#humanity is not inherently evil that is a tragic way of thinking that gets us nowhere

[crabussy]

"humans are inherently evil" "humanity deserves to go extinct" okay. if that's the case why are we such a community based species. why have we seen evidence of careful amputations in ancient humans that allowed them to live longer, fuller lives. why do we have thousands of years of evidence of toys made for children by their guardians. why do we consistently find burial sites where the deceased has been buried with items of significance because the people in their life cared about them even after they were gone. why do strangers help strangers without any reward. why are most of the people you meet each day not cruel. we have ALWAYS been kind. I know it is so so easy to get swept up in all the horrible happenings in the world. these things can be extremely important to know about. but please, please please know that there are so many kind people in the world. you are one of them!

I BLOCK DEBBIE DOWNERS ON SIGHT. REEVALUATE YOUR WORLDVIEW OR SCROLL PAST AND HAVE A LOVELY DAY ALSO READ MY TAGS

[sorcave]

After spending some time thinking about Peter Pettigrew, I’ve realized there’s a huge disconnect between how he’s portrayed in canon and how the fandom—especially within Marauders fanon—handles him. Let me preface this by saying, I get it. The Marauders era is filled with beloved, tragic characters like Sirius, Remus, and James, who are all charismatic in their own ways. It’s easy to frame Peter as the villain, the weak link in the group, because, well, he is the one who betrays them. But I can’t help feeling like fanon’s interpretation of him has become deeply flawed and even unfair in its simplification of his character.

Peter Pettigrew, as written in the books, is actually a much more complex figure than the rat-betrayer caricature that fanon often makes him out to be. He’s not some mustache-twirling villain, nor is he just a pathetic hanger-on who was lucky to be in the Marauders’ circle. If you really pay attention to the way his character is written, he’s someone who’s constantly underestimated by the people around him, including the very friends he ends up betraying. He’s not powerful in the traditional sense, but his cunning is what allows him to survive the chaos of two wizarding wars. He’s not a mastermind, sure, but he’s resourceful in a way that deserves more recognition than he gets. Canonically, it’s clear that he isn’t just bumbling around until he stumbles into Voldemort’s arms—he’s making calculated choices, and we need to give those choices the weight they deserve.

This brings me to why I think fanon’s insistence on reducing Peter to a one-dimensional villain is so misguided. There's this huge trend in Marauders fandom where Peter is either villainized beyond recognition or, worse, completely written out of the story. He’s often replaced in fanon with a random “better” Marauder, or he’s ignored entirely, as if his betrayal somehow disqualifies him from being part of the story. And here’s the thing: canon compliance isn’t a crime! In fact, canon gives us a far more interesting story. The tragedy of Peter’s betrayal is that he was their friend—he shared their dorm, their secrets, and their history. His actions were not driven by some inherent evil but by fear, survival instincts, and yes, cowardice. It’s a much richer narrative than reducing him to a monster.

In the fandom, there’s often this hyperfocus on moral purity when it comes to the Marauders, especially when it comes to ships and rewriting dynamics. Peter, however, disrupts that neat narrative, so fanon tries to erase him to preserve the integrity of the fan-created relationships. But that oversimplifies everything. Why should we villainize people for sticking to canon when canon is, arguably, what makes the Marauders’ story so compelling in the first place? The fall of the Marauders—this group of young, talented, promising boys—hinges on Peter’s betrayal. You can't just ignore that without losing a fundamental piece of what makes their story so tragic. He’s not a random character you can swap out. He’s the pivot point.

Peter’s character also raises some interesting discussions about how we view heroism and villainy in fandom spaces. For instance, we’re often quick to forgive other characters—Sirius, for all his bravado, is reckless and cruel to people like Snape, but we don’t hold it against him in the same way. We empathize with his trauma, his tragic backstory. So why is it that Peter, who is also a product of his circumstances, is written off? He wasn’t born evil; he was shaped by the same war that shaped all of them, but his path led him to make different choices. There’s something so fascinating about exploring how someone who was once a friend could betray everything. It’s a conversation about human flaws, not just villainy.

And yes, in a world full of Marauders fan content, it’s fine to like your AUs or write your fix-its. But let’s not pretend that sticking to canon, and appreciating Peter for the complex character he is, is somehow less valid. The fandom would benefit from looking at Peter as more than just “the betrayer” and instead as someone who, like everyone else in the story, is a deeply flawed person whose mistakes have devastating consequences. That makes the story richer, more painful, and ultimately, more meaningful.

forgive me for the ramble but Im going insane with my term paper and my thesis, unfortunately I've been diving too deep into the marauders again

[lyxthen]

I want to write an essay on how the Book of Bill expertly subverts the "villain with a tragic backstory/antisocial protagonist" narrative by portraying its main character as evil, trying really hard to look cool, and failing pathetically. The book is making fun of him, and that is actually kind of revolutionary, because most stories with evil, pathetic main characters tend to take themselves, and by extension, their protagonist, way too seriously, with way too much dignity, which leads to people misinterpreting them as heroes or idealize them in some way, and then replicating these harmful attitudes. They follow life coaches that will teach them how to be "alpha males."

Bill presents himself as one of these "life coaches," he will teach you the secrets of the universe, he will help you to game the system in your favor, to manipulate people to get what you want, he will free you from the shackles of society and reality itself-- but he is lying. The success rate of Bill's evil schemes is laughably small. He's a manipulator, to be sure, an incompetent one. His dimension rejected him, his friends don't actually like him, throughout the ages humans have found him insufferable, and to top it all off he ruins the relationship with the only being in the history of the universe he has ever truly felt understood by.

And instead of going "gee, maybe there *is* something wrong with me, after all" he doubles down on his harmful ideas. He doesn't have a problem, everyone else is the problem. Nobody gets his vision. They are all small-minded creatures of no value. His failures are always somebody else's fault. He didn't want to hurt anyone, he was forced to. It's not that bad, he's just being silly, he's having a laugh.

And we, as readers, we are horrified at all the bad things he does, but we also laugh. Not with him, but *at him.* He is being constantly ridiculed by himself, and the funniest part is that he doesn't even realize. He thinks he is absolutely acing this.

He isn't.

Eventually, it is revealed that Bill has no idea what he is talking about. That he has been defeated, rendered powerless, stuck forever in interdimensional therapy. The book tells us, "This is what happens to people like Bill if they don't change. They end up with nothing. No riches, no fame, no loved ones. They will be unhappy forever unless they realize there is something about them worth changing and decide to act on it."

This is in contrast to Stanford, someone who, just like Bill, was deeply hurt and rejected by society, struggled to feel understood, and took refuge in a narcissistic (bear with me-) view of the world. Diagnostic labels aside, Ford genuinely thinks he is better than everyone else for being smarter. He is a textbook Aspie Supremacist that swears by IQ tests because it's the only thing that has ever validated him. That's why he gets along with Bill, I think, they really *have* compatible mindsets. Ford really thought Rudolph should've killed the other reindeer. He constantly dismisses Fiddleford in what feels a very classist way (even if he grew up working class himself). Ford isn't manipulative and malicious in the same way Bill is, and I don't want anyone coming at me for saying Ford is evil. He isn't. He might be a bit of an ass, but he has a moral code, he knows that what Bill wants to do is A BAD THING and dedicates his life to trying to stop him. Stanford's biggest flaw is not appreciating the people around him more for their inherent value (not that he doesn't love them! he does!), but he learns, and he changes. He is more considerate of other people's needs and their perspectives.

