumstances that lead to the "criminal" behavior. Nothing is truly done to remedy the situations that may drive someone to what the state labels as "criminal" behavior. It also unveils a horrible truth. Any alien (or meta-human or even human) can be marked an "enemy of the state" and thus a "criminal," where all rights they had prior be rescinded. We see this happen to Supergirl in Season 4. The only reason she isn't locked away in a cell with no windows is because Alex and Lena don't allow it. Unlike most aliens the DEO fights to find and capture, Kara has people fighting for her. But what about every other alien? Who is actually fighting for them?

J'onn's attempt to reform the DEO falls into the biggest trap for all radical liberators: it is all too easy to become complicit with the system at be and justify this than it is to actually change it from within.

As Paulo Freire puts so succinctly:

“Oppression is domesticating. The gravest obstacle to the achievement of liberation is that oppressive reality absorbs those within it, and thereby acts to submerge human beings' consciousness.”

Thus the DEO fails to be reformed. It's reign of terror in alien communities is not truly diminished. Nor does those fighting to "reform" the DEO engage in any dialogue with those communities to determine their needs or ways to improve conditions to decrease the need to resort to "criminal" activities.

In the end, the DEO stays an oppressive, clandestine agency that has no transparency, answers to apparently no one, takes away the rights of those they catch, and disregards laws as they please.

What the Superfriends have failed to learn and understand is that oppression cannot be defeated by reforming the system that causes the oppression. In other words, liberation cannot be achieved be reform alone.

This is why the destruction of the DEO in Season 6 is perhaps the best result at least within the rules of the Supergirl world. The Superfriends could not reform it from the inside, and by trying to do so, they ended up complicit to a harmful system. As long as they were tied to the DEO, the Superfriends would never be able to live out justice and uplift the rights of aliens and humans alike.

ADDENDUM: However, the Superfriends decision to go full vigilante is a whole other can of worms. They do attempt to be transparent in their actions for the communities they serve, but is there a way for people to hold them accountable? That isn't fully addressed. However, that would require a full essay, and this essay is only about the DEO.

[perdvivly]

I have a lot of earned distrust towards rationalist and rationalist-adjacent communities at doing what I feel is the bare minimum community cultivation.

And on the one hand I think that the intent behind this lack of explicit management is really laudable. I think extending charity to more people (even people who have had a history of poor prior conduct) is good. But on the other hand, I want to be a part of more spaces that are not actively hostile to compassionate and considerate discourse, and it turns out you cannot get those spaces in unwalled gardens.

I appreciate an unwillingness to go along with mob consensus and condemn people at the drop of a hat based on vibes. But the overcorrection for that looks a lot like tacit endorsement of genuine harms. And that’s not okay either.

[reeama-the-mage]

I just listened to the podcast ethics town and now I need to go stare out at a window for several hours

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on something I've been trying to think through since Maya's book came out, which is, what do I as a fan need to see from Liam before I feel comfortable being a fan of his again? It's ethically important for me personally to give space for Liam (like anyone who harms others) to grow, change, make amends for his behavior, and heal, and so I don't want to take a position that because of the things he's done, he's forever persona non grata and I can't ever support him or his career ever again. But I also would need to see some kind of accountability from him for the harms he's caused, some effort for repair and amends to be made on Maya's terms, and change. But none of that will come from the criminal justice system (even if Liam were to be subject to it, which he won't). While I think it's possible (and likely preferable) for Liam to do this kind of rehabilitative work in private, Liam has historically been an unreliable narrator of his own healing, and I don't want to put the expectation on Maya to publicly speak for her abuser about his rehabilitation even if he has made genuine amends to her privately in a way she feels satisfied with.

Obviously, this is all deeply theoretical because from what Maya has said, we know that even still Liam is harassing and harming her, and nowhere near repair. And so for the immediate term it's clear we need to continue believing Maya and centering her and supporting her. I just am trying to think through a long-term framework for this (and for artists who behave unethically more generally) and having a hard time with the weird position we're in as fans, not really participants but kind of stakeholders but really.

