#he may be morally bankrupt

[noughticalcrossings]

Khan of Khans

Inktober day 13. Rise

“I want the record to state, unequivocally that a boy ripped from his parents, from his miserly birthright, rose up and quietly laid waste to the most powerful man in all of history.”

[iiileaves]

on the topic of s-crocodile beating the transgender allegations. i just think dr “half my alter egos are women” vegapunk just took a good look at crocodile’s karyotype and pretended he didn’t see it

[lususnatura]

[leo-kinnie]

Freak doing things he doesn't really want to do just because he knows April wants him to do it EX; protecting the turtles uugghhgngnghahfhfnahdhg HHGNGNGHHH NNNHHH GHGHHGNHNHNNN

[moodr1ng]

rly insane how half the disco elysium fandom like.. completely fails at understanding even basic messaging of the game that even i got while being really bad at understanding themes lol. like yeah sure i relate hard to harrys mental health and substance use shit, and yeah, i think kim is fun and goofy, and i like their dynamic and also want to see on screen gay sex.

but like.. this is The Politics Game and half of the fanbase has taken from it exclusively "omg my blorbos meow meows babygirls" and seemingly failed to engage w the political text of the story. like ok if you came out of disco elysium and saw a man who is like.. at best 1 week sober from extreme substance abuse that has made him actively suicidal and threatening to others around him, who is desperately in need of actual, urgent help, AND who is a POLICE OFFICER, like, THEE person who absolutely should NOT be a cop, on top of, yknow, that, like, police are bad already??? a man who has canonically committed serious and traumatic police brutality due to this very instability and disregard for anyones safety and has continued to be allowed to occupy this position? and you get an ending in which his co-workers who have basically just been watching from the sidelines being like.. exasperated at him but not actually doing anything about the massive risk to himself and all these civilians safety just going "well, yknow, hes a good guy after all, and he hasnt been getting drunk and waving his police issued firearm at frightened civilians for a whole week, and he sure saw a bug, so, like, just come back to work man" and thought that was a satisfying and good ending...... after all the talk abt copaganda white ppl is the same

[theinfinitedivides]

me: *sees the fixer introduced as the 4th life*

me: why he kind of cute tho

[omg-just-peachy]

I started watching the sopranos last night and I can feel this is about to become my personality for the next month or so

[elizabro]

please consider how you engage with aaron bushnell's death. you may react to it as you will, but it's crucial to remember that his death was specifically a call to action. it was not meant solely to shock but to draw attention to a vast moral hypocrisy: that to many, a soldier dying in a campaign backed by the U.S. government is noble, even if the soldier kills innocents to do so, even if the cause is morally bankrupt--but this? this is insanity. a man taking his own life, on his own terms, in an attempt to help others while hurting nobody else, is somehow less rational and more horrifying than the mass killing of civilians.

of course aaron's death was horrific. but as he said beforehand, it is realistically no more horrific than what's happening in gaza. if we can't stomach this, then why can we stomach children being bombed? thousands being starved? for all that self immolation is, it brings death in a matter of minutes. it is a fraction of the amount of pain, fear, and grief that people in gaza are experiencing. it's just that we are able to quantify it. and this tiny, quantifiable sliver of horror is still so unbelievably awful. how can anyone bear to think about anything else when this horror is happening a millionfold in palestine? this is the question aaron bushnell was asking. and he wanted you to face it, head-on, watching him burn to death.

I've been seeing people make fanart. minimalist graphics to sell on t-shirts. to commodify his death, to mythologize it not a day afterwards, is not only in poor taste but a hindrance to his message. the answer is not commodification, nor is it defeatism, nor is it rejoicing in his death. if you want to honor aaron's legacy, take action. channel your horror and your outrage into making a material change. this wasn't about him. this was about palestine. remember that it was always about palestine.

[ofswordsandpens]

actually I also wanna talk about the part where Percy convinces Bob to kill Hyperion because even though Percy never says anything outright sinister, the way he handles the entire situation with such cool ease, playing on Bob’s emotions... its so insane???

Because Annabeth’s reaction to the three of them encountering Hyperion reforming is: “oh this is bad we need to get out of here” She knows if Bob remembers himself, that it's not going to play out well for Percy and her. She also thinks about how they're being pursued and don't have a lot of time. Her solution to the problem, seemingly, is to leave.