And by the end, he is happy. He is free from Bill, he has his family, people who will support him unconditionally and will put up with his nonsense because they love him.

Stanford will never find someone who is as smart as him, who has been ostracized the same way he has. But that's okay. He has an inherent value as a person that has nothing to do with how smart he is in comparison to other people. He doesn't need other people's approval to be happy.

That is, I think, what the book wants you to take away. Don't be like Bill. Don't fall for the Alpha Male scam, or eugenics, some new age cult or multilevel marketing scheme, reject the ideas at the base. Talk to your family and friends, touch grass, find a group that shares your interests, but don't dwell endlessly on resentment, and don't follow people that tell you that the only way to be valuable is to be "superior" in some abstract metric, and that they can teach you how.

(As a kid, I almost fell down the alt-right pipeline-- and I am Mexican, transgender, and autistic. I fantasized about blowing up the school every day. I know what the fuck I am talking about when I tell you this.)

They are lying. You don't want to be like them.

You don't want to be like Bill.

[turbolezgooo]

Why ya'll hate on Cait and call her a dictator?

Well-written characters often have a story deeper than what you explicitly see them do or hear them say. Just because everything is set in a fantasy world, doesn't mean that characters are not affected by tragic events and the human condition.

First of all, Cait wasn't the one who made a police state. Ambessa and the council did that. Ambessa orchestrated the whole thing. Cait went along with it because she was turned around by grief. That shit messes with your judgment, but she was still trying to do what she and Vi agreed on. To focus on the real problem and prevent hurting innocent people.

Cait tried to control an unraveling situation AND literal warlord WHILE being inexperienced in how to deal with it, having a big ol' lesbian break up, AND dying inside.

You could see that when Cait argued to Ambessa that there are innocent people and there MUST be justifiable cause to arrest anyone. In Cait and Ambessa's interactions it's implied that Cait was getting in the way of Ambessa's agenda off-screen. She tried to keep something worse from happening because she does acknowledge the historical and current oppression of Zaunites.

This mirrors the way she offered Vi the badge to give her a voice in what happens to her sister if the enforcers caught her. The enforcers coming after Jinx was going to happen regardless of Cait. She took control by volunteering and taking precautions. See- While they did use gas, Vi would never agree to something that would permanently hurt the people of Zaun. The tactic gave them fewer chances of having to physically fight Zaunites who were just trying to defend themselves. Believe it or not, it was a controlled operation until grief got the better of Cait and things looked worse than it actually was.

The way that Cait deeply believes in equality in spite of a personal vendetta is why Ambessa sent Maddie to try and control her by 'filling' her hole (no pun intended). When Maddie attempted to have Cait stop the police state situation and withdraw, she did focus on Jinx at first but the second part of not wanting to make things worse was something she had a lot more to say about before Maddie interrupted. And Cait was right. What would have happened if she hadn't taken the role and played along? A puppet councillor or Ambessa herself would have been the figure head and do so much worse. Those people don't have the same perspective and understanding as Cait.

When Cait and Vi argue about listening to a war pig oink poison in her ear, she yells "I know!" as she throws a piece of war ship used in strategizing. You can tell her role was a strategic choice to have some control over the events that unfolded. That's why Vi didn't villinize her. Vi understood that Cait never really accepted anything Ambessa said. That's why she helped Vi at the commune. Cait was a double agent taking shit from all sides to stop worse things from happening.

She had grief and really crap options, but she always chose the lesser of the evils to try and stay true to who she really was. She even resigns in her argument with Vi, that she didn't put Jinx, her own mother's killer, in jail or punish her in any way. It's another example of her faltering in decision-making when overwhelming or unexpected things happen and it also tells us what she is. She's human. She doesn't make excuses for taking on an objectively bad role and making mistakes. When she said "We can't erase our mistakes.", she's also talking about herself. She takes responsibility and tries to do good. In the end, all she wanted was closure for her grief by having Jinx accept responsibility NOT by killing or abusing her or innocent Zaunites for that matter.

Imo there's a lot in Arcane that shows Cait as a flawed but inherently good person, and Vi absolutely knows it. They see each other warts and all. If you think CaitVi's lex scene was poorly written read this: https://www.tumblr.com/turbolezgooo/768190482340773888/bro-this-outrage-about-caitvi-relationship-in-s2?source=share

[whereserpentswalk]

You run a halfway house for robots and cyborgs who've escaped their masters. It's technically illegal to keep a sentient being under your control, but it's so easy to get away with in most places. Your city is one of the only places with labor laws that allow for a halfway house like yourse to even exist, and your city is still filled with robots bound to masters.

You tend to just call them robots. Some are technically cyborgs. The only difference between the two is if they used to be human, technology and biology are so intertwined most robots have some fleshy bits. Cyborgs are those who were trafficked, forced to sell themselves, or exploited after injuries to get where they were. Robots were mostly created as property, but it's far from unheard of for free robots to be kidnapped. You don't ask anyone's origins unless they freely give it, and you understand why some would lie, so you see no reason to question their stories.

You're main goal is too help the robots in your care learn that they're people with individuality and autonomy. You try to prevent anything that encourages them to view themselves as obeying you. Rooms lock from the inside. They're allowed to leave whenever they want. There's basically no set schedule. It's important that those under your protection are aware that they aren't your property. Earlier on when you had more rules you quickly learned that so many in your care are too egar too obey, and that it's too easy to cause them to think of you as a new master. There are security concerns, but if a master wants to take back their robot, there's really not much you can do to stop them.

There's also teaching them that they don't have to work. It's important that even basic chores are never things that those in your care are forced to do, and that they don't even feel pressured into volunteering. A lot of outsiders, even people who donate to your organization, act as if it's causing laziness for you to do that. But they don't realize what dealing with beings who were forced to work is like, most of your robots come to you having been told they're morally required to work themselves to death for their masters, them deciding that they don't want to do chores is a big step in improvement.

You try to give them things like art classes and other creative pursuits to encourage their creativity. It helps letting them learn to express themselves, and also can eat up the feeling a lot of them have that they need to work. You make sure none of your instructors grade them, as long as they're expressing themselves they're doing well.

Everyone always assumes you're taking care of a lot of combat robots or sex robots. But the vast majority of robots you take in had less exciting jobs, office robots, factory and warehouse workers, personal servents, agricultural robots. Robots who have been forced to work that way are thought about less, and sympathetized with less, but their trauma is just as real, often just as serious. You're not sure weather an invisible trauma is better then a visible one, for as many former sex robots or former combat robots appear as tragic backstories in movies, there are a lot of people who criticize your organization for "helping murders and prostitutes".

Of course, there are a few former sex or former combat robots who you've taken care of. For robots who've been sexually exploited its very important you teach them that their boundaries deserve to be respected, and that nobody should touch them without their consent. Former combat robots are much different depending on if they were guards, soldiers, or assassins, but nomatter what it's important to help them come to terms with their actions, understand that they aren't inherent evil or dangerous.