I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts and coming to me with this question. I am coming at this from quite a different angle, but I want to start by saying that I really appreciate the way you're approaching the world.

I think you make the most important point yourself in this anon. You will never have enough information to know whether Liam is making amends to Maya or changing. There is nothing you can see or hear that would mean that you could have any kind of confidence

On one level that's always true, there's always a lot that we don't know. I think it's wise if you know someone has chased their partner with an axe, to always assume there may be ways that they are treating their partner that you don't know about - however well you know them. But if the person is a stranger - then that level of uncertainty rises significantly. No matter what you've seen - you just don't have any information to go with.

Recently I got an anon saying I thought Liam was sober - because the last time he'd given an interview he had said he was sober. It's really important to remember that 1D members don't stay statically in the last state they told us about.

At the moment we can be fairly sure that nothing has changed about the way Liam treats women. There may be a point where we have reason to think he's tried to change. But that's the most we'll ever get - we'll never know that he has.

I think here it's worth doing a thought experiment. Think of a public figure you know of, who has been violent and has made some kind of public amends (I thought of Vic Tamati, who is involved in anti violence prevention in New Zealand. He talks openly about what he did, the amends he's made, he works prevention, his family talks openly as well. It is probably telling that I can't give you an example who is known more widely). Then ask is what you know about them enough to know that they're not being violent now? We have no way of knowing.

So the question becomes - what does it mean that we can't know?

I think it's useful at this point to come back to your first question. The first part makes sense to me: 'It's ethically important for me personally to give space for Liam (like anyone who harms others) to grow, change, make amends for his behavior, and heal, and so I don't want to take a position that because of the things he's done, he's forever persona non grata'. I understand this as an ethical framework. It is important to allow space for people to change.

But you don't stop there - you then move to supporting him and his career. To me there's a huge gulf between acknowledging that people can change and actively supporting them and their career. It almost sounds like you think there's a connection between your ethical framework and the possibility of there being a path back to being a fan.

It's your ethical framework, but to me this seems like a mismatch of concepts. There's a huge difference between an ethical framework that allows for the possibility of change and an ethical framework that says that you have to know that there's at least a possibility that someone who has done harm could again become one of your favourite people - someone you have an extraordinary level of regard for.

To bring those two ideas together. I don't think there can be an ethical imperative to allow for a path for someone who has done harm to return to a place of extraordinary regard, given that you'll never know if they have made amends or even if they're still doing harm. I think you will not be able to answer the question of what Liam means to you when you are attempting to put it in that ethical framework.

My suggestion is that instead - you reconsider how you think about fandom. You suggest that fans are in a weird position, but I don't think we are. I think we are observing other people's life and art, for our own reasons (hopefully pleasure, but often complicated), and sometimes that involves purchasing something from the artist. It's only if we deny that reality that things seem weird.

Framing fandom as support - something that you do for the artist, rather than something you do for yourself - creates this confusion.

I could be wrong, but I think the fundamental question here is about you and not Liam. I think your actual question is 'I still feel a lot about Liam and I'd like to be able to be a fan at his at the moment - but I don't feel comfortable.'

If you accept that fandom is something that you do for your pleasure - then I think it becomes easier to answer this question. You can trust yourself to make this judgement.

One year I made a New Year's resolution that I wasn't going to see a movie directed by someone who signed the petition opposing the arrest of Polanski, unless I really wanted to. And I meant it - it did matter to me - that people dismissed rape as 'a case of morals'. But I wasn't going to pursue purity and cut myself off from joy, art and experience. If I really wanted to go to a movie I would.

I'm sure you'll develop your own framework. But I think it's probably worth considering only engaging with Liam's work in a way that economically benefits him if you really want to. I will still listen to 1D. If I was going to do another deep dive into music videos from 1D members (one of my favourite things), I might watch a video of his again. But I'm only going to do those things that are meaningful and important to me. Because ultimately my fandom is about me and bringing me joy.

