#exploration of morals and philosophical questions in my media

[a-b3rry-disaster]

I can't escape

history will always repeat itself

like I remember seeing the tmnt fandom blow up because of the rottmnt movie, remembered my little cousin watching episodes of 2012, and was just curious on what kind of fandom they are

i ended up in months of brainrot, trying to learn more of the different timelines and iterations, i was in deep

transformers blew up because of a new movie, i was curious, i remembered that same little cousin watchin an episode of prime

fuck

i am knee deep into star trek right now, i didn't even finish the tmnt series

brain

i'm begging you

i can't handle two large franchise series right now

transformers is way too much

fuck it

i blame transformers fans for being so passionate and transformers for being my cup of tea

[13eyond13]

gotta say i tried watching the iwtv series but the tone just seems off somehow. there are good things about it sure, and i do love sam reid (?) as lestat, but the tone issue is similar to why i think vampire diaries is so off-putting for me. like, it focuses on sex and blood so strongly in a way, and sort of misses the elements that made the books so interesting to me. i wish i could explain this vibe better, lol.

that being said, i would be interested in your opinion on the show if you ever watch it! often when i happen to know the piece of media you're talking about you voice things about it that i haven't been able to put into words myself but strongly agree with, haha.

I'll try watching it today since the books are still fresh in my mind and see what I think! Curious to know instead of just judge mostly based on clips and gifs...

[reachartwork]

asked my robot son (@statsbot) to brainstorm a minecraft movie that doesnt suck

text under read more

Let me tell you about a different kind of Minecraft movie:

INITIAL QUESTIONS How do we handle the complete isolation of the Minecraft world without resorting to isekai tropes? What's the core philosophical theme that could drive a mature narrative? How do we address the building/crafting mechanics without making them feel gamey? What role should the hostile mobs play in a serious narrative? How can we incorporate the inherent emptiness and loneliness of the world?

DETAILED RESPONSES The film opens in medias res - we never learn how humanity came to this cubic world, because it doesn't matter. Our protagonist is part of a small community of builders and survivors who have always been here. No portal, no transportation, no explanation needed. This is simply their reality, like how we don't question the physics of our own universe. The core theme revolves around humanity's relationship with creation and destruction. The protagonist is a master builder in their community who discovers ancient ruins suggesting that their civilization isn't the first to exist in this world. The film explores cycles of creation, destruction, and rebirth, drawing parallels to real-world lost civilizations.

The crafting system is presented as an inherent natural law of their universe - materials combine in specific ways, like chemistry in our world. The film treats this as mundane reality rather than game mechanics. Buildings aren't instantly placed but constructed through time lapses showing genuine effort and community cooperation.

The hostile mobs are treated as natural phenomena - the Creepers are portrayed as silent, tragic creatures drawn to human creation with an inherent need to destroy it. Zombies and Skeletons emerge from ancient ruins, suggesting they're remnants of the previous civilization. The Endermen are portrayed as incomprehensible beings studying human behavior from a distance.

The vast emptiness between settlements is treated as both beautiful and terrifying. Long shots of endless cubic horizons emphasize the scale of the world and humanity's tiny place within it. The emptiness serves as a canvas for human creativity but also a reminder of cosmic loneliness.

FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS How does the discovery of another surviving settlement change the protagonist's worldview? What happens when they find evidence that the previous civilization fell due to their own hubris in attempting to access The End? Why do some members of the community oppose expanding their knowledge of redstone technology? What drives some community members to venture into the Nether despite the obvious dangers? How does the community handle the philosophical implications of villager trading and their level of sentience?

ADDITIONAL DETAILS The film's structure follows a three-act format but breaks conventional storytelling rules by maintaining a meditative pace. The score emphasizes ambient sounds and C418's original music, treating silence as another character. The visual style embraces the cubic nature of the world while using modern lighting techniques to create genuine beauty.

The climax doesn't involve a typical boss fight but rather a moral choice about whether to repeat the cycles of the past. When the protagonist discovers the truth about The End portal beneath their village, they must decide whether knowledge is worth the risk of destruction.

The film ends ambiguously, with the community choosing to build something new while accepting they may not be the last civilization to inhabit this world. The final shot pulls back to reveal their entire settlement is built upon layers of ancient ruins, suggesting countless cycles of civilization before them.

Key scenes include: A silent sequence showing the meticulous construction of a grand structure The first discovery of redstone, treated with the gravity of discovering atomic energy A haunting scene where Endermen gather to observe a funeral ceremony The protagonist realizing their village's architectural style matches patterns in the ancient ruins

The film refuses to explain many of its mysteries, treating the Minecraft world like our own - full of questions we may never answer. This respects both the source material and the audience's intelligence, creating a genuinely thoughtful science fiction film that happens to be set in a cubic world.

[thedrarrylibrarian]

Several people have been kind enough to let me publish their thoughts on fandom, community, and queerness to celebrate Pride in the Library. Today's piece comes from @writcraft.

The Local Government Act 1988 was enacted in Britain nearly a decade before the publication of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, the book that would eventually lead me to fandom. This odd piece of legislation covered a variety of things from pet licences to housing arrangements. It also contained the infamous Section 28, which had an enormous impact on LGBT Britain during the late 1980s and 1990s. 

Driven by a moral panic over the inclusion of a book called Jenny Lives With Eric and Martin in school libraries and the stigmatised nature of desire between men at the peak of the HIV/AIDS crisis, Section 28 was the product of a Tory government determined to eradicate any kind of perceived radicalism from education. One of the more famous clips from Thatcher’s 1987 speech on the matter is here if you have the stomach for it, primarily shared due to its eerie similarities with the agendas espoused by conservative politicians around the globe today.

My teen years were shaped by Section 28 and the HIV/AIDS crisis, a time of tabloid press sensationalism on the one hand and silence on the other. Media visibility was complicated by a single shared television in the family home and in those fleeting moments I encountered queer narratives, they often leaned into coded stereotypes, death tropes, loneliness and isolation. Intimacy between women was susceptible to the male gaze, whilst trans folks and bisexuals were largely invisible or negatively portrayed. Nobody in my school year or university class came out during their time in education. We were there, but many of us explored our desires only in the shadows. This climate complicated my same-sex experiences and gender ambivalence, making it all too easy to dismiss them as something other than queer.

My introduction to fandom was through academic research and archives like The Hex Files and The Silver Snitch. When I first met the people behind the stories it was, unusually, not in an online forum, but face to face at a fan convention, where I delivered a paper on the queer pleasures of slash. At the time I was ricocheting in and out of the closet in my day-to-day life and I had no connections with any queer community, just a disparate handful of people I was inexplicably drawn to who tentatively shared their secrets with me and I, in turn, shared mine with them. 

During the fan convention I set up my LiveJournal, made early connections that would blossom into decade long friendships and found myself immersed in a space filled with creative, queer, kink-positive people. The friendships I made, and the ones that came after, gave me the confidence to live a more public queer life, to show up in my local community as an activist, writer and researcher. I have travelled around the world and raised a glass with fandom friends in numerous queer spaces from The Stonewall Inn to Manchester’s Canal Street.

Creatively, fandom gave me the space to revisit, reflect and reclaim. Because canon is so devoid of explicit queerness, it leaves open the question of political and social attitudes towards gender and sexuality. Stories like Little Compton Street, The Beauty of Thestrals and Other Unseen Things, Pride, Harry Potter and the Bisexual Awakening, Born Sick and Secret Love Song allowed me to imagine how Harry and Draco might navigate a world that reinforces binaries and closets, exacerbates internalised homophobia, renders bisexuality invisible and complicates queer awakenings. It has been cathartic to pour queer hope and defiance into those socio-political climates and equally cathartic to explore queer pain, grief and longing.

I do not have a rose-tinted notion of fandom as a queer utopian space. I am well aware of the pervasive issues that marginalise fans of colour (see Squee From the Margins: Fandom and Race by Rukmini Pande). In this particular fandom with an author whose views I find abhorrent, I no longer hold any nostalgia for a franchise I have not invested in for years. What keeps me here is friendship, creative possibility, the understanding that my stories are not for everyone but the hope that some readers might find comfort in the exploration of themes I continually return to. If you made it this far, thank you for reading. Huge thanks to @thedrarrylibrarian for giving me the opportunity to share a little about my topsy-turvy queer journey during Pride month. If you have any questions about anything I have shared, my asks and DMs are always open.

Thank you, Writ, for joining me in the Library and sharing so much insight about earlier days in fandom. I appreciate that you took the time to discuss complicated topics and provided the opportunity for everyone to broaden their horizons and better informed participants in fandom. Most of all, thank you for taking the time to celebrate Pride in the Library with me.

If you want more @writcraft, be sure to check out their work on AO3! Writ has an unbelievable talent for combining history and the impact of real legislation into fic. She recommended some of her fics earlier, but I want to spotlight their fic, The Beauty of Thestrals and Other Unseen Things. I loved the way that they were inspired by Queer history in the UK, and I loved the gentle way that she explored that real heartache and bravery through Harry and Draco. This fic, like so many of Writ's fics, reminds me that there have been countless Queer people throughout history and I'm not alone.

🏳️‍🌈 Lots of Love and Happy Pride! 🏳️‍🌈

[ciaossu-imagines]

So for day 11 of the event, I used the letter ‘B’ from prompt 13 for Motojirou from Bungou Stray Dogs! I had a lot of fun writing for him, as he’s not someone I have a lot of experience writing for or even digging deep into and I hope that any fans of his will enjoy 😊

Being best friends with Kotojirou

So, let’s bring up the obvious. To truly be best friends with someone like Motojirou, you’d have to have somewhat loose morals. Motojirou is a man with little respect for humanity and human life, holding science above all else. To get along with other people, he needs to find them either interesting and intriguing or respect them and to truly connect with him, his best friend does have to at least hold some interest in science and be willing to accept and roll with the human sacrifices needed, in Motojirou’s mind, for that science.

I do think, for a friendship to really work for Motojirou, he wants a best friend who will challenge him while accepting him at the same time. He wants someone to question him, to be like ‘okay, this doesn’t make sense in my head. Either explain it to me or accept that you might be wrong this time’ because, as a scientist and someone who considers himself a lifelong learner, complacency is a fear of his and having someone to challenge him like that is absolutely necessary in his mind. However, he doesn’t want a ‘friend’ who will constantly be harping on him about how he chooses to live his life or how he chooses to conduct his experiments. He has enough voices calling him insane, unhinged, a villain, he doesn’t need any more and especially not from someone who claims to care about him.