But Percy's solution is to work the situation to his advantage. He re-affirms Bob's loyalty to him:

Percy then re-establishes Bob's moral code: "Some monsters are good. Some are bad. This Titan is bad. He tried to kill me and a lot of people. He's not good like you are."

And it ends with Percy leaving the choice of whatever to do with Hyperion to Bob but of course, is it really what Bob chose to do? Bob decides to kill Hyperion. It's not what he may have done, if Percy hadn't intervened. But it's exactly what Percy was oh-so-sweetly leading Bob to do.

And listen, I'm not claiming that it was exactly morally bankrupt of Percy to take advantage of a once-evil titan who could get him and his girlfriend through hell in one piece. Percy, Annabeth, they manipulate monsters and enemies all the time. Annabeth ended the previous book with manipulating Arachne into weaving her own web. So it's not exactly like she's against using manipulative tactics, in theory.

But Bob, at this point, is not just some monster. He is so painfully sincere in his belief in Percy and their friendship, so yes, it does feel a bit sinister whenever Percy uses Bob... and he really uses Bob.

And I think what makes the scene so unsettling, it isn't just that Percy manipulated Bob, its how well Percy manipulated him. He manipulates Bob so well that Percy doesn't even have to kill Hyperion... because Bob does it for him. He manipulates Bob so well, that Annabeth couldn't tell if Percy was purposefully trying to manipulate the situation. (Newsflash, he most definitely was). Like holy shit.

[wilwheaton]

I live in Philly and it's been extremely frustrating with Fetterman...He pretended to be like one of us and made these big promises of unity and support. And now it feels like we just got Doctor Oz.

Politicians do this thing where they allow us to fill in some details on our own, and don't correct us if they aren't exactly matching up with what they believe. I do believe that Fetterman is sincerely progressive, and that he sincerely cares about doing right by the people who elected him. So he lets us paint him as super progressive, when he's actually closer to ... whatever passes for the middle today. Less progressive, but still progressive, I guess.

I have always felt that it's okay to be disappointed with people who generally support our goals and work to advance them, even if we have an extremely strong difference of opinion on one or more issues. Remember that voting is a bus that gets you closer to your ultimate goal, and while we may disagree on the route we take, it's so much better that we are going in the same direction, instead of into the fucking nightmare mines of terror and Trumpism.

That said, with this remark, Fetterman just ... it's such a fucking Privileged White Guy move, you know? Totally unnecessary, feeds a narrative that is ultimately hurtful to all of our shared goals, and is just gross. Like I said, deeply disappointing. I hope that someone close to him can get his ear and ask him to think about the larger consequences of degrading his House colleagues with a hot take for some clout. I hope that the guy I supported in the election would listen and take it to heart.

But even if he doesn't, we still agree on so much, including the preservation of democracy -- which is genuinely in danger for the first time in my fifty one years on this planet. We agree on the equal rights amendment. We agree on protecting trans kids and ensuring that everyone has ultimate control over their own bodies, including people who can become pregnant.

This tweet is gross and offensive, for sure. His position on campus protests is morally bankrupt, I believe, and I think he's on the wrong side of history there, to say nothing of the human rights implications.

But Oz would have been unfathomably terrible for Philly, Pennsylvania, America, and the world. Oz is a chaos agent, an incompetent, effete, empty suit. He would be a puppet and a vote for the end of America as we know it, and he would do everything he could to stop all those things I mentioned Fetterman and I care about from ever becoming law.

This is a lot of words to say that I hear you, and I share your disappointment, and I'd rather be disappointed with Fetterman than facing the consequences of Oz.

Fetterman is someone we can work with, and if we can endure the bullshit of people like Manchin and Lieberman, we can absolutely withstand disappointment with Fetterman, who still votes in support of our progressive, Democratic, priorities.

[stoutguts]

Ghoap 💀🧼 relationship dynamic HC (shall we?)

Simon "Ghost" Riley is no scaredy-cat.

The man has been through hell on Earth, survived torture, abuse,—and being buried alive for fuck’s sake. They managed,—even after everyone he loved was taken from him. Has been through countless tense and anxiety inducing situations throughout their military career.