It's always great to see robots leave your care peacefully. Robots who are ready to fully exist in society and live on their own after what happened to them. Some of them stay in touch with you. Sometimes you'll run into one on the street. It's nice to know that they're safe, that they're on, that some of these stories do have happy endings.

[zvtara-was-never-canon]

Have you noted that no one from Azula's family was shown to express love and affection towards her?

That is mostly true. Ozai's affection is clearly conditional (and full on manipulation at worse, like we see in the finale), Ursa canonically favors Zuko to the point that we never see her spending any alone time with Azula like she did with Zuko, and while Iroh gave her a toy like he did to Zuko the toy in question was so OBVIOUSLY wrong for a kid like Azula that it's comical AND show's he did not really know his niece at all.

But there is a constant exception.

Zuko's relationship with Azula is complicated. He clearly admires her strength and power, but he hates how she uses it. She lied to him many times, was seen apparently cheering Ozai on during the Agni Kai, tried to have him imprisoned and even said she'd celebrate being an only child - and then allows him to come home as a hero after Ba Sing Se, even though SHE had the control of the Dai Li and was not yet aware Aang could have survived, meaning she had nothing to gain from it.

And when she lets him know that if he's caught talking to Iroh people might think he is a traitor too, and explicitly says "Believe it or not, I'm actually looking out for you" Zuko drops his innitial suspicion that she wanted something and that's why she was helping him.

On The Beach, he just follows her when she say their old family home is depressing and they shouldn't waste their time there. When she's asking him who she is angry at, she mentions herself and Zuko explicitly says that is not the case.

He doesn't trust her and know she has a tendency to mock or full on lie to him... yet when he wants to know about Fire Lord Sozin he asks her about it, and lets it slide when she mocks him by saying he should make sure the royal painter got his good side - for a character as quick to anger as Zuko, that is a big deal. In Nightmares and Daydreams he also goes to her to find out if he'll be allowed at the war meeting.

More importantly:

1 - Iroh's infamous "She's crazy and needs to go down" line was only said because ZUKO, without anyone putting that idea in his head before, suddenly went "I know what you're going to say. She's my sister and I should be trying to get along with her"

2 - Zuko only jumped into the fight in Ba Sing Se when Azula was being cornered by Aang and Katara.

3 - Zuko looked genuinely shocked and even distressed when she was falling off that cliff. He just sounded so shaken saying "She's... not gonna make it..."

4 - In the writer's own words, Zuko felt no hate but only pity when seeing her breakdown. Katara tried to comfort him because, canonically, even though Zuko and Azula are enemies, this was never what he wanted because he still sees her as family. That's why the Last Agni Kai's music is not the epic you'd expect from a battle, but a tragic one.

5 - Aaron Ehasz, the lead writter for the show, probably the person with the most influence after Bryke, has REPEATEDLY said that he always felt Azula should have gotten a redemption arc, Zuko being an Iroh figure to give her advice and be the only one still by her side when all else was seemingly lost to her forever.

Even the comics (most of which I HATE, mainly because Azula's storyline checks nearly every box for "the mentally ill are inherently evil/less human, so it's fine if literally every other person on the planet mistreats them") didn't fully abandon their complex dynamic.

Zuko is not a perfect sibling, and for a long chunk of the story he seemed too focused on his own issues for Azula to ever be a factor in his mind (aside from the moments in which she was a potential/explict threat), but he DOES still feel a sense of obligation towards her, to the point that it made him do something no one else in their family had done before or since - actually look at Azula. Not the prodigious daughter/perfect weapon, or the problem child that is difficult to handle, or the pontentially deadly enemy that was in the way, but Azula.

His 14-year-old sister that got on his nerves a lot, was far from the kindest person alive, and that he had a ton of issues with, but that he could never fully hate or even be indifferent to. Because she's family. Because he remembers a happier time in which the gap between them didn't seem so big. Because if things had been slightly different he could have been her. Because he went from wanting to be her to seeing just how miserable her life ended up being - especially compared to the one he now had - and feeling deeply sorry for her.

Now if you guys excuse me, I'm gonna go cry in the corner. Have some wholesome/bittersweet fanart if you wanna cry too.

[nightcolorz]

ok armand's backstory is super tragic in the books but the show makes it even more devastating with The Implications. imagine marius leaving armand (his slave who he abused ever since he was a child) for the Evil Satan Cult and instead turning bianca (white rich woman)and choosing her as his new companion. makes me sick insane etc

OH MY GOD YES IM ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT THIS!!! In the books Armand is also technically Marius’s slave, but the way it’s portrayed from Armand’s perspective encourages u to forget about that. But the way the show highlights how Armand was a slave and shows how it influences the way Marius treated him annnndddd made Armand a person of color adds such a disturbing layer to an already disturbing dynamic. (Which i love lol)

I loooveee that u brought up Bianca bcus the whole dynamic with Bianca is sooo fucked up and no one ever talks about it. In blood and gold Marius explains that he was lonely and wanted a vampire companion, who he originally wanted to be Bianca, but he felt super mf guilty about this bcus Bianca is a young well off bright white girl and by turning her into a vampire and taking her for himself he’d be depriving her of her chance at a prosperous life and humanity. And the way Marius gets over angsting about how badly he wants Bianca but how he can’t take her cuz it’d be fucked is by BUYING ARMAND!! Marius buys Armand bcus he considers him *less of a person* than Bianca and therefor someone he can use and abuse without any guilt. So now that Armand is a person of color, that dynamic It’s basically like, “I can’t harm this sweet white girl even tho i want to so bad, that would be horrible!!! Wait, Oh my god yay!!! A brown boy <3 I can do as many terrible things that I want to him because he isn’t human to me <3” like holy shit that is sickening. And it’s such a nail on the coffin how once Marius decides to discard Armand bcus he’s not worth saving to him he immediately turns Bianca and decides that she’s his companion now, like oh my god.

making Armand a person of color was honestly one of my favorite (if not my fav) change that amc made with the characters. In the books Armand is always portrayed as having this ambiguous social oppressor that causes him to be seen as less then human or less worthy of inherent respect + dignity as other ppl, especially in his human lifetime, and it is so prevailing throughout his life that Armand is used to being treated like he’s nothing, so Armand being a person of color just makes sense to me. Not only that, but his entire backstory where there is so much emotional weight put on how Armand was stripped of his cultural identity and his birth name and his connection to religion by being sold into slavery so he’s lost the ability to understand who he is ?!?!? Like it’s kind of insane to me sometimes that all of the aspects of Armand’s backstory in the show that are very much racial trauma happened the exact same way in the books 😭. It makes a little too much sense lol

thank u sm for the ask I love angsting about Armand’s backstory more then anything!!!! ❤️❤️

[clemymimi]

Michikatsu Tsugikunis /Kokushibos political beliefs and ideologies

Literally no one asked for this, but since I'm very knowledgeable in the areas of philosophy, ethics, history and politics I thought I might give my two cents about this topic. If politics exhaust you, I ask you not to read this post ♡

The questions that I will try to answer in this post conclude:

- What is michikatsus core ideology?

- what political system nowadays would he most likely prefer?

- what German political party would he most likely vote for?

- would he have voted for Trump or Kamala Harris in the US-election?