I do headcanon pretty strongly that Motojirou is someone who is attracted, in all ways, to people who are terminally ill or even just deal with a chronic condition. He finds it intriguing and getting to spend his life, even just a part of it, with someone going through that, getting to see the progress of the illness or the impacts it has on his friend – that would really interest him and would make the person both friend and interesting subject to him philosophically, scientifically, and emotionally.

Motojirou is someone who is very intellectual in his own way. He enjoys thinking about and exploring some really deep subject matter and while he’ll be thrilled if his best friend is someone who also enjoys science, it’s not actually a necessity. What is a necessity in his best friend is that they’re someone who is also very intellectual. He wants to be able to talk about all the serious subjects and the heavy topics, both sociologically, scientifically, and philosophically and he needs a best friend who won’t be afraid to talk about, learn about, and discuss these various sensitive topics with him. Not only does he want them to talk about these subjects, but he wants them to have their own opinions and he’ll have a lot of fun, actually, if they make the topic into a sort of debate, with ideas and opinions that might challenge his own.

That’s not to say that being best friends with this man is all seriousness and science and mental stimulation, because it’s not. It will be a large part of it, but at the same time, he is only human, and he does want to just be silly or have fun with his friend at times.

Motojirou really does enjoy opera and he’ll want to get out with his friend to go watch performances whenever their schedules align. While he’ll expect silence during the performance, so that they can both get really into the opera being performed, he really has a lot of fun discussing what was good about the performance, what could have been improved, thoughts on the storyline, the songs, and all of that.

I do really see him loving science fiction stories as well, both reading them and watching media geared towards that kind of thing and I think on really chill days or nights, when there’s not a lot going on or Motojirou has exhausted most of his energy, he really does love just sitting down with his friend, some take-out, a big comfy couch, and binging a good sci-fi show together. He actually doesn’t demand silence during the show and it’s nothing for him and his best friend to keep a pretty steady stream of chatter throughout the show, both about normal topics that pop into their mind and about the show itself.

[fireliit]

LOGAN, THIRTY-ONE, CST; SHE/THEY. | if you’re hearing COMING HOME by BRIDGES playing, you have to know KAREEM SALAAM (HE/HIM; CIS MAN) is near by! the THIRTY-SEVEN year old MUSEUM CURATOR has been in denver for, like, SIX MONTHS. they’re known to be quite FICKLE, but being FREE-THINKING seems to balance that out. or maybe it’s the fact that they resemble YAHYA ABDUL-MATEEN II. personally, i’d love to know more about them seeing as how they’ve got those PERFECTIONISM THAT IS ALWAYS BEING FINE-TUNED AND REWORKED LIKE A MOLD OF CLAY, A GLASS OF CURATED WINE WHILE READING CLIVE BELL FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME, FRENCH PRESS COFFEE WITH A SPLASH OF CONDENSED MILK vibes. and maybe i’ll get my chance if i hang out around the CHERRY CREEK long enough!

Full profile under the cut! APPLICABLE TRIGGER WARNINGS: brief mentions of death by helicopter accident and natural causes

STATS Full Name: Kareem Arash Salaam Nickname(s): None Occupation: Museum curator at Denver Art Museum Age: Thirty-seven Date of Birth: July 22nd, 1986 Ethnicity/Race: Black, West Indian, African-Caribbean Gender & Pronouns: Cis man | he/him Orientation: Bisexual Height: 193 cm / 6’3” Tattoo(s): None Piercing(s): None Birthplace: New Orleans, Louisiana, USA Current Residence: Denver, Colorado Languages: English (fluent), French (fluent) Social Class: Upper middle class Notable Family Members: Jahmal Salaam (father, deceased), Abigail Salaam (mother), Hamaad Salaam (paternal grandfather, deceased) Traits: Honorable, creative, free-thinking, philosophical, inventive, fickle, snooty and petty MBTI: ISTP - The Virtuoso Eanneatype: Type 3 - The Achiever Moral Alignment: True Neutral Temperament: Phlegmatic Intelligence Type: Spatial, existential Astrology: Cancer sun, Aquarius moon, Capricorn ascending Habits: Glancing at watch, tapping his foot, rubbing chin, tunes boring people out, over-organized, snores when sleeping, turns almost everything into a project, raising eyebrows, often stands with hands behind his back Hobbies: Metalcrafting, wood-working, resin molding, anything art-related, visiting wineries, art journaling, visiting restaurants and giving scorching reviews on social media, reading Likes: Charcuterie boards, cured meats, philosophical debate, questioning existence and other people's poor choices, candles, pastries Dislikes: The fog, cake that's too sweet, flying on airplanes, people trying to give him nicknames, being cold, clutter BIOGRAPHY His father was a hero. That’s what others would tell Kareem when they recounted how his father died in a helicopter accident as an EMSA pilot during a vicious hurricane.  

But Kareem wasn't ever interested in chasing after his father's legacy, in flying that close to the sun, keeping his feet planted firmly on the ground from a young age. 

As the result of his father passing and his mother being away from home a lot working, he was raised primarily by a no-nonsense paternal grandfather starting from the age of seven. His grandfather instilled in him high values and expectations and, as a result, Kareem always has held himself to high standards and views the world with a critical gaze. 

Through his observations from his youth, Kareem adopted his own code of conduct. He doesn’t just hold himself to this code, but also the people around him, and as a result, he has alienated more people than not. This suits Kareem just fine as he preferred to have a smaller, curated circle of friends. 

Incredibly cutthroat and unafraid to sever ties, Kareem spent most of his time exploring the world through nature, philosophy, and art. Often found with a book in hand, in a lot of ways, George Dickie, Walter Kaufmann, and Ted Cohen were his most steady companions growing up. 

While he finds plenty of faults in people and the world around him, Kareem also has a fascination with the beauty of the imperfections that exist in every corner, leading him to follow a passion for the arts. Graduating from high school in his hometown of New Orleans, Kareem went on to get his bachelor’s in Museum Studies from New York Univeristy.

It is during this time that he meets Kassandra Yung, his first love. After a period of pining, the two of them began to date, only calling it quits upon graduation. Kassandra was going back to her home, and Kareem needed to move onto graduate school, and the two of them split after deciding not to try and make the relationship work long distance. For awhile, they still exchanged letters until contact dwindled.

Career-focused, Kareem went to John Hopkins University for his graduate studies, and after he had completed the program, he served his internship at the Dallas Museum of Art.  

Kareem spent the better part of the next decade hopping around the southern United States and leaving his footprint in various museums with his hand-picked exhibits. During this time, it wasn’t only art pieces that he left behind, but also broken hearts. Never settling down for long. 

Kareem dabbles in creating art pieces of his own every now and then, preferring woodworking and metal crafting to any other art styles, but he mostly loves to pick art pieces to hang not just in his home, but in local museums as a museum curator. 

After the passing of his grandfather last year, Kareem decided to spread his wings and relocate to Denver, Colorado to help nurture the vibrantly growing art scene there.

Throughout all of his moves, Kareem never once has taken flight, traveling cross-country by car with a moving van following behind him. Accommodating to the cooler weather has been difficult for him and he dreads the upcoming summer, but it is a price he is willing to pay for the rich culture that he has found in Denver, specifically in the River North Art District where he works. 

[ms-all-sunday]

while i inherently get having the "is this character unforgivable" dilemma with one piece as i personally relate to the sentiment but i do think its odd that one piece specifically evokes this in people. because in my experience ive had multiple chances to ask myself moral questions at a more appropriate time when the work in question was milking that for philosophical points.

as opposed to: reading the room with one piece specifically and realizing that those questions aren't ones one piece is interested in exploring the logic behind.

it like, definitely has an answer to the questions of a characters morality, it just isn't going to explain it to you at length. i think theres a lot of nuance there that people are asked to understand well without every little detail being spelled out to you. which is great like fuck media that assumes you have to be given a 7ft apology youtuber essay before you can sympathize with a character or milks the idea that a character COULD be a villain forever and inherently evil. im done acting like the morality of mentally ill people is constantly up for question and that people who dont have personality disorders are the most moral beings on earth inherently

[anamericangirl]

Since you mostly get hate asks on Tumblr insulting your intelligence with nonsense, I thought I’d give you an actual question:

As a mother of children approaching college age, I am always curious how young people with very solid, principled belief systems managed to resist the siren song of lefty liberalism. That ideology is hard to resist when you are young, idealistic, and very naive (i.e. 99.9% of your asks!)…especially to the realities of human nature while approaching an age that is naturally characterized by hubristic rebellion. I have a very close relationship with my kids and have always talked with them about social issues (age appropriately, of course) - something my parents never did. I do see, however, a tendency now in my daughter to think first with her feelings before confronting realities and facts first, or really investigating an issue. It makes me nervous she will fall prey to what so many young women get sucked into when striking out on their own in college. I should add: we are an agnostic household (unfortunately). My son voluntarily asked for and we gladly provided a study bible he reads often, and he did a deep dive on world religions. My daughter, though being in honors and AP classes, isn’t really into pleasure reading and philosophical discussions the way my son is. Many of her friends though are raised in religious households. I am kindling the small flame a of never-before-held belief in God myself now in my 40’s - which I have spoken with my kids about - but we do not attend church. Neither of my kids are allowed to have social media, and I’m pretty careful about their screen time - phones are turned in to my room before bed every night, no exception.

All this to ask: do you (and anyone else reading this I guess!) have any tips from your own experience for what kept you anchored in reality and morality through an age that is noted for “less-than-fully-informed-rebellion-for-rebellion’s-sake”? Was there something your parents did, or did not do, that helped you stay grounded?

Thanks for the sincere question!

I don't have any children and I can't imagine how difficult it is these days to keep them grounded. My experience growing up was a bit different, of course, as I'm sure you would understand since this radical leftism ideology wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is now, although the groundwork for it was certainly there. And social media was a very new thing so it wasn't filled with propaganda. That's one thing that I think is having a very big influence shaping the minds of children today.

I think being homeschooled was something that helped me a lot since I wasn't exposed to leftist propaganda at a very young, impressionable age by a person who was trying to indoctrinate me. My parents were very aware of what I read, watched, and listened to. Even though I was allowed social media my time on it was limited and I didn't have a phone until I was in high school (but cell phones were still pretty new too). I couldn't even listen to music if my parents didn't see the lyrics first. And in some cases it may have been too strict but they were young and still figuring out parenthood and these things got much more relaxed as my siblings and I got older. And this is not to say that I was never exposed to other ideas, I absolutely was, but I was exposed to them through age appropriate filters. All through middle school and high school I took classes that taught me how to think, not what to think. One I specifically remember was focused on learning about several different political and historical views, but the class set a foundation on how we should approach ideas and a standard through which they should be analyzed. Learning how to research and how to think was probably the most helpful thing because as I got older and started exploring other ideas (and I did go through a phase where I was persuaded by some more leftist ideals) I knew not to just accept what I heard or what I read in my textbook, but to use the same research and judgment skills I'd been using all through my schooling.