[antigonewinchester]

stumbled on a thread about LOTR the other day of someone asking why couldn't Boromir have taken the Ring and its power & saved his people--and the thread writer argued (if I'm remembering right) that the Ring isn't metaphorical of power in general but power that makes you violate your principles, and that kind of power, in LOTR's moral framework, always leads to evil.

which was on my mind thinking of demonic power w/in SPN (at least in Kripke's era), its associations w/ revenge and its relationship to evil. in S1, it's clear to see why Sam makes the right narrative choice in 1x22 in not killing John -- he would've been getting revenge on the demon who killed his mother & tore apart his family by... killing his father and once again tearing apart the family he has left. getting revenge for your family by killing your family doesn't square.

then of course there's S4 and demon blood and that imo the Ring is a good metaphorical way of understanding why and how the narrative frames it. I know some ppl argue against the show's framing, why is demon blood "evil," isn't Sam using it to save people, save the world, etc. I'm not gonna convince anybody at this point, but look at it like the Ring: you can't use the Ring to save the world, even with the best of intentions. it's a power that will eventually warp you to break your principles & values, and that's what makes it evil.

[ossidae-passeridae]

22 >:3

Question from here

22. Why the actual fuck did Obi-Wan let Vader live on that unnamed moon and does that make him just as culpable for his atrocities?

The short answer to this (other than 'Vader has plot armour' which, duh), is that Obi-Wan lets him live because he finally let go of his attachment to Anakin.

It's the culmination of his story throughout the series, the final Release from the weight he'd yoked around himself for a whole fucking decade. As a Jedi, why would he kill an unarmed (disarmed) man who can barely breathe?

Even during the war, Obi-Wan captured Separatist leaders whenever possible, he didn't kill unless given no other option. That's the Jedi way. As an individual, you don't decide that people deserve to die.

We obviously know, outside the GFFA universe as we are, that Anakin does go on to commit further atrocities, but Obi-Wan doesn't have that certainty. And killing on the basis of "I think he might—" is how you wind up killing innocent people, actually. There's a reason the death penalty has been abolished in so much of the world.

Does letting Vader live make Obi-Wan culpable for his atrocities? No. No more than the bacta technician is culpable because he didn't poison Vader's bacta, no more than any of us are culpable for the violence or damage done by people we used to know, once, a decade and a lifetime ago.

(All opinions expressed above are solely those of pass e. ridae and do not express the views or opinions of any affiliates or associates, passerine or otherwise)

[thebloodlinestopswithme]

Some of you antinatalists act or are so bigoted, hostile and otherwise noxious. And it makes it difficult to be part of the community, to identify especially openly as antinatalist, and to have conversations with the general public because of overwhelmingly negative associations, observations, and interactions with our community (especially online).

Some of you act or are so awful and out of pocket that this is what people have come to think antinatalism means, as opposed to what it is -- a philosophy and ethical framework, which is nothing like the above mentioned. I don't know how to call this out other than what I'm saying here.

Like it or not, because of how much stigma, negative notions, reception and perceptions our behaviors, expression and how we essentially show up as antinatalists is being judged heavily and monolithically by the general public.

And if we want any hope of being able to exist as antinatalists, having actual discussions about it including outside our community, and any interesting growth or progress with this philosophy and framework, be it culturally (including art, more bodies of work, forming our own culture, etc) or socially (including spaces, connection, acceptance, destigmatization, etc) we need to get it together.

We also cannot accept or tolerate those engaging and or spreading in hateful ideology, hate speech, harassment, mistreatment of people,.

If we don't, then can we really say it's not understandable the way so many people judge, shun and are hostile towards our community and philosophy when this is what and who we allow?

Come on, let's address this. So many of us deserve better, not just from the public and society at large, but for our own community.

[loverboyfae]

is there any version of the jekyll and hyde story that's good? lemme know

[yakool-foolio]

*coughs up a vague ditty about Lieu since I ended up writing about them for an exercise in my creative writing class*

[xbuster]

Wait, Fate/Zero has gotten good again.