But Ghost has nerves of steel, excellent control over his emotions, and naturally that’s why it’s so damn good at its job.

Though…there is one thing that scares the shit out of them. Soap.

Simon thought he was all big and bad,—intimidating,—until he met John “Soap” MacTavish.

Johnny is only around half its size, yet he manages to be even scarier than Ghost somehow. Which is wild, considering one of them looks like the damn grim reaper with that skull mask of theirs.

Simon may have a reputation for “the guy you don’t wanna mess with”, to the point where people won’t even bother with them.—But Soap’s got more than a few screws loose himself.

New recruits and others will at least approach him,—but with serious caution, and are careful to watch their mouths around him.

His anger is explosive, fitting, for a demolitions expert. A total loose cannon when he wants to to be. Some recruits even refer to him as “the psycho Scot” or "Ghost's guard dog". Titles he takes to with pride.

Johnny’s known for putting people in their place, and with every fight he’s ever gotten into,—he’s always won. Often sending his opponents to medical.

Most of the time though, he just has to look at someone and it scares them shitless. He’s mastered his death glare, and it even sends shivers up Ghost’s spine.

The man’s a total gym rat and health nut, nothing but muscle, and he trains the most of anyone Simon has ever seen. He’s naturally a reigning champ when it comes to hand to hand combat, and he even beats Simon to a pulp on the sparring mats most of the time. (Ghost may like him beating the snot out of him more than they than would like to admit…)

Soap is often used for interrogations, as he’s morally bankrupt just enough,—to where he’ll do just about anything to get answers out of someone. Whether it involves violence or not.

Simon has seen the sheer extent of the injuries sustained by the poor bastards that were stupid enough to challenge him, that pissed him off, or that he’s extracted information out of—and that was enough for Ghost.

Simon is a smart man, and knows when to pick his battles. Soap being the battle he most certainly knows NOT to pick.

Johnny is more lenient with Ghost than other people, and lets them get away more. But Simon’ll be damned if it ends up on the receiving end of Soap’s wrath.

I really like the idea of Soap being the dominating one in the relationship, but Ghost not being entirely submissive either.

Like Simon can and will be the one to put him in HIS place, and knock his ego down a few pegs if need be. Though still allows him his fun.

While Johnny relies on Ghost to let him know when he’s “too much”, and makes a point to let Simon have the control, at least every now and then.

Both try to be as respectful as possible of the other’s needs and desires, while also "maintaining their roles". But both are effectively switches, whether it's in the bedroom or not, and mainly put up this dom and sub act for other people and for their own amusement.

SOAP BEING JUST AS MENTALLY FUCKED AS GHOST MY BELOVED

thanks for coming to my Ted talk

[shebeafancyflapjack]

I love how Alison will be like "Hey Julian, you're a corrupt, perverted, morally bankrupt bastard who tried to kill me and may have committed war crimes - can you help me out with something?" and of course he always will.

[anthurak]

One detail in Mammon’s Musical Special that I found rather interesting upon rewatch is the fact that Fizzarolli doesn’t seem to be subjected to or threatened with direct sexual exploitation or coercion by Mammon.

And I find that pretty curious because we generally kind of expect or otherwise assume that sort of thing in these kinds of stories, right? That this super manipulative, abusive boss who’s exploiting his prized performer also personally lusts after them and is privately coercing them into performing sexual acts. Particularly when we consider the whole ‘Sex Robots’ angle and the fact that we’re seeing/will-see exactly this with Valentino and Angel Dust in Hazbin Hotel.

But with Mammon we just flat out don’t see this whatsoever. He never makes any sort of advances on Fizzarolli or makes any kind of direct comment on his attractiveness, even in their private conversations. In fact, I get the sense that Mammon doesn’t even CARE personally about sexual gratification all that much.

The way he off-handedly brings up the ‘sex-robot’ idea in the flashback really gave me the vibe of “I don’t exactly GET this whole ‘sex’ thing myself, but if people will buy it, awesome!” The way he talks about Fizzarolli’s sex appeal and the robots makes it seem like Mammon views sex purely as a commodity he can profit off of, rather than anything he’s personally interested in.