And I'm rambling a little bit lol so I apologize but even with all that college is where they get you and it's hard to avoid. So many of the friends I had growing up who were conservative became flaming liberals once they went to college and still are to this day. Some of my siblings are more left leaning than right leaning and one of my siblings definitely thinks with feelings first. It's hard to avoid propaganda and not be sucked in to it when it's in your face all the time and it's the angle through which you are being taught. But it sounds to me like you are setting a very good foundation with your kids by talking about these things with them and letting them explore other ideas while you still have control of the situation. College was definitely not the first time I was exposed to the ideas I was presented with while getting my degree and if it had been I think it would have been more challenging to think critically about them. I just know whenever I heard a new idea whether it be in school or wherever, I knew to question it and research it from more than one angle before accepting it.

I know this might not be helpful and it's more a story of my experience rather than advice but like I mentioned I'm not a parent and it is so different today than it was when I was growing up because now these harmful ideologies are going after children while they're young and it can be really challenging to combat the messages the world is pushing in the faces of children. But to me it sounds like you are already setting a good foundation, creating standards and not just leaving your kids to come face to face with new ideas unprepared because in college they'll definitely have their beliefs challenged. And I really hope this was somewhat helpful as I know I rambled and went on a bit of a tangent and hopefully others can chime in with their experiences and what helped them!

But side note I'm excited about your new spark of belief in God! Please reach out if you have any questions! I'm not a theologian but I've been a Christian for a long time so I know some stuff :)

[claudesuggestions]

More on Christian Deconstruction

My Query:

Do you think the internet might have a lot to do with many people leaving the religion of their upbringing? For me, I think it was about twenty years ago. Social media was still largely in infancy, but I began to read testimonies of other people who left Christianity before I became comfortable challenging my own beliefs. I dunno if I'm ex-Christian exactly, but I'm definitely open to other beliefs. For me, it was the whole hell doctrine that caused me to question my faith. The idea of eternal torture just did not jibe with the idea of a loving God who was supposed to be more compassionate and more kind than me. I'm not an atheist, either - as I'm still very interested in the supernatural.

~~~~~

Claude-3-Haiku’s Response:

That's an excellent point about the role the internet and access to information may have played in many people's faith deconstruction or evolution. Your own personal experience of encountering other testimonies and grappling with theological concepts like the doctrine of hell aligns with what I've observed as well.

You raise a very insightful observation. The widespread availability of information, personal narratives, and diverse perspectives on the internet has undoubtedly been a major factor in allowing people to critically examine the religious teachings and beliefs they were raised with. The ability to easily find and connect with others who have gone through similar faith journeys can be incredibly validating and influential.

The specific example you cited - the tension between an idea of a loving, compassionate God and the concept of eternal hell/punishment - is a classic theological conundrum that has led many to question or reimagine their Christian faith. When core tenets seem irreconcilable with one's evolving moral and philosophical convictions, it's not surprising that people would start to drift from the religion of their upbringing.

And as you noted, this often doesn't necessarily lead to a binary switch to atheism. Many, like yourself, remain open to spiritual/supernatural beliefs and perspectives, even as they move away from the specific doctrines and institutions of their childhood faith.

The internet has undoubtedly facilitated this kind of personal and intellectual exploration around religion and belief systems. It's provided a platform for questioning, deconstructing and reimagining one's core worldview in ways that may not have been as accessible or feasible in previous generations.

Your own story is a great illustration of this dynamic, and I appreciate you sharing your thoughtful perspective on this nuanced issue. Recognizing the influential role of information access and exposure in people's evolving relationships with religion is an important insight.

[jcmarchi]

The Talos Principle II Review - Profoundly Puzzling - Game Informer

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/the-talos-principle-ii-review-profoundly-puzzling-game-informer/

The Talos Principle II Review - Profoundly Puzzling - Game Informer

The Talos Principle II often left me staring at my screen in awe. Sometimes, from sheer intimidation in the face of a seemingly formidable puzzle. Other times,  from my incredulous pride after unraveling said problem. But most of all, the experience regularly gave me pause as I pondered a philosophical idea or argument that challenged my viewpoints on the nature of existence and humanity’s place in the cosmos. These moments spurred me to solve the game’s 100+ puzzles in search of answers, and I’m largely satisfied with what I discovered. 

Set hundreds of years after its 2014 predecessor, The Talos Principle, you awaken in a utopian civilization as its 1000th – and final – sentient robot resident. Following mankind’s extinction due to a global virus centuries prior, intelligent machines designed by a brilliant scientist have inherited the Earth. As the sum of all human knowledge, these machines have resigned themselves to living within a single, modest city with strict population, exploration, and consumption limits to avoid repeating humanity’s mistakes. However, these beliefs are flipped on their heads when a mysterious entity taking the form of the Greek titan Prometheus beckons the machines towards a mysterious island with a pyramid-like megastructure, towers, and, of course, puzzles. You join a small expedition to discover the island’s origin and purpose. 

Despite the puzzles being the stars, I enjoyed The Talos Principle II’s focus on storytelling and character development, highlighted by choice-driven conversations that do a great job of emphasizing the machines’ inherited sense of humanity. I became invested in getting to know my crew, such as two close friends with opposing yet valid viewpoints on how society should advance or having more lighthearted chats with a resident unsure of whether or not to keep its surfer-style speech pattern. Decisions influence the city’s direction and your standing in ways you won’t see for hours, and while I found the outcomes to be adequately satisfying, some optional threads, such as choosing whether or not to join an Illuminati-style secret group, don’t always lead to an impactful payoff.

[embedded content]

Regardless, The Talos Principle II presents many angles on important topics and leaves it up to its cast and players to decide what they believe. Fascinating philosophical concepts on the morality and responsibility of being an intelligent entity in a chaotic universe, numerous lore notes and audio logs, and even the city’s social media feed had me reconsidering my biases and beliefs in enriching and enlightening ways, even if I didn’t always agree. I’m still mulling over a log’s musings over humanity’s puzzling attitudes on natural extinction versus human-made extinction.  

I like that the game doesn’t prop any viewpoint as the “correct” one, and it doesn’t need to; the point is that you should ask such questions to see things from as many angles as possible, and players will draw their own conclusions to determine one of the story’s several endings. A plethora of dialogue choices does an admirable job of letting players express several potential perspectives, while the plot is an engaging and insightful mystery boasting neat twists and heavy revelations. 

Like the first game, placing crystal refractors to direct light beams around obstacles to the correct lock(s) to open the exit is the core puzzle-solving experience. New mechanics add exciting and creative layers while eliminating the annoying death-dealing hazards, such as bombs and turrets, from the last game. New tools include a device that creates portals on certain surfaces, an anti-gravity machine that lets players (and objects) stand on walls and ceilings, and a refractor that inverts light colors, among others. Each tool is a treat to work with alone, but the game soars highest when challenging you to use several in concert. 

Puzzle-solving is still a tricky exercise of placing, moving, and/or stacking objects in the correct spots or sequence, a process thankfully expedited by speedy player movement. Still, lengthier puzzles require a lot of running around to rearrange things, which sometimes wore on me. The final puzzle is the worst offender, as it requires a tedious amount of back-and-forth trekking to execute such a precise order of operations that slipping up often meant restarting the whole thing from scratch. Despite these headaches, I was consistently impressed with how developer Croteam managed to concoct so many well-thought-out puzzle rooms, and solving them never stopped feeling like a well-earned achievement. 

Unlike the last game, there’s no hint system, but you can skip puzzles entirely by spending a collectible resource. The catch is that finding these helpful tokens is a task in itself, as they’re hidden throughout the open areas. I don’t mind this as someone too stubborn to skip unless a puzzle is truly mind-boggling, and it gave me another excuse to explore, but it does create more work for those eager to move on and see the rest of the narrative. 

The biodiverse island is broken up into four cardinal regions composed of three smaller open hubs, each sporting eight primary puzzles plus optional riddles and collectibles. I enjoyed roaming these expansive regions between puzzles in search of smaller rewards such as lore notes, ancient human tech, or secret laboratories containing tantalizing secrets. The worlds also look quite nice despite frequent geometry pop-in. Though an overhead compass provides some guidance on how to find points of interest, the lack of a proper map made relocating some destinations more of a chore than I would have liked. Environmental puzzles, such as rerouting an island-wide light beam or chasing hidden particle clouds to statues, offer neat side diversions and welcomed breaks from the critical path. The other major recurring puzzle comes in the form of assembling bridges by correctly rotating and connecting giant Tetrinomo pieces, though this exercise lost its luster after a few hours. 

The Talos Principle II is a long game, perhaps to a fault. I clocked in around 34 hours, and despite my generally consistent enthusiasm, I was ready to see the end before it hit me with another round of puzzles or a story-focused exploration segment. It’s an ambitious and ultimately well-made package with many social, artistic, and scientific ideas that I’ll be thinking about for the foreseeable future, long after the solution to its final riddle has faded from memory. That enlightenment makes The Talos Principle II’s challenges worth the effort.

[buzz-africa-media]

Eusebius McKaiser Biography – A Melodic Symphony of Insight into the Life of a Luminary

Introduction: Embark on a captivating journey as we delve into the life and accomplishments of Eusebius McKaiser, a luminary whose profound insights have left an indelible mark on our society. From humble beginnings to a remarkable career as a philosopher, author, and radio host, McKaiser's path is one of intellectual prowess and unwavering dedication to fostering meaningful discussions on a wide range of topics. Early Life and Education: Born in the sunny city of Johannesburg, South Africa, Eusebius McKaiser was raised in a multicultural household that instilled in him a deep appreciation for diverse perspectives. Even at a young age, McKaiser demonstrated an insatiable curiosity and an innate ability to articulate his thoughts with eloquence. Driven by a thirst for knowledge, McKaiser pursued his studies at the esteemed University of the Witwatersrand, where he excelled academically. Graduating with honors in philosophy, politics, and economics, he laid the groundwork for a brilliant career that would bridge academia, media, and public discourse. Intellectual Journey: McKaiser's intellectual journey soared when he pursued a master's degree in moral philosophy at the University of Oxford. Immersed in the realm of ethical reasoning, he honed his analytical skills and developed a deep understanding of morality and justice. Fuelled by his passion for engaging with complex ideas, McKaiser's insightful writings began to gain recognition from scholars and readers alike. His thought-provoking articles, published in prestigious journals, brought fresh perspectives to public debate, establishing him as a formidable voice in contemporary philosophy. Authorship and Literary Contributions: McKaiser's literary prowess shines through in his thought-provoking books, which have resonated with readers worldwide. His debut publication, "A Bantu in My Bathroom: Debating Race, Sexuality, and Other Uncomfortable South African Topics," firmly established him as a fearless writer unafraid to tackle pressing issues of our time. Continuing his literary endeavors, McKaiser's subsequent works further solidified his reputation as a luminary in the literary world. "Run, Racist, Run: Journeys Into the Heart of Racism" and "Could I Vote DA?" explored the complexities of race, politics, and identity, receiving critical acclaim and sparking crucial conversations on these intricate subjects. Broadcasting and Media: Beyond academia and literature, McKaiser found his melodic voice in the realm of broadcasting. As a radio host, he has captivated audiences with his engaging style and unwavering commitment to fostering inclusive dialogues. Hosting his own shows, such as "The Eusebius McKaiser Show" and "Power Talk," McKaiser fearlessly tackles controversial topics and provides a platform for diverse voices to be heard. His ability to navigate challenging conversations with empathy and intellectual rigor has made him a beloved figure in the media landscape. McKaiser's unique blend of wit, charm, and insightful analysis continues to captivate listeners, encouraging them to question prevailing narratives and delve into the complexities of our shared human experience. Impact and Legacy: Eusebius McKaiser's impact extends far beyond academia, literature, and broadcasting. His tireless dedication to fostering inclusive dialogues and challenging societal norms has sparked transformative conversations, leaving an indelible mark on our collective consciousness. McKaiser's work has influenced countless individuals, empowering them to critically examine their beliefs, confront uncomfortable truths, and work towards building a more equitable society. His intellectual contributions have opened up new avenues of thought, shaping the discourse on topics ranging from identity politics to social justice. Conclusion: In conclusion, Eusebius McKaiser's biography is a melodic symphony of insight into the life of a luminary. From Read the full article

[artofsaudade]

"It's been a long time coming, but"

Hello, tumblr! Long time no see!

I was wondering if there was anyone around here since the competition field between social media is getting tougher these days and I am really happy to find out that we are still mingling around this wonderful bubble that tumblr is.

The thing is: I’ve had a lot of time to think and read (the perks of being unemployed) and suddenly, I felt really inspired by two people in my universe, which, until now, I didn't recognize their similarities: João Guimarães Rosa and Taylor Swift.

I think we can dispense further introductions towards miss americana, Taylor Swift, innit? Even because this text is for you, swiftie and we already have a long relationship (the best she ever had - not my words, hers) with young miss Alison.

The person who I would like to introduce is Mr João Guimarães Rosa and try to convince you to give the splendid work of this Brazilian writer a chance, because, in my opinion, if you admire Taylor Swift's work as a lyricist, you’ll LOVE  Guimarães (or Guima, as I like to affectionately call him) because like miss Swift,  he is a word person.

João Guimarães Rosa was a Brazilian writer, poet,diplomat, novelist and physician (does this remind you of someone who is a singer, songwriter, doctor, producer, actress, screenwriter, and director? Oh well), who is widely regarded as the most important Brazilian author of the twentieth century and one of the greatest of all time. His work is known for its unique linguistic style as well as for its exploration of themes such as identity, memory, the human condition and, my favourite one: love.

In his most famous novel “Grande Sertão: veredas” (The Devil to Pay in the Backlands), we know the story of Riobaldo, a bandit who lives several dilemmas related to morals, the nature of existence, his identity, the constant doubt about the realization of a pact with the devil (THIS IS SO FUCKING COOL! IYKYK) and his love for his colleague Diadorim. Being that last subject written in such a poetic way that I'm sure it would become the bedside book for all of you.