Michikatsus core ideology:

Michikatsu is a rather complicated indidvual to fit into a category, he is most notably characterised by his dichotomous personality and as such could really swing in many ways, his thoughts often in conflict. He is a very individualistic person that despises the system yet finds comfort within it at the same time and can never truly escape it. Instead he yearns for an improved version of that system. Michikatsu does not want an emperor. Nor does he wish to follow a daimyo because he wants to be able to decide freely, whom his loyalty will receive. Michikatsu is essentially a tool without direction, a person who does not know how to live for himself and has spent his entire life catering to others yet secretly yearns for nothing more but to finally be his own person. Because of the system he was born into, he has been raised to fear this freedom. It is one of the core reasons for his jealousy towards yoriichi. Because the rules of the world have never applied to yoriichi and yoriichi has always been free to do whatever he wanted. That's all michikatsu had ever desired. He falsely believes that to gain this freedom he needs to become stronger and surpass his brother because he has never learned how to grow as a person and that is the only matter that fundamentally sets yoriichi and him apart within his mind: their strength. At the same time, in his pursuit for freedom, michikatsu ties himself to muzan and an 'improved system' of the system he grew up in to achieve this freedom. I Don't need to tell you how tragic such a fate is.

Let's get more into the philosophical aspects of this however:

Michikatsu believes, just like Thomas hobbes does, that humans are inherently evil. That in their natural condition, they would just all kill each other and are really selfish.

He believes that humans only formed a society for their own benefit.

He thinks humans all mistrust each other and the only art of state he believes can work is the leviathan.

The leviathan is basically a group of people giving up their own rights to one person who then rules over them (this curiously also coincides with michikatsu freely giving up his rights to muzan, doesn't it?)

Michikatsu believes humans stay together out of fear and the leviathan himself can reign the best with fear yet the people must also allow him to reign with fear, yet they could yk throw him from his throne any time

Michikatsu also believes that humans DO have the inherent ability to utilise their rationale and common sense but that they instead choose to adhere to their fears which he views as a weakness.

Let's talk about the Leviathan construct in more detail (and how muzan kibutsujis reign over his demons is the perfect example of this leviathan and also one of the reasons why kokushibo feels so content to serve him)

"A metaphor for the state, the Leviathan is described as an artificial person whose body is made up of all the bodies of its citizens, who are the literal members of the Leviathan's body. The head of the Leviathan is the sovereign. The Leviathan is constructed through contract by people in the state of nature in order to escape the horrors of this natural condition. The power of the Leviathan protects them from the abuses of one another."

For those confused (because I was as well when I first encountered this phrase): this essentially means that the Leviathan is empowered by the people who elect the sovereign to rule over them with terror so that they stick together out of fear. The natural condition describes the "homi homini lupus" line. That man is to man a wolf, aka to be distrusted. Only through fear from outward sources or from the sovereign can the people contained within this political system stay together as a society. Now Try to tell me that that is not exactly what muzan is doing with his demons?

"A multitude of people who together consent to a sovereign authority, established by contract to have absolute power over them all, for the purpose of providing peace and common defense."

this phrase however, offers a new perspective. It states that the people underneath the sovereign chose to give up their rights to them willingly. And is that not exactly what michikatsu did to muzan all those years ago? Muzan OFFERED to turn him into a demon, he did not force him like he did with hakuji. Michikatsu WILLINGLY gave up his freedom and his rights to serve Muzan and this willing capitulation of his sense of self explains WHY kokushibo is so loyal to muzan in the first place. There stands no question that had michikatsu not considered muzan worthy of his loyalty and freedom, he would not have given away himself to the demon king.

Contract

Also called "covenant" or "social contract," contract is the act of giving up certain natural rights and transferring them to someone else, on the condition that everyone else involved in making the contract also simultaneously gives up their rights. People agreeing to the contract retain only those rights over others that they are content for everyone else to retain over them.

This quote is basically just a repition of the previous verdict. And although most of the demons were forced into serving muzan, the people that muzan encountered personally were often given a choice (Tamayo, michikatsu, douma, rui).

What political systems nowadays would he most likely prefer?

With the pre-established notion in mind that Michikatsu believes within the construct of the Leviathan, it would be blasphemous to announce him a fan of democracy. He considers the people of the world far too idiotic to fell decisions over their own life's. Michikatsu would most likely have been a fan of monarchies/dictatorships like Caesars or Napoleon's. He would NOT have been a fan of north Korean current dictatorship. He would have preferred a competent leader to rule the world but within the world today, such a leader is nowhere to be seen. As such Michikatsu would most likely seek out the second best political system: the constitutional monarchy. The system of checks and balances that ensure that none of the political elements would hold too much weight would have been immensely appealing to him. In an ideal world michikatsu would have gladly followed a wise leader, but such a leader does not exist. As such, logically speaking, there would have to be systems in place to steal some of the head of states power away and to keep him in check in case he loses sight of what is best for his people and loses himself to the power hungry notions people in power often fall victim to.

So.. what political system nowadays would michikatsu likely support the most? The answer is the constitutional monarchy within the UK. Michikatsu would find comfort within the notions of a monarch still persisting within the country and he would appreciate the indirect democratic system of the two chambers (house of Lords and house of commons). All in all, he is rather satisfied with an unchanging but solid type of state (and the political system within the UK has not changed over the last 200 years)

What German political party would he most likely vote for?

I have decided to include this section as I think the answer might come off as surprising

The political party (amongst the most prominent one's) in germany that michikatsu would most likely vote for are die Grünen (the green party).

Die grünen party are a left wing party, although they are rather close to the middle left nowadays. Their primary objective to retain the planet would appeal to michikatsu. Michikatsu has always been a person driven by logic. He would consider the conserving of the earth and the tackling of the climate crisis as one of the most pivotal topics in the modern world. After all, If we do not take care of the planet.. well there is no planet left to live on, is there?

One may have assumed Michikatsu would have voted for the CDU, since it is the middle right conservative party in germany, but michikatsu would not have done so. Perhaps once upon a time, when the CDU had still been focused on retaining old values he would have chosen to vote for this party. But as it is today, all the CDU does is criticise the government and they are have been getting rather chummy with the afd, a party that Michikatsu would never be able to vote for (considering the party to be highly illogical, lacking true sustenance and actual political content apart from spreading hate and fear). Additionally, the fdp would also not be a good fit either as the party is far too liberal for michikatsus tastes (although michikatsu would most likely appreciate some measures of freedom from the government, he dislikes the fdps policy against rising taxes for the rich, finding the discrimination disgusting). "Die linken" party would be FAR TOO radical for Michikatsu as well. I do not even need to elaborate on that notion any further I fear pff.

As for the SPD.. michikatsu likes the social aspect of the SPD, that they wish to support the working class and the political system their country is built on. He appreciates consistency and would like that the SPD tries to support every single member within the state. As such it would most likely be his second choice.

Would he have voted for Trump or kamala Harris in the US-election?

The answer to this question is most likely clear by now. Although michikatsu has nothing against a monarchy, or even a dictatorship, he would only ever grant such a form of state to those he perceives worthy of the responsibility to guard an entire nation.

Donald trump is not worthy in his eyes. There is no logic behind his words, only the intention of stirring fear and hate. Donald trump makes not usage of pathos (playing on the listeners emotions) and is barely coherent at times. He is egotistical and incredibly radical and unpredictable.