And I find all that pretty interesting because the episode makes clear that Mammon not directly sexually exploiting Fizzarolli DOESN’T make what he’s doing any less creepy, manipulative and abusive. Mammon still comes off as a giant skeevy scumbag because while he may not care about sex personally, it's clear that he’s still happy to cater directly to the ‘sick degenerates’ (as he outright calls them himself) among Fizzarolli’s fans simply because he realized that he could make a LOT of money off them. While being completely uncaring about how uncomfortable Fizzarolli is with this arrangement.

If anything, I think this all may have made it even harder for Fizz to recognize and admit to himself how badly Mammon was treating him. We see in the episode that it seems like the indirectness lets Fizzarolli more easily rationalize away just how uncomfortable it makes him, what with the whole ‘they’re just toys’ comment. It’s not like he’s the one all the creepy obsessive fans are paying to have sex with, it’s just hundreds of robots made specifically to look exactly like him.

It all conveys the cynical, uncaring, exploitative nature of how Mammon really views Fizzarolli, and of course helps to frame Mammon as a stand-in for any number of exploitative entertainment corporations. The kind of morally bankrupt mentality that might not personally agree with some truly awful people, but will happily cater to them if it will generate profit.

Finally in an amusing twist, it also means that even as bad as Mammon is, he’s somehow still beat in the complete and utter scumbag department by Valentino XD

[disco-tea]

Nothing like watching Arcane to remind me just how quickly I will become morally bankrupt when presented with the right kind of character/dynamic. Because the thing is, Jinx and Silco are not the heroes of this story, they are presented as the villains. At every turn they hurt those around them. They may be motivated to a degree by the wrongs that have been done to them and the oppression put on them by the powerful, but their intentions are far from pure. They’re mean. They’re ruthless. They’re killers. The story makes it clear we should be rooting for characters like Vi, Ekko, Caitlyn, and Vander. But…there is just something so special to me in their characters, something so poetic and poignant. And maybe that’s the point of our villains: the poetry, the irony. Our villains were created by misdeeds of our heroes. And not just innocent, accidental deeds mind you, they were created by anger and the violence and ruthlessness. Our villains are the victims of our heroes. And while that may not truly justify all the bad they’ve done in a strictly moral sense, I just find it hard not to root for them: the victims, the utterly damaged beyond repair, the ones who were not gifted with physical strength but with intelligence and cunning. The ones nobody believed in. And it boils down to the dynamic too. Jinx and Silco. Silco is objectively a terrible person: he’s our villain, after all. But there is something so unconditional in his love for Jinx. An inhuman sort of patience, that not even our good guys possess. Silco loved Jinx and understood her and forgave her and chose her in a way our heroes never did. And that’s why it’s impossible to truly see these characters as complete monsters. Because what’s more human than love and brokenness?

[artist-issues]

I'm curious, what do you think of 1st Corinthians 14:34-35?

What we think of it doesn’t matter; what I think of it matters even less; what it says is what matters. It’s the Word of God.

“The women are to keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. But if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.”

Everyone’s got a problem with that because it sounds like the Bible is saying women can’t ever talk in church at all. That’s not what it’s saying, though. You know why? Because this is two verses plucked straight out of a book that has 437 verses in it. That’s like if I read two sentences out of the middle of one of your emails to a close family member and took issue with whatever those two sentences said. Even though the context determines the meaning, so I have no right to get offended when I don’t understand the context. So what’s the context of 1 Corinthians by the time you get to 14:34-35?

The Apostle Paul is writing to a church in the Gentile city of Corinth in AD 53 or 54. That church was a blend of Jewish Christians and Greek Christians. Two completely different cultures were figuring out what the “assembly of the saints,” or “the first church services” were supposed to look like. And to make matters more complicated, they lived in one of the most morally bankrupt cities of that age. Literally, the Corinthian people had a Greek word coined to describe their immorality. So the people who lived there were generally all messed up, in terms of not knowing what was right and what was wrong. That extended to their church services.

The whole context of 1 Corinthians is “what is a church that glorifies the Lord supposed to look like?” The context of the specific chapter, 14, is “what should church assembly that glorifies the Lord look like? What should it not look like?”