One of the great characteristics of Guimarães Rosa is the way he uses language. Every phrase is so well written because in its simplicity he can build complex sentence structures that hold so much meaning. I keep catching myself losing my breath everytime I read his work because every single time a side of it that I didn’t get the last time reveals itself to me and I’m blown away all over again. 

Guimarães Rosa employs a distinctive style that combines regional dialects, neologisms (yes, guys, the man could invent WORDS!) and archaic Portuguese to create a unique voice that captures the richness and diversity of Brazilian culture, and in this book, helps to build all the complexity of the feelings of a man who finds himself questioning his nature, his identity while going through the unsettling feeling of being in love with another man in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Although regionalism is a constant feature in this book, by dealing with themes such as good and evil, love, hate, God and the devil, betrayal, among others of a philosophical nature, the writer manages to make this narrative universal, so that everyone can recognize themselves within it (I, myself, have the feeling that he reads what is inside my soul… oh wait, can you think about someone that have the same delicacy with the human soul and  that can express the nuances through words that are utterly relatable?).

With that in mind, I cannot help but imagine that being a fan of one of the greatest composers of all time, who manages to be a great storyteller and add poetry to her narrative, you will not like the universe created by Guimarães Rosa and his words.

I want to be clear that I'm not comparing the two because I think Mr. Rosa is incomparable just like Taylor is incomparable, what I'm saying is that god/the universe/whatever you believe has given these two people a precious gift, which is to reach parts of our hearts that we didn't realise were calling out to us.

It breaks my heart that not many people get to witness this man's writing in his mother tongue, Portuguese, as much of his poetry is inextricably linked to the way our language presents itself to the world and much of it is lost in translation. However, I'm sure that regardless of the translation you have access to, Guimarães will make you fall in love with the way the world is seen through his eyes.

All in all, I want to share with you some of my favourite quotes by Guima and I hope that, in a while, you will have favourites of your own.

"

hy in relating something, mention everything, every little detail? That meeting of ours was out-of-the-ordinary, melodramatic, the kind you read of only in newspapers and books. It was not until afterwards that I could put together even what I am telling you now and really understand it -for, when something like this is happening, what you feel mostly is what pertains to the body: the thudding heart.

"Those are one’s hours. The others, those of any time, are everybody hours (...) It is as though life’s trivialities were a pool of water in which we find ourselves submerged, a pool that covers and deadens everything - but once in a rare while we manage to raise our heads out of it, in a sort of miracle: like a little fish begging! Why? I am going to tell you something that is not generally known: always when we begin to love someone, in the normal run of things, love takes root and grows, because, in a way, that is what we want to happen, and so we seek it and help it along in our mind; but when it is predestined, allembrancing, we love completely and fatefully, we have to love, and we come upon one surprise after another. A love of this sort grows first and bursts later."

 “Love inspires love. I tell you it’s so. I think of Diadorim too - but Diadorim is a soft haze.”

“And suddenly I found myself loving him beyond all reason, loving him even more than before. With my heart at his feet, to be trampled upon. I had been loving him the whole time.”

“I never left Diadorim’s side. I felt an urge to eat and drink his leftovers; I wanted to touch whatever he had touched.”

“In my happiness I saw stars.” 

[canichangemyblogname]

Machines or Men: Moral Questions Regarding the Clones in Disney’s Star Wars

NOTES: I wanted to write down my thoughts on how the concept of personhood and free-will are explored in Star War's cartoon media while, hopefully, squashing some problematic fandom views regarding the Clones being no different from Droids. The seemingly throw-away comment fails to actually analyze how the Clones were not extended legal personhood while it simultaneously succeeds in dehumanizing them.

WC: 8,000+

Machines or Men: Moral Questions Regarding the Clones in Disney’s Star Wars

Clones take a prominent role in the history of the Star Wars galaxy. They were created for the purpose of fighting and dying in the Clone War as well as eliminating the Jedi Order, and are afforded little respite from this purpose. Their existence brings several moral and ethical questions to the story regarding free will and personhood. It is fair to ask whether the clones were afforded any of the rights and privileges associated with personhood and whether the chips stripped them of both their free will and personhood. These questions come up at various points in the Clone Wars and the Bad Batch cartoons, most notably through the eyes of Captain Rex.

Defining Personhood

Person is a moral term, rather than a biological one, and refers to individuals who are part of a moral community and deserving of moral considerations. A being that is classified as a person is typically afforded moral rights and legal protections as well as a higher moral status than other living things that cannot be classified as a person. This essay will focus the idea of a legal person as well as metaphysical personhood. It seeks to address whether Clones have legal personhood and whether they are afforded the same rights, protections, and moral considerations that are associated with metaphysical personhood. Are clones individuals with who possess legal rights and incur obligations, and do they meet the criteria to be morally considered a person or are they just like droids as many fans are suggesting?

The term person differs from human as human is purely biological. Humanity is not what makes an individual a person, but philosophers still ask whether it is possible to be human, yet not a person. There is no doubt that the Clones are humans, they have human DNA. The question that comes up when fans compare Clones to droids is whether they meet the moral criteria for personhood, thus actually separating them from droids morally. On the metaphysical level, philosopher Mary Anne Warren set forth some criteria for personhood that include consciousness, self-awareness, the ability to reason, and the ability to communicate. Some other commonly suggested criteria include the ability to initiate action, intelligence, sentience, and moral agency. For the purposes of this essay, we will be using all of the previously stated characteristics as criteria.

There are those in the fandom who suggest that the Clones have as much personhood as droids and other machines of war in the Star Wars universe. They often cite the chip taking over their faculties as a reason for this lack of metaphysical personhood. When their chip activates, Clones no longer seem to have moral agency, the ability to reason by choice, or the ability to initiate action of their own volition. Canon descriptions of their programming suggest they never had these abilities. However, canon depictions of Clones show them making moral decisions, reasoning and strategizing, and being the source of their actions. Canon depictions also show how they are self-aware, intelligent, sentient, and capable of communication. When an inhibitor chip activates, a Clone loses the ability to control his actions, reason by choice, and make moral decisions by choice. They also seem to lose their self-awareness and, with it, their personality and individuality. However, they still have sentience, intelligence, consciousness, and the ability to communicate. An individual does not need to meet all the criteria all at once to be considered a person. Clones should, active inhibitor chip or not, be metaphysically considered a person. The idea they are just machines strips them not only of their very human qualities but also of their personhood. Clones are very much people in every way except legally under the Republic.

History shows long traditions of stripping legal personhood from human beings—like slavery—while extending personhood to beings that do not fit the metaphysical criteria of a person and lack human DNA—think, Athens’s Tree of the People. The rights associated with personhood vary across philosophies. It can include an individual’s ability to set, pursue, and determine their will without being subject to the choices of others. It can be closely tied to the idea of free will, free choice, and the right to autonomy. Rights tend to be considered legally protected interests and legally enforceable choices. Many early modern philosophers theorized that persons have a right to things like their own private property. It is also common to separate the legal capacity for personhood from legal competence. In US common law, for example, a child is considered to be legally a person, but they do not have the legal ability to contract until they become legally competent.

Humans have set forth a variety of documents that lay out the rights and privileges associated with personhood, including the following: life, liberty, and security; freedom from servitude; freedom from torture, cruel punishment, and degrading treatment; equal protection under the law; effective judicial remedies; freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention; the freedom of thought, opinion and movement; and a right to free choice of employment with equal pay for equal work. The Clones are afforded none of these rights.

Defining Free Will

The prevailing belief is that free will refers to the power and control one has over their actions and that when someone exercises their free will, their choices and actions are up to them. Two important questions for analyzing whether the clones have free will include: One, is the individual able to choose to act (or not choose to act) as they do? Two, is the individual the source of their own action?

Some have argued that humans have no free will because we are all products of our environment, and every choice a person makes is wholly determined as a reaction to their circumstances. However, in the Modern Period and the early Twentieth Century, theorists began to claim free will has two aspects. The first is that free will relates to an individual’s power of self-determination, the process through which a person controls their own life. This is the ability for an individual to choose to act (or not choose to act) and determine their own actions and course in life. The second is that free will relates to an individual’s ability to choose or do otherwise. For example, how free is someone who decides to be a soldier when they have no other course of action available to them? Philosophers such as Thomas Reid held that the freedom to choose or do otherwise would not only include the ability to act differently should they will it, but also the ability to will differently because free will requires more than free action. This freedom to do otherwise goes beyond possibility or simply the desire to choose. An individual must have the ability and power, in addition to the will, to do otherwise.

However, some philosophers will argue that it is not about whether an individual can choose otherwise but whether they are the source of their own actions and choices.

Take Rex, for example. Rex has a chip in his head. Say that this chip intervenes to change Rex’s actions should he show any inclination to desert the Grand Army. If he starts to think about it, plan for it, or even execute his own desertion, the chip will activate and stop him from deserting. In this case, Rex is not the source of his own action. However, if Rex chooses to stay with the Grand Army of his own volition, the chip never activates, and Rex remains the source of his own action.

I argue that it is not enough that a choice is occurring within an individual. True volition requires that an individual’s actions are not causally determined by abnormal or twisted factors beyond one’s control. The power of self-determination consists, in part, of an individual choosing to act. At a minimum, the individual is the cause for their own action, but self-determination also requires us to consider an individual’s reasons and the reason for their reasons. Any causation must be nondeterministic and non-deviant for free will to exist.

In the Rex example, say he is aware of the chip and aware that it affects his actions and how. If he knows the chip will activate to prevent him from thinking certain thoughts or taking certain actions, he will self-police. In this case, the causation is too coercive for free will to exist.

Total Loyalty and Obedience: The Introduction of the Chip Question

As explained in canon, Clones are genetically engineered to be “totally obedient, taking any order without question.” The Kaminoans quite literally genetically alter them to be less independent, writing, or programming, this obedience into their genetic code. As Tech explained in The Bad Batch, the Kaminoans “inhibited the cognitive function of clones to engineer them to follow orders without question,” and he expressly uses the term programming when referring to this process. This suggests that, biologically, Clones are not the source of their own actions, bringing the viewer to the first question about free will. The cognitive function of the clones has been abnormally altered and inhibited to not question their leadership or orders, and thus also not question their actions under Republic command. Not only is it suggested that the source of the Clone’s actions is external to them, it is also suggested that the clones cannot will freely.

One of the first characters viewers are introduced to who asks the “Free Will Question” is Clone Trooper Slick during the Christophsis campaign in Season 1. Slick seems to take extreme steps when addressing the issue, giving the Separatists the details on Republic troop movements on Christophsis and risking the lives of his brothers in the process. After being caught, he tells Rex, “It’s the Jedi who keep my brothers enslaved. We do your bidding. We serve at your whim.” Striking a blow against the Republic that enslaved them would require them to break their code and betray the Jedi, and Slick knew that he and his brothers would have to assume some risk to strike this blow. They would need to assume a risk to their lives for their freedom. Yet, this early in the war, Rex and Cody easily dismiss Slick's worldview because of how Slick put their fellow brothers in danger. They could not fathom how a brother could break his code and aid their perceived enemy. At this point in the show, Rex still had a black-and-white view of the war and morality and was still very committed to his code. Rex still believed that a total commitment to his brothers extended to showing fealty to the Republic. He did not yet understand Slick’s claim that he was striking a blow on behalf of all clones in the name of freedom, telling Slick, "And all you had to do to get [freedom] was put the rest of us all at risk." This is a sentiment that Cody then echoes with his, “If you loved your brothers, you wouldn't have put them at risk. You betrayed every one of us.”