Michikatsu HATES illogical behaviour, HATES unpredictable people. They are a great source of frustration for him. He also would be against the abortion ban that trump advocates for as he literally could not care less what a woman does with her children. In his opinion it is not his place to demand control over something that has never belonged to him in the first place. He is deeply respectful of women and although he does believe that their bodies cause for there to be a biological difference and a certain aptitude towards occupations (assigned male at birth as fighters, assigned female at birth as a stay-at-home parent) he is more than willing to accept you as who you are as long as you are intelligent and determined. He would have accepted a woman within their ranks during the sengoku period also. He would have needed to be convinced that the woman was competent enough, but as soon as that had been affirmed he would not have batted an eye.

The same goes for males and any other gender. He would have held men and women to the same high standards.

In conclusion:

Michikatsu tsugikuni believes in the Leviathan, as long as the sovereign is competent (like muzan). If there is no fit leader, Michikatsu is more than ready to consider a constitutional monarchy. Michikatsu would have most likely voted for die grünen in germany due to their agenda of tackling climate change and he would have voted for kamala Harris.

[henrysglock]

“I see where you're coming from, but they even offered Brenner a degree of humanization in ST4, and he's been the looming Big Bad since ST1.”

But this is what I mean by tragic! It would be tragic if Henry doesn’t get it while someone like Brenner got something. It wouldn’t be fair so therefore it would be tragic. And you’re right, maybe he isn’t solely responsible for the lab massacre but for anyone casually watching just the show and hasn’t seen TFS in S5 they will need to reinforce to the audience that he isn’t responsible for them to believe he doesn’t have blood on his hands. I hope I’m making sense. All I know is that I haven’t written him off as unredeemable or inherently evil like some folks on this site and my knowledge of him is closer to that of a casual viewer.

You make sense to me, and I hear you, but also...I mean...Yes and no.

That would be a tragic writing decision, for sure, but more than anything it would just be bad, inconsistent writing overall re: how vilainized victims are treated.

A tragic but thematically coherent ending would be something, maybe, along the lines of:

The gang tried their damnedest to save Henry after realizing he wasn't the source of their problems or after he'd accepted an alliance/olive branch against the government, but because he'd been overlooked for so long, he was physically too far gone to bring home. No one had a choice in it. Most if not all of the gang is really sad about this outcome, and it changes how they interact with the world. They go party at a bar, but you can tell the happiness doesn't sit quite right anymore. It's clear that the message is something along the lines of "you weirdos have to care for and protect each other—yes, even him—against the government/the government is not your friend. First, they came for Henry; next, they'll come for you."

A tragically bad writing choice would be:

The gang acknowledges that Henry's life fucking sucked, but they deem him too far gone in a discussion amongst themselves without including him in that discussion or making any meaningful attempts to reach him. Henry is killed, everyone breathes a sigh of relief, pats themselves on the back for 'saving the world', and justifies it all as the 'best' ending. Then, we see them partying at a bar, not a care in the world, because the Big Bad Henry is gone. This experience does not alter them outside the grief for their lost loved ones, the real big bad (the US government) is never addressed (or, in the worst case, it's praised in the way of "whew, thank god the military was there to save us from the big bad weirdo who was TOTALLY doing this in a vacuum"), and all the blame is left to rest on Henry as an individual.

See how that's different?

One of these is a tragic commentary on the power of community support against the very same harmful systems that work to dissolve our compassion for each other even in present day, primarily so that we never even think to punch upward, and the other is victim-blaming, downward-punching, boot-licking torture porn that worships the curtain.

One of these is an ending I would accept, and the other is what I see most commonly hyped on byIer tumbIr. Shocker, I know.

One issue I have with the better of those two options is this: They already did that with Billy. Why would they double up Billy's ending for Henry? There's supposed to be growth, season over season, but doing that would be stagnation.

There was a reason they doubled up TFS with ST1/ST2 WillElMike; it was specifically to progress the GA's understanding and humanize Henry. Doubling up with Billy's tragic death would be regression, in a story-telling sense. They already made their point about tragedy at the hands of trusting the government. They already made their point about humanized villains sacrificing themselves as martyrs. They already made their point about "bad people" not doing things of their own free will/the fact that you can't assume just because they're "bad" means they're the source of the problem. And the kids already don't trust the government.

So...What new points would Henry's death prove that haven't been proven by Billy or Brenner?

Billy proved that lack of love and community support kills—kills antagonists who are also victims of the systems they're entrenched in, even. Billy and Brenner proved that even the "worst" people can turn around and sacrifice themselves for the "greater good". Will and El proved that a wealth of love and community support can save the good guys, where they might have died had they not had that support.

So, then, my question becomes: What is Henry's story going to say that hasn't already been said before?

Blame the individual for the consequences of the system's actions? Blaming the victim for the situation he's in is okay, but only if he's an imperfect victim? Assumptions made about "bad guys" based on incomplete information are always right, and even if they're not, it's okay because everyone sees the "bad guy" as bad anyway? Some people are acceptable losses, as long as they're popularly viewed as a "bad guy"?

No. None of those are thematically coherent. A tragic ending would have to be unfair in a thematically coherent way. But all the thematically coherent deaths have been used up already!

That leaves us with one option: Saving an antagonist from the system the brutalized him, even if he seems entrenched in it at first glance.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

So someone getting pregnant and getting an abortion is bad. Do you also think someone who knows they’ll miscarry and gets pregnant anyway is a bad person?

I'm not sure what situation you're referring to in which someone KNOWS for certain they will miscarry. So I somewhat feel this is an irrelevant question.

I'm also hesitant to call someone who does bad things a bad person, because there's so often factors out of their control influencing the choices they make, we all have the capacity to do evil things under the right conditions, and I'm wary of dehumanizating people for their "crimes". This is why I don't think people who get abortions are necessarily bad people. I do still think abortion is unethical. I'm more likely to call someone who supports and defends unethical things a bad person, using shame as a tactic to challenge them, such as pro-aborts.

So let's look at a comparable example from real life. I have a pro-life socialist friend who miscarried five times. She has had one live birth. Do I think she's a bad person for trying again and again, despite the fact that so many miscarriages indicate a high likelihood she will miscarry again? Absolutely not. She's not deliberately doing violence to her children, and it is a tragedy that they keep naturally passing.

But as she is aware of this high likelihood of losing yet another child, do I feel her taking this risk is irresponsible? Also no. I used to feel conflicted about the ethics of conception, but I've mostly settled on the idea that the existence of a person is neutral. It's not a bad thing that people who die tragically early exist. I still think they're valuable people. But if they never came to exist, I also don't think that's inherently bad.

And I'm not about to infringe upon my friend's reproductive autonomy by demanding she try to prevent miscarriage by avoiding conception. She's trying to achieve a pregnancy that sticks and children that stay alive. It's a free fucking country, she's allowed to do that as much as she wants. It's not her fault that she's lost so many children, and that she may lose more in the future. These things are largely out of our control. She's not deliberately harming anyone.

Let's frame it another way, this time with a hypothetical situation (that's somewhat based on a situation I saw play out irl). Let's say there's a couple that knows for certain they are both genetic carriers for a fatal fetal abnormality, and so their baby will most likely die in the womb. Is it selfish for them to conceive, knowing this?