How do I know? Read the verses that come before it. At the beginning of the chapter, Paul explains that spiritual gifts are for edifying other people. In fact, everything done in a church service, where the saints are gathered, is not for an individual. It’s for the edification of the whole group. So what might be okay to do in your own home or in private between you and God is not okay, because it’s not mindful, considerate, or edifying to other Christians when you’re in a church service.

Specifically, the Corinthians are all claiming to “prophesy” (get direct revelation from God) and “speak in tongues” (speak in known, but various and foreign, languages) all at once during the service. Everybody’s shouting over each other. Some people are shouting over each other “THUS SAYS THE LORD,” which is a huge deal. Because obviously if you’re going to claim that God has told you something, everyone should shut up, listen, and determine whether or not you’re telling the truth, because what could be a bigger deal than God speaking? But that’s not how the church in Corinth was treating it. Their services were helping nobody, least of all themselves, because it was loud chaotic pandemonium and nobody I was being edified. Everybody was shouting and judging. Including women. By verse 26, Paul is going:

“What is the outcome then, brothers? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has a translation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must translate; but if there is no translator, he must keep silent in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God. And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted. And the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.”

And then he adds,

“The women are to keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. But if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it arrived to you only?

“If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone remains ignorant about this, he is ignored by God.

“Therefore, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.”

Do you get it? The point is, “what does this specific situation, which is a church service, look like if we’re trying to do things in a God-honoring, orderly manner? Here’s what it does not look like: women can’t just stand up in church and take up the role of judge over men who are shouting that they are speaking from God, and call certain men impostors and certain men prophets.”

The point is not “all women should never ever speak in all church services because that’s disgraceful, they only get to talk to their husbands and get told what to do.”

If it were, then explain to me why, three chapters earlier, when he’s talking about head-coverings, Paul writes that women can prophesy in public?

“But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, shames her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.”

(if you want to talk about why the heck a woman has to have her head covered when she prophesies, blah blah blah, let’s talk about that too, but the answer’s going to be the same: context determines meaning, meaning is correct interpretation, etc.)

Additionally, why would Paul be commending the women in the church who have taught their sons and grandsons? How can they teach if they’re never allowed to talk in church, or if their only role in all contexts is “shut up and learn?”

Because that’s not their only biblical role. And that’s not what Paul was saying. Paul was saying, “in this specific context, here’s how a woman (among all the other people groups I’m also addressing) should conduct herself when the goal is to edify the believers in a church service, and not let anything get in the way of that goal.”

Now.

Guess what?

If the Bible did say, “all women shut up and listen all the time, let the men do the talking,” would you listen to it?

You, reading this. Would you have a problem with it? If that’s what God Sid to do, would you sit in judgement over God and say, “no, infinite Creator of all matter and life, You’re mistaken about how You should be worshipped and what these little creatures You made are for, let me correct and educate You with the judgement coming out of the three-pound lump of gray matter, which You designed and graciously allowed me to have in the first place, sitting inside my skull. Let me, the creature, tell You, the Creator, where you’re wrong and what ‘Being God’ should be like.”

I hope not. But I was super convicted reading this chapter for the first time and finding myself a) misunderstanding it and then b) having the appalling gall and arrogance to be outraged by it.

Who in the world am I? Who am I to be outraged, if God did say, “be quiet and spend your life listening to men?” If that were what He was saying, my response should be, “Yes, Lord.”

Why are we so concerned about being allowed to speak? What do we have to say that’s so great, that’s so necessary, that’s so devastating to have “removed” from us, anyway? Why do we care so much about being heard? Is it because we have something to say that could really help men, in the church services? Oh, really? And if we women don’t say it, God won’t edify the men? He’ll be handicapped because we were muzzled?

What’s so offensive about being told to stop talking and ask questions to learn, anyway? Why is that so infuriating, to us? We’re fools. The whole point of the Gospel is, “He (Jesus) must increase; I must decrease.” The best place in the world to be is at the feet of Jesus, learning. Humble. Not producing anything of ourselves, but absorbing everything He has to teach us. Who cares if it’s our husbands He plans to do that through? Who cares if we can’t teach men in church? What, we think God can’t handle that? We think He can’t teach them His own way, that His plan was flawed, that they’re “missing out” because God dropped the ball by telling us not to stand up in service and disrupt everything with this great ‘word’ we have, that nobody else has?