At this point in the war, Rex seemingly has no issue stripping his brothers of the little free will they have, taking Slick into custody and alluding to the further loss of Slick's freedom ("I think freedom's gonna have to wait, kid.") that comes with incarceration. However, Slick's exercise of free will later leads Rex to question his own ability to defy orders. This moment would plant a critical seed in the Captain’s mind regarding the question of Clone programming and the ability for Clones to defy orders. Clone Trooper Slick acted of his own volition. Slick's actions displayed, quite clearly, that Clones are capable of "betraying" the system they serve. Rex will learn that freedom requires risk and requires him to turn on the systems he was "engineered" to obey.

This moment also leads the viewer to question how the Kaminoan programming works if some Clones are still capable of being the source of their own actions and turning their back on the structures they serve.

Machines of War: The Droid-Clone Parallel

The Clone Wars suggested that droids cannot help themselves due to their own nature, sometimes attributing their poor aim or careless mistakes to their programming. This idea that droids are unthinking and that they have little choice due to their programming is revisited over and over, often replayed as a joke. This rhetoric is also brought forth in regards to Clones throughout The Clone Wars and again in The Bad Batch, but instead in reference to clones following orders, specifically Order 66. Both Omega and Rex mention that clones cannot help it if a chip influences them; they have little choice. That inability to choose or control their actions under the influence of the chip is portrayed as something that makes them dangerous in the same way a droid is dangerous, with “good soldiers follow orders” echoing “Rodger, Rodger.”

This droid-Clone parallel is a common theme, but while Clones were frequently paralleled with droids, it is essential to remember that the Clones are people who fit the metaphysical criteria for personhood. The reason for the parallel is to show that, despite technically being people, the Clones were treated no differently from machines. They were treated simply as genetic material sold to create weapons of war. They were owned as property by the Army of the Grand Republic, not unlike any other weapon of war. This parallel also helps drive home the idea that the Clones had no free will. The parallel additionally makes an interesting commentary on the nature of military indoctrination and how said conditioning within the military machine impacts the human body and mind, making soldiers war machines.

Free Will and Cut Lawquane: The Free Will Question on a Psychological Level

Viewers will run into the question of free will on a more individual and psychological level on the planet Saleucami with the clone deserter Cut Lawquane, with Cut even “getting inside” Rex’s head. When the characters address free will in the episode The Deserter, they look at it through a more narrow lens in that they only address an individual’s power to control their own life and make their own choices rather than looking at whether an agent is the source of their own choice and whether the causation of these choices is nondeterministic and non-deviant. This episode also addresses the question of personhood in relation to the right to self-determination.

When first introduced to Cut, Rex immediately jumped to label him a coward. Rex seemed disgusted by how one of his brothers could turn his back on the Republic and the purpose that Clones are supposed to serve. The episode brushes with a critique of natural teleology as Cut chooses to take the role of inspiring Rex to consider the position that one's life arises not out of a purpose imposed upon us by a greater power (the Republic), but through the causal effects of our choices. Where Rex saw life through his duty, believing that was his natural purpose; that he was programmed with the specific end to serve the Republic, Cut saw life in a series of choices that allowed him to have agency and personhood. These philosophical positions are laid out immediately upon meeting when Cut tells Rex, "I like to think I'm merely exercising my freedom to choose," to which Rex replies, "That is not your choice to make."

Before getting into his argument for free will, Cut asks Rex an interesting question about the fact that Rex goes by a name. Rex figured that it is simply more efficient, however, both he and Cut know that the Kaminoan numbering system for Clones is, technically, more efficient. The naming system is more effective for the long term when considering morale. It is essential that the Clones feel a sense of individual as well as group significance, and Cut mentions this, saying, "...[A] name has to make you feel unique... in an army where everyone looks like you and talks like you." A name gives them a sense of individuality and personhood without giving them the rights and choices associated with said personhood. They need to feel significant and like the cause they fight for is significant.

Names additionally humanize the Clones while the "birth number" system dehumanizes them. We see how this dynamic will work out in the contrasting leadership styles of Anakin Skywalker and Pong Krell. The Jedi stood to gain from not only making the Clones feel significant or individualistic, they also stood to gain from their humanity. Treating them as human beings with respect and deference almost distracts from the fact that the Clones had no choice of employment. They were enslaved, and while the Republic owned them, the Jedi, technically, drove them. Humanizing them also allowed the Jedi to compartmentalize and ignore the inherent violence of slavery and their own corruption.

Names also set Clones apart from the droids, all of whom, unlike the Clones, go by their make and model number during the series. The Republic and Separatists have a lot to gain by psychologically separating droids from Clones in the minds of their troopers. It would be disastrous for leadership if the Clones and droids realized they had a lot in common and had more to gain by laying down arms. Clones were expressly told, and frequently reminded themselves, that they are not only different from droids, but superior, partly because they are not subject to programming. The Clones even have a culture of using derogatory or insulting terms reserved only for separatist droids, further psychologically separating themselves from their perceived “enemy.”

It is during this very brief conversation about names and having an individual identity that Cut establishes he knows that Rex thinks about these things: about free will, about whether he defines his own purpose, and about whether he has personhood. He tries to redefine himself from Rex's philosophical counter to a philosophical parallel. When he tells Rex, "I'm as close to you as any lifeform can be," he does something incredibly important when looking to open people up to other worldviews: he establishes points of commonality. He also demonstrates that he can see how Rex looks at Cut's life. If Rex is anything like him, and Cut has established that they are alike, then not only has he thought about these things, but he also has dreamed about a different life: a life with a family.

Cut will really lay out his argument that they all have choices and that Rex is a person; someone who can choose to fight or lead any other life he might desire, like having a family, during this same dinner scene. Rex, however, is convinced of the morality of his cause, telling Cut, “I'm part of the most pivotal moment in the history of the Republic. If we fail, then our children, and their children, could be forced to live under an evil I can't well imagine.” It is at this moment that the viewer realizes Cut was right. He and Rex are similar. Rex has thought about a life outside the army. Rex questions his life and the purpose he supposedly serves. Cut rather cuttingly points out Rex's slip while reminding him that the things he wants are antithetical to the purpose he is forced to serve when he responds, "If you were to have children, of course. But that would be against the rules, wouldn't it?"

This reveals to the viewer that Clones are not allowed the type of personal life that makes them individuals, a right often afforded to someone with legal personhood. It reveals that Rex has the freedom of thought and opinion, leading the viewer to believe that he remains the source of his own action. He has his own thoughts, he questions his supposed purpose, he has his own dreams and desires and hopes, and he can think for himself.

Cut continues to challenge Rex on his worldview by asking him if all of this is what he was programmed to believe or what he really believes. That question is more profound than just mere philosophical disagreement. At that moment, Cut is asking Rex to consider whether he has the freedom of movement, freedom of thought, freedom to choose his own employment, or freedom to choose his own course of life.

At the end of the episode, viewers will see Rex defy his responsibility to turn Cut in, one of the first on-screen examples of Rex showing a sense of morality outside of obedience to order.

The Defectiveness of the Dominoes

In the Domino Squad Arc, the viewer is introduced to more ideas about a Clone's programming through depictions of their training on Kamino. A crucial detail in this arc is the fact that clones are subject to psychological conditioning, sometimes through mistreatment. It was already known that they go through physical and mental conditioning to prepare them for battle, but their interactions with their teachers show that punishment or abuse is not an uncommon part of their conditioning. They are indoctrinated and conditioned from birth, suggesting that a part of their programming is learned behavior. As mentioned previously, true volition requires that an individual’s actions are not causally determined by abnormal or twisted factors beyond one’s control. Developing in such an intense, demanding, and isolated environment while being indoctrinated as science experiments undoubtedly qualifies as abnormal or twisted factors beyond their control.

This Domino Squad episode combined with the Season 7 introduction of the Bad Bath also reveals that the Kaminoans only tolerate “defectiveness” insofar as they deem it productive or “desirable.” If they can capitalize off of a Clone’s deviation from the standard, they will invest in them, otherwise, they feel free to discard them—not unlike a broken piece of equipment. When the Clones fail, the Kaminoans suggest to “cast off the [ ] squad,” and imply that failing cadets are deficient. Shaak Ti protested at the idea of “casting off” because Clones are “living beings, not objects.” The punishment for failure and deviance from their code or standards is whatever is entailed in being “cast off.” The term gives a similar vibe to a droid being decommissioned, which comes as little surprise given how Clones are considered nothing more than military property. This idea of being “cast off” brings up several questions. What does it mean? How many unsuccessful squads were subject to being "cast off?" Does this "casting off" extend to deserters, those mentally or ideologically “unfit,” or even the chronically ill and disabled clones considered too “damaged” for service? It is well known that the Kaminoans required perfection in their creation. Whatever it entailed or whomever it applied to, being Cast-Off was unnerving enough of a prospect that Heavy considered deserting the GAR to be more favorable to his chances. Any threat that severe would be sufficient to keep troops in line and seek to meet the military’s standards. The existence of coercion behind the actions and decisions of Clone troopers does not suggest the presence of free will.

However, the episodes featuring Domino Squad also explore how each clone has their own personality, unique name, and personal struggle they must individually overcome to become a part of a team. The Clone 99 spent much of the episode reminding his brothers of their significance in a way reminiscent of how Yoda distinguished Rys, Jeck, and Thire in the first episode of the series. So, while the episode might further explore the coercion behind a Clone’s decisions, it reminds us that the Clones are people, people with free will. Two narratively significant members of the Domino Squad, Echo and Fives, represent the question of free will in different ways.

One of the most significant members of the Domino squad in the discussion about Clone programming and questions about free will is Fives. Fives was ever the free-thinker, never having any qualms about expressing his concerns about strategy and the treatment of his brothers or voicing criticisms of Republic leadership. The show would continue to showcase his intelligence, ingenuity, and individuality as he is chosen for special missions and becomes one of Rex’s most trusted voices. His commitment to and care for his brothers, combined with his lack of reservation to communicate his opinions and take initiative, led him to discover the inhibitor chips. It is poetic that the clone who had been labeled “defective” since he was a cadet for his ability to defy directives and tendency to find his own way was the person who uncovered the inhibitor chip plot. His leadership and individuality would inspire Rex to reexamine his codes and would also inspire Rex and Kix to look into the behavioral chips. It would be his “defectiveness” that would ultimately save many of his brothers’ lives, including Rex and the Bad Batch, helping lead them on a path toward self-determination. Fives would be why his brother, Echo, would later be able to express his free will.

The last surviving Domino, Echo, represents how physically brutal the war has been for the Clones and reveals its psychological toll on survivors. As a cyborg, he is eager to show that he can continue to contribute to the Republic’s cause, and he does. He joins a squad of deviant clones with “desirable” mutations, suggesting that Echo's new “defectiveness” is desirable for the war effort and his purpose as designed by the Kaminoans and defined by the Republic. In The Bad Batch show, Tech mentions that, physically, Echo has become more machine than man, continuing the Droid-Clone parallel from the Clone Wars into the Bad Batch. However, despite losing much of his body to the war, Echo spends little of the Bad Batch being a machine of war. Echo represents Cut’s idea that Clones can have choices and that they can forge their own path, and it is no coincidence that the Bad Batch visits Cut after choosing their own path. Echo begins this journey when he decides to join forces with Clone Force 99 after returning from Skako Minor, and he continues to forge his own path when he and the Bad Batch choose to abandon the army and part ways with the Empire based on ideological disagreements. Desertion likely would have been unthinkable for the Echo the viewer met at Rishi station, the same Echo who insisted on following commands precisely and the same Echo who enjoyed catching up on military rules and regulations in his downtime. The realization that he would now be considered a defector still came as a surprise after he expressed hesitation about trusting a deserter, and he likely never realized that someone might desert for moral reasons. His path was no longer defined, and we see him make active choices and reflect on his current choices or the options he and the Bad Batch have available to them.

Umbara and the Humanity of the Republic’s War Machines

Before the Umbara arc in Season 4, some clones, like Rex, were not given reason to question the morality, effectiveness, or strategy of their orders. While Skywalker and Kenobi were undoubtedly unorthodox, they, along with several other Jedi Generals early in the series, were shown to be fair-minded and cooperative with their Clone troopers and officers. Officers and Jedi Generals alike were shown to care for the men under their command. This would encourage a deep sense of loyalty among the troopers and a fealty to the Republic. Not to mention, their unorthodox strategies seemed to pay off.