It's a tricky question, and either conclusion is hard to accept. I think it again comes down to, it is not bad that these people exist, and they have reproductive autonomy. If they want to practice self-eugenics and avoid conception, that's not my business. If they don't want to, then it's not a bad thing that sick and disabled babies exist.

But what IS a bad thing, and regrettably, what happened in the situation this hypothetical is based upon, is doing violence to babies via abortion. Abortion is not euthanasia; it's always suffocation, poisoning, or dismemberment. And even if a baby does not have the capability to "suffer" through these deaths, the loss of life is the most one can suffer, and that makes taking human life, no matter how peacefully it is done, violence. And as all humans have the right to live free from deliberate violence, elective feticide is a human rights violation.

So I think the key here is disentangling the ethical permissibility of allowing suffering from causing suffering, and distinguishing harmful negligence from benign risk. These are difficult questions we must ask, but I hope this answer helps unravel the complexity of this moral dilemma for you so you can think about it well.

[beevean]

Is it just me or does the way NFCV treat Nosaac being Muslim, not really different than how irl Islamophobic Christians see Muslims as just devil-worshipping satanists? I don't think it really matters that his use of dark magic is framed as cool with God somehow actually, when it's also effectively just "yes, the islamic god Baphomet is out to get you for being Christian" as a trope anyways. Maybe I'm mis-remembering/misreading something, but it's really been bothering me.

It's very suspicious, yes. And I can tell you it was unintentional, because they chose the literally worst character to make Black and Muslim but they didn't care because they only wanted to "fix the stupid character".

Isaac reveres a vampire who wants to exterminate mankind. Isaac agrees with the notion that humans are inherently cruel and poisonous and the world would be better without them. Isaac has expressed a lack of concern for his own life: he assumed that he would eventually be killed by Dracula, and wanted to lay down his life for his sake. Isaac has studied dark magic that allows him to extract souls from Hell and put them into dead bodies to turn them into man-eating monsters. Isaac says, quite literally, that he wants a "pure" world. Isaac uses Mohammed's words (allegedly - Muslim people have told me that the quote about the doors of Hell rattling in the wind is fake) to justify his mission of turning every human possible into an abomination.

How did anybody not put two and two together and realize that he looks like the parody of a jihadist? my man wants to purify the world from "evil" people in the name of Mohammed and is ready to die for his cause, give me a fucking break!

Isaac, of all characters, should have not been made Black or Muslim! His whole deal is that he worships the equivalent of Satan! He's servile to the point of self-nullification! Bruh! Hector and Isaac are both heathens and do not follow any God, because by creating cursed life they go against any kind of religion known to man! It's not just the Christian God who would have issues with this! (and making him a Black man serving a white master and declaring he wants to die for him, well it's kind of ehhhhh. I don't like raceswapping, but if you really wanted to do that, Hector was literally right there. Maybe that would have convinced Ellis to give him some dignity :V)

In theory, in a vacuum, an hypocritical Muslim anti-villain who believes himself to be a good devoted Muslim while in reality he's sinning left and right could work just as well as your classic hypocritical Christian priest. But we're not to the point where we could do that, not after 20 years of intense Islamophobia that equated Islam with terrorism, not without an immense amount of care. And Isaac did not get this kind of care. He's Muslim only in S3, at his worst point: in S2 he flagellates because of his past as a slave, which then became "I do it because I'm a Sufi", and by S4, the season where he wakes up Enlightened™, his scenes are all about how he enjoys having agency and how he wants to live. I think he only says "God is good" once. Also he doesn't really regret his past sins, he just decides to do things for his own sake.

It doesn't help that Isaac is framed not as an hypocrite, but as the cool, tragic villain. He's smart, he's wise, he's justified in being a misanthrope, he's justified in killing people who don't want his demon army to pass through. We are meant to ohh and ahh at his Enlightment™ while quietly ignoring how he, unlike Hector, chose time and time and time again the path of death and cruelty being fully aware of what it would entail.

[breakfastteatime]

It's so interesting reading everyone's interpretations of Bode because I have a completely different one. I don't think he's an abuser. He's a manipulator for sure, but I think, for him, it was a necessary skill given to him by the people who manipulated him. It was a means to survive. Did it make him evil? He's Cal's foil, so yeah, I guess, but I don't think he was ever inherently*evil*. He feared losing his daughter and the means to protect her- Cal had the same types of fears, but whereas Cal *almost* lost himself, Bode absolutely did.

It's tragic, intriguing, and complex. Good story telling imo lol, because everyone can have these sorts of reactions to him and ultimately, we're probably all correct in some way. I wonder if more players would be sympathetic if he'd been given the Joel Miller (Last of Us) treatment ... Maybe Bode didn't deserve a pyre for his actions, but for his daughter and for the man he once was, yes. I think it was the right call and Cere and Cordova being the Jedi they were, I don't think they would've begrudged the decision. Which just, *feels all around*.

I agree - it's a sign of excellent writing that we can all take slightly different things from Bode.

Very nice comparison with Joel. His actions at the end of TLOU are *morally wrong*. He chose the life of one over all of humanity, and yet every time I'm like "KILL 'EM ALL, JOEL! GET ELLIE!!!" because I took them on that journey and there's no way Joel was going to lose her. I also find myself justifying it every time too (Oh, but it's too late for humanity! There's no way to rebuild! It's time to move on BLAH BLAH BLAH) which is interesting. Joel makes the wrong choice, but also the most human one. By that point, he was incapable of making another. Perhaps had Bode been shown to be a better father the way Joel is, he would be more sympathetic. And arguably he was somewhat sympathetic *until* you start finding all those post-game echoes... I was of the belief that he was genuinely on Cal's side up until he defeats Dagan and Cal says Tanalorr is for everyone in need of sanctuary, but then there's that Luchrehulk echo about how Bode's 'almost' letting himself really feel for Cal and yeah, nah. That guy was never in it to find a way out *with* Cal. He was finding a way out through Cal. And yes, to a certain extent, Bode is being manipulated by Denvik, but I'd argue they're in a mutually manipulative relationship. Cal and Cere's differing lifestyles offer Bode two alternative options. The moment he learned of the Hidden Path he had a third option. He could've taken Kata and found refuge with Cere on Jedha. That's not a choice he made, because he's also desperate for revenge against whichever Inquisitor murdered his wife.

ANYWAY, the point I'm also winding my way towards is if I was going to compare Bode to another character in another game, it would be [REDACTED] from Bioshock. I don't care if that game came out in 2007, I just cannot spoil it! But if you know, you know. Bode is less blatantly evil than [REDACTED] but the twist is pretty similar in that EVERY TIME I WISH IT WASN'T HAPPENING.

I do understand why Bode got a pyre (to repeat: Kata was right there, Cal is empathetic, kind and selfless, and he's also mourning the loss of a friend even if that friend never truly existed). I MEAN IF VADER CAN GET ONE, RIGHT?!?!?! In all seriousness, by the end of the game Cal is trying to reconnect with his Jedi heritage, and I think that means showing respect for the Jedi Bode had once been.

THIS GAME IS SO GOOD AND HURTS MY SOUL SO MUUUUUUUUUUUUCH!