Ugh. God forgive me for ever even approaching a mindset that thinks I have something to say, and if I don’t say it, He won’t be able to accomplish His will. God forgive me for ever thinking my Western modern culture knows better than His divine plan. He designed human beings and men and women and what would best serve us before “culture” or “social frameworks” were ever even conceived of.

We all need to be a lot more humble. Me first.

I would encourage you to test what I said. If you read this, you should spend an equal amount of time studying the Bible for yourself and seeing if I was right, and if that’s really what God said and meant, based on the context, which determines meaning, because there is such a thing as “correct and incorrect interpretation” when the God of the universe meant something by what He said. And I could’ve gotten it wrong. And you don’t want to get it wrong.

[heavenlymorals]

Arthur's Redemption: A Reflection of the Dregs of Idealism

(Warning: Spoilers for RDR2)

Arthur's redemption is the reason why RDR2 is as loved and coveted as it is. It is the reason why it is in the videogame hall of fame and it is the reason why I'll never forgive the game awards for giving GOW 2018 Game of the Year instead of RDR2.

But what I find very interesting is exactly WHERE his redemption is aimed towards, because remember, Arthur never gives up the gang life until the VERY end when he has to confront Micah on being a rat.

One of the first things that the game tries to remind us of is is that Dutch's gang is different. It isn't savage, or heartless, or "as bad" as the other gangs like the O'Driscolls and the Del Lobos. In every single mission that involves robbery, the VDL gang either robs crooks, corporations, robber barons, rich people, slavers, people with fucked up political views, etc. Etc. That is what puts them above other gangs in terms of their reputation, alongside the fact that they, before the Blackwater massacre and before they got so desperate, would give away portions of their proceedings to the poor and destitute.

And the thing is, the VDL gang's philosophy isn't really different from what you see today, especially here on Tumblr. Kill the rich, eat the rich, tax the rich, etc. Etc. Only real difference, honestly, is that the VDL gang carries out those philosophies violently when we don't.

Does intense violence continue to make philosophies and beliefs just? That's ultimately up to you, I don't want to get into that discussion, but this is very important to take note of because Arthur's redemption isn't realizing the gang life and violence is bad, but by going back to the original thought processes and beliefs that guided the VDL gang. He goes from apathetic to passionate.

Notice the "redemption" missions of chapter 6. You forgive debts and kick out Strauss because he represents all the evils of money lending and usuery. Arthur begs Edith Downes to allow her to let him help her, but he doesn't want her forgiveness as he knows he doesn't deserve it. He teaches a grieving woman how to hunt and survive in the wilderness. He befriends a veteran and connects with the great American wilderness. He gives people his blessing to get out of the gang and ultimately sacrifices his final moments to get John, Abigail, and Jack to safety.

Arthur focuses on people and their personal lives. He focuses on their struggles, their dreams, their hopes, their stories, and just all the things that make them human.

Let's look at the debt missions in chapter six. There are three of them. Mrs. Londonderry, J. John Weathers, and Edith Downes. Arthur either comes to face with how morally bankrupt the business of usury is, which then relates back to the more political side of the VDL gang, which is the resistance of the predatory upper class, or he tries to mend the wrongs of being in that system without the expectation of forgiveness.

Those debt missions, though side missions, are super important to Arthur's redemption.

Other than the debt missions, there is also the more personal aspects of missions. Some missions are completely personal, like the Charlotte missions or the Hamish missions, while others are slid in such as Arthur lecturing John after blowing up the bridge.

Arthur cares about the people, the everyday people, and he loses his apathy that makes him violent and mean, which is where his redemption lies.

But the gang life? He doesn't quit that. He doesn't have any qualms, morally, about blowing up bridges, fighting against the government, the army, and anyone who may support the organizations that Dutch taught him to hate from such a young age. There is no guilt there. Arthur only has guilt towards hurting those the gang was originally there to help.

His redemption isn't him realizing what he is doing is wrong, and that the gang life is wrong. His redemption is him going back to the original ideals that Dutch taught him.

I just think that's really interesting. It also opens up a discussion on the philosophical nature of the blurred line between violence and Idealism, and whether or not someone can still be good whilst being on that line.

In any case, yapyapyapyapyap