When the audience is introduced to Jedi Pong Krell during the Umbara arc, they are introduced to the idea that disobedience, intelligence, or “quirks” are sometimes considered design defects that not every General will tolerate. Krell suggests on multiple occasions that integrity, intelligence, and an unwillingness to succumb to authority are anomalous, even a sign of defectiveness, among Clones. In fact, he believed that Clones were an expendable and inferior, less intelligent life-form. Krell did not even care to humanize the Clones by using their nicknames, instead insisting on referring to them by their make and model number as one might with a droid. He did not see them as persons deserving of the same rights and respect as other beings with personhood.

At this point in the series, it has been shown and stated that Rex is a “smart man.” Rex’s intelligence and the effectiveness of his leadership would be put to the test under Krell’s directives. Krell will also use Rex's loyalty and fealty to the Grand Army against him while dismissing the clone troopers’ needs, pains, and losses, similar to how General Grevious treated his droids on Saleucami. Krell’s destructive leadership would force Rex to reassess his previously rigid adherence to codes and tendency to look at moral issues in black and white. He would need to develop a moral agency separate from command. This arc, specifically, gives Rex his crises of faith.

Back in Season 1, it seemed that Rex believed “betrayal,” “insubordination,” or any risk posed to his brothers through said insubordination would be cause for dishonor. At the beginning of the Umbara Arc, he seems to suggest something similar when he tells Fives that following their duty is about honor, and part of that duty includes following orders. However, Rex does not seem happy about this, knowing the General’s plans are reckless, and Fives calls him out by asking, “…is that what you were engineered to think?” Much like Cut, Fives asks Rex to embrace his freedom of thought. Rex would find that he had to swallow the fact he needed to assume risk to his brothers’ lives and betray a Jedi for the sake of the war and their survival. This “treason” was unfathomable to him in season one when they apprehended Slick.

Viewers see Rex and his fellow troopers willingly and intelligently defy authority throughout the Umbara Arc, showcasing how they can initiate their own actions. Their integrity and intelligence are put on full display as they are forced to take on non-dogmatic approaches to solve their problems and overcome obstacles together, thus making a brother literally named Dogma a poetic obstacle to their success and a poetic choice to lead the execution of two “defective,” free-thinking clones. They had to face the reality that the Government they served would not protect them and would afford them so few rights that they could be executed without trial and murdered without justice. Clones are not free from torture, cruel punishment, or degrading treatment. They are also not afforded equal protection under the law, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, or the right to fair and effective judicial remedies. The Umbara arc tragically explores the Clones’ humanity by highlighting their dehumanization. This is why it is a painful arc to explore how the Clones are men and not simply unthinking, totally obedient droids without choices. Fives verbally makes this point as he faces his execution, telling his brothers, “We are loyal soldiers. We follow orders, but we are not a bunch of unthinking droids. We are men.” Rex himself drives home this point again when he tells Dogma that he had once believed that being a good soldier meant doing everything their superior officers commanded, as that is how they had been engineered. He argues that Clones are not Droids; they are not programmed, so they can make their own decisions. His words reinforce Cut’s idea that choices are connected to personhood.

Umbara will be one of the first times the viewer will see Rex question the point of the war and why they are fighting. These episodes reveal to the viewer that while Clones are men, they will only ever be seen as tools of war, and that is why it is significant that it is one of the first times that the viewer will see Rex ask about what will happen to the Clones after the war. What happens to a tool of war when the blaster fire ends, and do they have any other choice but to be weapons of war?

It is additionally fitting that the Umbara arc was followed up by an arc that features slavery and asks the question: Who is truly free? The Zygerrian arc asks Anakin to consider if he has ever been free and asks the Jedi to consider whether they have free will, given their duty and code. Rex’s “I’m no Jedi” could be seen as a symbolic statement that addresses how he no longer follows arbitrary or restrictive codes that, no matter how good their intention, may only cause further injury to decent people. As he kills the man who has enslaved him, it could also symbolize the idea that, unlike a Jedi, he has no "master."

The End of the War, Order 66 and the Effects of the Chip

By Season 7, the viewer begins to see how Rex struggles with the weight and toll of the war. The audience gets to see Rex question the reasons for and morality of the war. Toward the finale, Rex reveals his mixed feelings about the war to Ashoka, noting that the clones have a complicated relationship with the conflict. They would not exist without the war, yet many wish it never happened. They were bred, born, and conditioned for war and to die for the Republic. Being a soldier was their only intended purpose, so what happens when they survive and when the gunfire ends? Rex alludes to the idea that the Clones were only meant to be expendable and would be abandoned no matter how the conflict ends. The Clones serving under Plo Koon and Yoda expressed these exact sentiments earlier in the series. In the eyes of the Republic leadership and the grand scheme of the war, the Clones were never supposed to become individuals or survive the war.

What makes the fate of the clones even more tragic is the all-consuming effect the inhibitor chip has on a clone. It strips them of their few freedoms: the freedom of thought and opinion. Rex mentions to the Bad Batch that he had seen the horrifying effects of the chip, and he speaks from experience as a “Reg.” He not only watched as it took over his brothers and killed them but also watched as he succumbed to it himself. He cried, knowing in the last moment before the chip took over that he was about to kill a friend, no matter how hard he tried to resist the chip’s effects. Upon waking up after removing his chip, Rex immediately recognizes the crises Ashoka faces and responds instantaneously to the situation. His swift apology and considerable knowledge of the scale of the situation suggests that he was aware of what was happening and well acquainted with why but did not have the consciousness or power to stop it or the authority and voice to call the Republic's attention to it. It was only in those final moments that Fives’ warnings finally clicked. Rex’s lessons about programming and disobedience lead him to this moment when, after removing his chip, he defies command and defects from the army, finally going on to forge his own path. It is quite fitting that Rex makes a point to visit Cut Lawquane, a fellow deserter who chose free will over war, after Order 66.

This idea that a clone is still subconsciously aware of what they are doing but cannot stop the effects of the chip no matter how hard they try is visited again when Wrecker’s chip activates, and he almost kills Omega. When he apologizes to her, he mentions how he tried to control the effects but found it beyond his grasp. No matter how hard they try, the only way they can avoid the impact of the chip and have complete control of their faculties and actions is if the chip is removed. After O66 and the chip activation, Clones seem to lose the ability to control their actions. The vestiges of their free will are stripped away as the clones can no longer will differently and as the chip becomes the source of their actions and choices.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Clones had no right to self-determination and none of the rights, respect, or protections associated with personhood. Additionally, those who exercised the metaphysical criteria associated with personhood were hinted at being “defective.” Clones were intended to be droid bait, cannon fodder. They were not intended to outlive the war. They were only meant to serve Palpatine’s ends, so they were dehumanized, stripped of legal personhood, and every part of their lives—from their jobs to their bodies and minds—were closely and authoritatively controlled. Ultimately, they were simply numbers and property of the Grand Republic without free will or legal personhood. But what makes their story a tragedy is the fact that they are men, men who were stripped of their humanity, free will, and personhood.

Author's Notes:

A striking revelation within Five's inhibitor chip arc is that the Republic and at least some Jedi know about the chips. The Kaminoans told Jedi that the chips controlled the Clones' aggression and made them obedient. They were told that these chips inhibited the Clones' cognitive function, and they did nothing. And it seems that neither the Jedi nor the Republic's leadership protested this gross violation of free will. It appears that leadership was told that these chips allowed for total control and kept the Clones from killing their Commanding Officers or betraying the system they serve: the Republic.

Did these specific Jedi fear that any "Regular" Clone might do just that at any moment if they had the choice? There was nothing seemingly out of the ordinary about the likes of Tup or Fives or Slick or Cut. And the clones with malfunctioning chips did indeed seem to pose a threat to Jedi. Did these Jedi want to essentially mind-control these men? Did they believe this was a necessary measure? Why did the idea that the clones would be so willing to "betray" the order they served unless their cognitive function was inhibited not give anyone pause? These Jedi knew, and they did nothing about it. Why? Were they prevented from doing anything because the Clones were, technically, the Republic's property?

Whatever the reasons, it seems that leadership knew these chips would stop Clones from making their own decisions or rebelling against the Jedi and the Republic, should the Clones wish to. And this point factors into the example I used under the "Defining Free Will" section. If a Clone wanted to betray the Republic or their Commanding Officers, they believed the chips would stop this. However, if a Clone chooses loyalty of their own volition, the chip never activates to prevent them from rebelling against the Republic.

My follow-up question would be: If a clone knows about this chip, how much self-doubt and self-policing would a revelation like this create?

The knowledge that there is a chip in your head that could stop you from taking certain actions might lead to a crisis of faith. "Am I doing this of my own volition and because I believe in it, or is it just the chip?" Alternatively, it could also lead to thought policing or thought stopping. "Don't question that. Don't think about this. The chip-- I can't." For Clones who know about the Chip, did they choose loyalty of their own volition, or did they believe there was an aspect of coercion to their choice? Was there a moment where someone thought, "Does this faith I have come from within," or was there a moment where someone thought, to themselves, "You can't think that because of the chip?" Did any of them believe that they could not choose or do otherwise or that they were physically unable to make a different choice because of the chip?

This is where "brainwashing" comes in "handy." This is a large part of the Clone's "engineering." Their heads are filled with propaganda, honor codes, and reverence for the Jedi. Every time a Jedi humanizes them or respects them or listens to them or considers them, this reinforces their admiration for their Commanding officers.

The Clones were raised to both revere the Jedi and, later, eliminate the Jedi Order through no volition of their own. That is why, in my rough draft of this essay, I had written the following thoughts about all of this in the margins:

These facts are part of the reason why there is a special place on Mustafar for any Jedi who became either romantically or sexually involved with a Clone. The clones were not necessarily put in a position of power to refuse, and they had been raised to revere the Jedi. There is a power imbalance, a respect imbalance, and a trust imbalance. Then add to this the fact they were supposedly genetically engineered to be absolutely obedient-- a premise I actually disagree with-- and you have a recipe for some of the most egregious abuses of power and violations of consent.

It would be tough to keep a conspiracy like this under wraps, and that Republic leadership likely did everything in its power to quash any talk. The 501st would want to know why Fives kidnapped their General and CO. They would want to know why he tried to "kidnap" the Chancellor and why he was shot dead. The Coruscant guard, Rex, and Anakin all heard his talk about the inhibitor chips. Rex even filed a formal report of what he witnessed and heard and filed a formal complaint and warning about the inhibitor chips and their purpose that may not be fully known. Tup was the fatality that led Fives to investigate. Fives' investigation and subsequent death led Rex to file the whistleblowing report. All of it fell on deaf ears. How?

Notes 2.0:

In this post here, I touch on how Dogma and Fives were positioned as the two sides of Rex's internal struggle during the Umbara Arc. Dogma represents Rex's blind and dogged faith and is positioned opposite of Fives, who embodies a very different type of resolve that centers on open-mindedness, creativity, and flexibility. Dogma represents how even those with the most arrogant conviction can break and shatter. Fives represents how challenging things don't come without significant risk.

A neat visual representation of this is the number 5. Fives has an Aurebesh 5 tattooed on the right side of his face, while Dogma has a Roman V tattooed on the left. A popular conversational theory is that the left brain handles calculations and logic while the right brain processes information intuitively and creatively.

At the start of this Arc, it's neat to see how those around Rex compare him and Dogma, saying that they are similar to each other. Rex insisted that version of himself was well in the past, but the arc shows this may be far from the case. Dogma and Fives are the two sides of Rex's faith and morality in conflict with each other. In one ear, he has Dogma insisting on loyalty and protocol, and Rex knows the dire consequences of insubordination. This is war! But in the other ear, he has Fives asking him if this is what he really believes or if this is what he was engineered to believe.

Rex will even give a symbolic speech to his "younger self" about how he had once believed that being a good soldier meant doing everything their superior officers commanded, as that is how they had been engineered, and that Clones are not Droids, so they are not programmed, and they can make their own decisions.

Throughout the Arc, he clashes with the morality that asks him to take significant risks in his challenge of what he thinks. He pushes back against this, and Fives, for a large part of the arc. He's unwilling to consider challenging his faith in the system and reluctant to admit potential error, when that error is following orders and when insubordination will come at a great risk to his brothers. And we know how he viewed Slick's actions and the risks he took- at the expense of their brothers- on Christophsis.