Thanks for the Ask!

[svere-online]

I do just wanna add to this discussion that aggressive drivers and drivers who feel entitled and self important behind the wheel are like that as people first, and have been taught explicitly or implicitly that this behaviour is acceptable.

When I was in drivers ed my instructor drilled into my head to be cautious, to respect pedestrians, and to always drive defensively rather than aggressively. This was a guy who had been driving for over 30 years, and who had driven everything from race cars to motorcycles to transport trucks. He is to this day someone I consider the gold standard of good drivers, because he always prioritized safety and control over a feeling of power.

This was also the same message I heard from other people I considered good drivers in my life. That to drive is a privilege and a massive responsibility.

That is tragically not a message everyone hears.

In my honest opinion, I do not think that every person that drives should be driving because they do not understand or accept the responsibility of it. I also acknowledge that especially in North America but in the rest of the world too, cars have become either a necessity or just so widespread that you’re going to be a driver or live around them anyway.

This isn’t a new problem with new rules either. The original concept of chivalry was a code of conduct for knights on horseback, because when you’ve got someone armed and armoured who is now much higher up than their fellow knights and riding an animal that could easily trample someone, people figured out that those riders (especially those who get careless or intentionally aggressive) need new rules to follow to keep foot soldiers around them safe. The term later expanded to other rules and codes of conduct for knights and nobility in general and got heavily romanticized but it started out with cavalry riders abusing their power.

And if you have never driven before, please understand that there are so many laws and general driving practices in place to protect pedestrians and at least where I live pedestrians have the right of way no matter what. Learning how to drive safely around people is a crucial and massive part of learning how to drive in general.

To drive does not inherently make someone aggressive, evil, or fascist, and the mark of a good driver will be steady and careful motion, knowledge and compliance with driving regulations, with full control of themselves and their vehicle. A vehicle is an extension of the person that drives it and the culture they are raised in.

All of that being said, there is another side to this. It stresses me out to see people be reckless or defiant around vehicles because:

YOU as a pedestrian also have responsibility for your own safety. EVEN IF the person behind the wheel is a careful driver, humans and all the “self driving” technologies out there are inherently flawed. A person can have a lapse in judgment or attention and if they hurt you they will face consequences for it, but the consequences you pay could be much higher. Yes people can be assholes, and a lot of people are raised and taught to see any privilege as an excuse for a power trip, but sometimes you have to use your own sense of awareness and judgement to keep yourself and others safe.

Sometimes it’s not an asshole or a drunk driver that could kill you, sometimes it’s a person sneezing and closing their eyes for a second as a result, sometimes it’s someone distracted with a child crying in the car, sometimes it is a failure of the vehicle. YES there are rules and regulations and practices in place to mitigate or prevent these situations from getting people hurt, but YOU can never assume that a car will move the way it is supposed to, that a person won’t run a red light, or that something can’t suddenly go wrong. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, YOU still have to be careful and aware as a pedestrian just as drivers have a responsibility to be careful and aware around you.

A reckless driver is a risk to everyone around them, but a reckless pedestrian can also put themselves and others in danger, either because they’re dealing with entitled drivers that don’t care if people get hurt, or they scare a driver that does not want to hurt them and causes another accident as a result.

TLDR: Driving is a responsibility and a huge part of learning to drive is learning and practicing safe and respectful driving especially around other drivers and pedestrians. People who abuse their power as drivers are not doing so because this is inherent to driving but because they have been raised to view their aggression and entitlement as acceptable, even when they are operating a vehicle. There are many laws in place to protect pedestrians, but as a pedestrian you have no way of knowing if the person behind the wheel is a good driver, if they’re an asshole who doesn’t care if they hurt you, or if they might be distracted, and you should still exercise caution no matter what.

Yes suburbi-tanks are evil, no that personal truck should not be that tall, yes laws protecting pedestrians should be consistent and enforced, yes public transit and pedestrian friendly spaces are vital, and yes there are a lot of people behind the wheel that shouldn’t be. But as it stands in a lot of places, the infrastructure forces people to rely on cars and changing this is crucial but it is also a slow, difficult, and expensive process.

In the meantime, be cautious as a pedestrian and practice awareness, teach children in your life road safety, and encourage a culture where driving is acknowledged as a privilege and where safe, respectful driving is idolized over entitlement and recklessness.

This is the thing about being a pedestrian tho drivers just straight up loathe your existence and act like you are somehow a problem for being a fucking pedestrian. Some cunt in a jeep almost hit me today while I was ALREADY in the crosswalk and she had a red fucking light and had the balls to scream at me. Like fucking excuse you? I don't trust any of y'all as drivers and in my world, the driver should always be at fault of hitting a pedestrian. "You walked out in front of my big truck" cool get a smaller vehicle if you can't give pedestrians the right of way.

[dannyphantom-justiceleauge]

Transformation AU: On the matter of vampires, what if the non-ghost half of Vlad actually turned out to be a Lugat? Like, he was originally human, but when the accident happened, he came back to life as a half-Lugat, half-ghost to pursue Maddie. It would also make sense if he had Strigoi ancestry because they are known for draining wealth instead of blood. I imagine that Vlad actually never knew he was vampiric, just chalking it up to ghostliness, so when he dies figure it out, he sets out on learning to use & master whatever powers comes with it.

on the one hand, it fits. especially the bit about trying to lure women and children to him. on the other hand bringing him into the monster genre makes him more tuckers things and they don't really have a relationship outside of danny. and while i can see the potential of vlad getting more powers so he can match the scale that danny is reaching...

i personally prefer him just being a human loser. i feel in part it works better with his character and honestly i don't like writing off his bad qualities, such as his obsession with maddie and danny, as a monster thing. yes we have ghost obsessions, but that has more ground work and in general i see vlad's obsession as a 'i want the things i can't have' more than anything specific. he's a fascinating character. his psychology has a logic behind it, and for all his crime and evil he's presented as a pathetic loser who can't get over a girl and is spending his time fighting a teenager.

giving him lore outside of his 'tragic backstory' gives him a mystique that i don't think he really deserves. while everyone else in the spook squad can claim their involvements in the other worlds have made their lives more complicated, i feel vlad would just use having monster blood as an excuse to be more shitty, and use the extra powers to make things worse for everyone. he wouldn't care about the cultures or lives he's effecting by abusing his powers or interacting with other creatures. he's just continue being a pathetic jerk but with extra powers.

i think it'd be far more interesting for vlad as just a plain old human, (cosplaying a vampire because he's a nerd and thinks they're scary looking) to recognize that danny is leaving him behind power wise. he can't keep up with the king of the ghosts. danny has started to see him as more of a nuisance than a threat, because he's been dealing with bigger and bigger issues and ghosts. he's busy, and on top of that he's seeing theirs a lot more to the world than just his parents and their lame friends. he's going deeper into the ghost zone, he's going further away from amity and meeting creatures from all walks of life. he's growing up and vlad, as someone explicitly someone stuck in the past, hates that.

he hates being left behind. he hates that danny is more powerful than him. he hates that he's no longer a threat. and so rather than provide him power ups by having it be something he's born with, i want him to actively seek out artifacts and ways to become more powerful. and in the process probably step on the toes of a lot of other magical creatures. yes this makes him similar to creepshow in some ways, but that just means there's a potential nasty team up between them. it means he's more motivated to be involved in the various shenanigans the spook squad get up to. it means he continues to be a problem, but it doesn't take away from his character. it runs with it.

there's also just something inherently pathetic and a bit funny about this adult man watching the kids he know go on to greater and more important magical adventures, and saying NO! i want my own magical adventure! i am following these literal children into their magic worlds! like bro get a life- Hestia

[egg-emperor]

Eh, i don't believe in humans being inherently evil though. And i also think there's also an underlying cause for anyone terrible. Any healty human has a tendency toward good I'd say. Not to get all philosophical :/

I don't believe in humans being inherently evil either but I also don't believe in them being inherently good, just like any other species. It's much more complex than that. I believe in neutral until they become one or the other based on thoughts and feelings first, then experiences and choices. There are many reasons that someone can be good or bad and the forming of the bad isn't always tragic, sad, or forced and against that person's control- but instead their own beliefs and decisions. And they aren't even always taught, just because of how they've personally interpreted something and formed a belief or desire for certain actions based off it and nobody taught them it was wrong, or they were too ignorant to accept it, or they know and don't want to change, etc. There are many different ways one can feel and interpret things in life.

I think the only traits that make us human is that we all have thoughts, feelings, personality, and depth but they're not all the same by default. There's no checklist required to being human when it comes to being good or bad, high empathy or little to no empathy, morals, beliefs, etc. Something being conventional to the masses doesn't make it a fact or the only way. No same good or bad person is formed in the exact same way and sometimes it is within our own choice and beliefs that weren't inherently formed by a single other person or event and that's what makes the human mind so interesting. It's not just black and white, so I personally don't believe that people are inherently good or bad.

[guillory-street-gossip]

@queenarsinoethepoisoner you’ve unleaded the floodgates LETS GOOOOO.

Now usually for an analysis post I would pull direct quotes but I don’t have the books with me rn so we’re going vibes and memory only. Spoilers for both The Shadow Game and Succession to follow.

The Augustines and the Roys, though running very different types of businesses, have similar familiar hierarchical structures. Obviously the Roys’ “family-owned” business is muddled by the board where the Augustines’ only outside influence is like the omertas and other employees with considerably less power, but the core of the business remains the same.

Starting with Shiv oh my GOD what a character. Her journey is ultimately very tragic imo with her relegated to the wife/mother spot that she tried so hard to avoid. One of the traits of hers I really want to hone in on is the way she uses or discards feminism for her own advantage. This explanation has been done to DEATH but that’s because it’s FASCINATING!! She plays the “feminist girlboss” to get ahead, but in practice, she’s trying to get ahead in a company that only harms marginalized groups!! During the Cruises debacle she fully goes out to silence a whistleblower and at the same time uses empowering language and telling her that people will call her a whore. It’s CRAZY the cognitive dissonance makes me fucking SICK!!!!! Also like. When she gets married she keeps her last name, and yeah, she can construe it as a feminist thing, but we all know it’s so she can keep feeding off her family’s reputation. And ALSO like the fucked up thing?? She is a victim of the misogyny she’s enabling! Every single man in her family walks all over her and treats her like shit!! She’s never her own woman, she slides neatly from “daddy’s little girl” into “subservient wife” in the finale and what if I cried and sobbed huh. Ok moving on it’s Vianca time!!

This woman. Ok. If shiv is bad Vianca is EVIL. She’s first introduced as head of a crime family, and one of her first actions onscreen is the literal enslavement of Enne. As the books go on and she’s faced with her estranged son, Harrison, she reveals to Enne more and more about how she views her position as not only a woman, but also as mother and wife. Harrison’s senatorial campaign really breaks her and causes her to reveal a LOT of herself to Enne, resulting in very ironic scenes where she vents about her frustrations being sidelined by men in her family and being treated shittily by the media due to misogyny and ageism (all of which are very justifiable complaints!!). In these scenes, she positions Enne as a sort of “girl’s girl” or sometimes even a kind of therapist, failing to recognize the inherently predatory power dynamic between them. Enne isn’t here because she can sympathize with Vianca’s plight, even though she does feel for her struggles. No, Enne is here because she has absolutely no choice, and Vianca refuses to acknowledge that. I think this is why Levi and Enne’s “betrayal” at the end of book 2 caused Vianca to call for what would become Jac’s murder. Enne went against “girl code” and Levi betrayed the surrogate son role he was forced into (I do NOT have the time to get into that but my god Vianca and Levi and Harrison is a whole different analysis.)

I got a little sidetracked but I do also want to touch on the book 1 poisoning scene, which is one of the most messed up things Vianca does in maybe the entire series (yes, worse than Jac). I assume anyone reading this has read the books, but if you’re unfamiliar, warning for pedophilia.

In this scene, Vianca dolls up the 5-foot-nothing, 17-year-old Enne, aiming to make her look about 13-14, and sends her to Luckluster Casino. The owner of Luckluster, Sedric Torren, is one of the Vianca’s greatest political and financial enemies. He is also a known pedophile. Vianca functionally uses Enne as human bait for him, telling Enne to poison him when his guard is down. Both Vianca and Enne mentally twist this plot into something positive. After all, they’re incapacitating a societal menace who has hurt countless people. But the fact remains that this is, at its core, a political move, and Vianca is putting an innocent and vulnerable woman in harm’s way to get what she wants. It’s messed up!! It is very messed up!!

ANYWAYS. With that out of the way I think I can really draw some parallels. In my mind, Pre-campaign Vianca is kind of Shiv’s “good ending.” No other family to be beholden to, no media attention, no men to fight against, and the ability to exploit all the workers she wants with no repercussions. Shiv ends the series preparing to have a child she doesn’t want with a husband she doesn’t love, a husband who has ultimately has all the power she once held and then lost. She is resentful, understandably, and as she grows older, if Tom dies, maybe, if her son leaves her, if her family fades away one by one, she will be in Vianca’s same position.

The Cruises Whistleblower and the poisoning scene both reveal similar things about their respective characters. Both can dress anything up in feminist, empowering language, but fundamentally they are self-serving snd don’t really care for the women that they champion. Hypocrisy is really the word of the day here.

And both characters struggle against misogyny in their own day to day lives!! From their families, from the media, hell, sometimes even from themselves and from a social and political landscape that THEY are actively shaping!!

Shiv and Vianca are the “girlboss” archetype taken to a logical extreme and inevitable end. They are horrible, horrible people. At the same time they are victims. How do you reconcile that? You know?? It’s a fascinating position, as both the victim and the perpetrator of cyclical abuse, specifically focused on women in power.

I watched a video essay last night on a phenomenon of sanitized, palatable white gays (it’s called the Rise and Fall of the Buzzfeed Gay by Queen Cole Francis, im having trouble linking it). The essay had a really interesting segment on 2010s girlboss culture and the weird intersection of feminism and capitalism that sort of ended in disaster. Both characters are, to some extent, a response to that culture. There are no ethical CEOs. Your victimhood does not make you less of a persecutor. And your power does not make you less of a victim.

It has come to my attention that vianca is actually kind of a shiv Roy figure if you think about it… may elaborate if anyone is interested 😈