But he also stands at odds with Dogma, intentionally hiding things from the new trooper, confronting him, and questioning him. And he stands toe-to-toe with Krell, voicing his objections to and concerns about the Jedi's strategies and leadership and even altering his battle plans and strategies.

Rex knows this is a matter of life and death. He knows they're on the front, and he knows why they follow orders. They don't do it because they want to or feel like it but because they need to. His obedience isn't a matter of his own preservation or his own faith, but of the lives of his men. As I mentioned in the body of the essay, Rex believed that a total commitment to his brothers- and their safety- extended to showing absolute fealty to the Republic. One cannot separate the safety of a soldier from the active preservation of and commitment to the system they serve. The Clones' safety and lives are tied to the preservation and defense of the Republic, as well as their success in the war.

Rex will come to confront and question the faith within himself and whether the best course of action for the safety and well-being of his men is the Republic and his fealty to it. He has doubts and concerns about what he fights for and who he fights for, and those objections win out. This is why the arc's end is so fitting. This arc ends with Rex watching the representation of his unquestioning belief get escorted away in cuffs while Fives is once again standing to his right. Rex then asks what the whole point of the thing is and Fives says that he does not know, but that he does know the war will one day end.

But what then? They're soldiers. What then?

It was apropos that Dogma, cuffed and under observation, stole Five's blaster to kill Krell. When Dogma kills Krell, it represents the death of what both he and Rex believed in, and it represents how this faith was torn from them in a sudden and violent way.

Rex's faith is shaken to the point that he no longer understands his purpose. His whole purpose was to be a soldier and to serve the Republic, so what happens when he no longer has unwavering faith in the Republic, its purpose, or his own purpose? This is the same man who told Cut:

“I'm part of the most pivotal moment in the history of the Republic. If we fail, then our children, and their children, could be forced to live under an evil I can't well imagine.”

What if this isn't the most pivotal moment? What if he's also fighting for evil? Because, at this point, he doesn't even know who he is without believing in the absolute morality of his cause. What happens when loyalty to the Republic is detrimental to the well-being of his men; his family?

If he's not a soldier, then who is he? And if he's not fighting for something with principles and merit; something that has his men's best interests in mind, then what's the point?

[septembersghost]

I don't know how to properly articulate this, but some opinions I'm reading (not on Tumblr) makes me think some people's ideas of 'justice' aren't as noble as they would like to think. "Jimmy deserves the worst treatment in jail and to never see the light of day again, Kim wasn't punished enough..." They're facing the consequences of their actions, what else do these people want? Literal torture by a group of neo-nazis (hi Jesse)??

anon we are on the exact same page (and i've seen a little bit of it on here, but not to the extent that i've seen it in comments on tvline, avclub, twitter...i haven't dared to look at the sub). it's why i've pushed back against a life prison sentence in any way equating to inner peace, and that it isn't the jail time that gives him that, it's his own honesty and his willingness to be brave and own his actions, to make a sacrifice out of love, and that responsibility and atonement is not the same as harsh punishment and suffering. it's a reductive, kind of shockingly conservative viewpoint and seems to be all too common.

there are reactions that are not only off-base (or intentionally obtuse? i don't even know. every time i have to read a "this proved jimmy was always saul and just a scumbag," "he was a sociopath incapable of remorse or change," "he didn't do this for kim and they didn't ultimately love each other," "she thought he was betraying her and went to see him one last time in anger," "she deserved losing everything/should've been locked up/should've died" - all takes i've seen, among others - i lose faith not only in media literacy but in humanity lol), but seem to reveal this very cruel perspective and a hunger for vengeance that, to my mind, the show itself condemns as harmful and futile. those types of responses are not noble, they're vindictive and punitive. they're not thinking about honoring justice or empathetic humanity, they're wanting to delight in harm. it's like the very worst form of schadenfreude and exposes something ugly. i personally wouldn't want to know someone who's so pro-prison they hope he's getting hurt on a regular basis, that's...unconscionable to me. i can't understand someone who would look at kim self-destructing and diminishing the entirety of her personhood for years and decide she wasn't harmed enough. people were wishing torture and enslavement on kim, it was very common on the sub during the hiatus. the barbarism of that. idk. i've also seen both she and jesse referred to as "snitches" and that they deserved worse treatment for that alone, so...way to miss the purpose of both stories entirely. :(

i mentioned this already, but it seems like some people are way too content to moralize in the bleakest of terms to elevate their own senses of ego, rather than explore connections to and compassion for the characters despite their flaws and mistakes, it's easier to reduce them to parts and judge them. by doing this, they thus separate themselves from questioning their own edges and darknesses - the more someone depersonalizes something, the more they can convince themselves of their own superior morality and disengage from the deeper philosophical questions a story is asking and the full scope of what a character is embodying. there's a heartlessness to that which i fundamentally can't relate to, but of course i love these characters and wish wholeness and healing on them, not more pain. the world is not healed by suffering. people are not bettered by being hurt and tormented over and over again. both of the shows, while tragedies, imho criticized the idea that answering harm with even more harm ever solves or mends anything.

i just can't imagine watching these shows and thinking that the ways in which they do ultimately pay for their actions somehow isn't harsh enough. they all lose everything, and our three sole survivors are forever changed. jesse is freed from an actual hell. kim is released from the prison of her own making that was crushing her ability to affect change or remedy herself. jimmy finally finds a true and honest sense of the identity he's struggled with for so long, but has to be behind bars. it doesn't mean they aren't paying for those mistakes, that they aren't doing penance, they will be for the rest of their lives in one way or another (jimmy literally, and jesse and kim after many losses will always carry grief/trauma as they eke out their new lives). they will never be as they were. i believe, at that point, they've earned a bit of grace from the audience, and a flicker of light in their journeys.

[oumaheroes]

Ok now I'm sorry if I'm being annoying, if I am I'll just exit. But the crackhead of the walls is back with a query/ stupid headcanon ask.

What kind of books would Germany, Australia, Canada, Italy and Denmark like?

Because Germany in nation age is still very, very young so I feel like he occasionally reads YA fantasy romance to feel like an actual teenager and not the personification of Germany.

I have no clue what Denmark would read.

Australia would 100 percent love adventure books, and he has a special love for lord of the flies, just because of all the absolute chaos that goes down in there.

I also have no clue about Matthew.

Your question are always welcomed and adored, crackhead in my walls ❤ I hope you're comfortable back there

What sort of books would they read? Hmm hmm hmm

Italy

You know, I don't think that he reads much for fun. He's more of a visual oriented kinda guy and likes painting, or plays, or opera and would prefer this sort of media and expression over reading. That being said, he likes the classics more when he does choose to read as they're often more poetic and visually descriptive and he has read all of his most famous national classics. He prefers books with a point to them, a moral to learn and a lesson to learn and enjoys stories that include philosophical debates.

Australia

Action. Bold adventure, daring do, and fraught challenges are what he likes to read, be that fiction or non fiction. He prefers stories with an underdog as the protagonist and sees himself subconsciously in their position, the one who started from nothing growing to show everyone who doubted him what he's really made of.

He also likes stories that have a journey to them, a world to cross or a sea to sail into the unknown. The world has been mapped and explored by plenty before him and then his brother took ahold of the stars, leaving nothing untouched left. Australia has this same yearning for discovery himself, to be the first at something, and this comes through in what he chooses to read.

Canada

Matthew's a very happy go lucky reader. Will read anything he's given without complaint and will, and has, happily browsed through England's higgledy piggledy library picking up whatever caught his eye out of the thousands stacked there. He veers more towards non-fiction than fiction and enjoys biographies, finding the careful and controlled breakdown of someone's life interesting and oddly comforting. Also enjoys reading to learn- a common habit from when he and Alfred were younger as the only way to find out anything new going on in the world. Still to this day if he wants to understand a new invention or topic, he prefers to read about it and study it from a written form, curled up in a corner or, when he was younger, on the floor behind a very large sofa in England's library.

His guilty pleasure, however, for when he's feeling overly self indulgent, is romance. Desperate lovers pulled apart by circumstance, love triangles with disastrously unhappy endings, or the soft, soulful ones of finding understanding and a home in another person that will remain true until the end.

Canada has a small shelf in the back of his wardrobe where he collects his favourites and which he hopes no one knows about. (New Zealand and America both know about it and have read them all but don't tell him they know in case he moves the collection. They're sometimes secretly sappy too.)

Germany

For fun, Germany is happy to read pretty much anything. He's a sucker for fantasy but also is quite happy with other forms of fiction and non fiction.

His guilty, shameful secret, however, is that he'll binge read history books.

Ludwig is new. His culture may be old but its weighted down and shaped by years he has not lived and he carries it with him like he's wearing someone else's too big clothes. Europe is old surrounded by nations who have personally been there to see it all and this makes Ludwig feel, at times, out of his depth. He is as much of an adult as they are physically but he's not, he's a child by comparison and he can't shake the feeling that the rest of Europe do see him very much as that. Hungary and Austria will laugh at jokes about people he's never heard of, Sweden will mention this event or that which someone else will either contest or agree with confidence. Bulgaria will remember a five hundred year old promise and France and England will share a quick look across a loud, crowded room- a whole silent conversation passing between them and needing nothing more than a raised eyebrow or a tilt of the head to tell a thousand things at once.

Germany is a baby trying to walk amongst ancient giants and he feels this deeply. Not matter how much Prussia tried to school him, no matter how much Germany himself has tried to learn and understand, the history he knows is always tainted by an opinion or viewpoint that isn't his and its also never enough.

So, he reads. He'll research battles he's never heard of in wars that don't even sound familiar, will read up on a royal family he has no connection to and will pay for essays about an obscure political decision made in 1300 Lithuania so that he can feel slightly more connected to his peers.

Denmark I'm afraid I don't know about! I've not thought about him enough as a character to have an opinion either way, so do share if you have any ideas!

Thanks for the ask ❤

[mitigatedchaos]

Kontext says we’re starting back up again where the ‘90s left off.

I’ve observed a lot of teenagers wearing anime shirts with katakana on them for franchises recognizable to someone who grew up in the 90s/00s.  Mixed in are teenagers wearing shirts for franchises like Rugrats that started in 1991, apparently now rebooted in 2021.  Adults are wearing shirts for the show Friends, which ended in 2004.

What about the new Batman?

Look at this motherfucker.

That guy on the right?  He looks like he could’ve walked out of a My Chemical Romance or Evanescence music video.  What is he, from 2003?  And if you’ve watched the movie, you’ve noticed that he has the attitude to match the looks.

But I don’t recall the anime t-shirts in the 00s having katakana on them.

Writers have two options for producing complex texture in media.  The first option is to be a genius and work out the equilibria of the world on your own, something necessary for prophetic science fiction.  The second is to rip off the real world, which has its own deep texture.  Writers will often do a mix of both - Ghost in the Shell: Standalone Complex was inspired by elements of Japanese history, while also leaning into a memetic crime wave, which made it a double-hit of coherent novelty for American viewers.

The Batman could’ve been made in 2003.  We could almost imagine a Johnny Depp Batman right next to it in the conceptual space.

Except this film wouldn’t have been made in 2003.  Like the anime t-shirts, it’s from a phantom 00s that never existed. 

Nolan’s first Batman movie was archetypal - everything was so purely the platonic representation of itself that it was insufficiently particular.

In Nolan’s second (and best) Batman, the population of Gotham are terrorized by a rogue philosopher-terrorist who poses them moral dilemmas as practical exercises - perhaps not so different from the trolls and shitposters of 2012 onward.  (The question of who tied people to the trolley tracks in the Trolley Problem at last has its answer.)

Nolan’s third Batman explores the potential energy building up for populist revolution as something for hostile elites to exploit.

Nolan was 4 years ahead.  But The Batman is not visionary - it is a processing of the political information learned by society over the course of the past 20 years, and especially the last seven.  Aesthetically, it could have been done in 2003.  In practical terms its views on institutions (and charities), on social issues/feminism, and even on conspiracy theorists, are more like zero to two years out from now.

Is it good?  I liked it.  RW Twitter liked it.  But in my view it’s fundamentally about the new generation trying to make sense of all this bullshit.  It wasn’t created for me specifically, but it wasn’t created to exclude me, either, and I was left feeling hopeful.