#i don't agree with this argument

[murderbirds]

Thinking about the one time I was talking to this '''''ally''''' cis straight dude on discord and he told me that actually Riddler is straight and that the 'wake up alone' scene in Gotham is there just because that is how imagine Oswald to be like because he is gay. Because, you know, all straight dudes hallucinate their gay dead friend serenading them while breathing more heavily and being affected by it with red lightning around him. Very normal non homophobic straight behavior.

[dailymanners]

Being civil =/= being two faced. If you have to regularly see and deal with someone, such as a roommate, co-worker or other type of work associate such as a supplier, classmate, etc. If you don't like them or have personal qualms with them, for the sake of everyone around you be civil with them.

Of course this isn't about abusers or people who make you feel unsafe. This is about people who you just don't get along with or you just find to be annoying.

If you're uncivil with someone you regularly need to be around, you are making the environment worse for everyone around you including the co-workers and classmates you might actually like and get along with. Few people find it comfortable to even have to be in the vicinity of people being uncivil with each other.

Why make the whole atmosphere of your home, workplace, classroom, etc. uncomfortable for everyone there just because you don't like someone or have personal qualms with them? Don't drag others into your personal mess with your co-worker or roommate etc.

Of course you can still assert boundaries while being civil with someone. In fact you should, in a civil manner, keep your boundaries up. That's the difference between "Sorry Guðmundur, I appreciate your offer for me to join you for lunch but I'll have to pass" vs "Oh like hell am I going to join you for lunch after what you said about me at the staff party Guðmundur!" the former is just being a civil adult, while the latter is making an uncivil environment that is likely going to make your other co-workers uncomfortable.

[alexandraisyes]

The cutest reminder ever that the way family works in TSAMS canon is that two parties have to be in mutual agreement that they are family. If one party doesn't agree then they aren't family. Parties can revoke familial ties whenever they want and that means they are no longer family.

"Code Relation" theory is stupid because you're then implying that Eclipse is Sun and Moon's child. Which he isn't. Or that Killcode is somehow Moon's child and his brother at the same time that he's Eclipse, Lunar and Bloodmoon's "father" at the same time that they're Sun and Moon's grand children. Like, we're seeing the issue here, right?

Don't make things more complicated than it has to be. Just accept the fact that family is literally determined by a verbal agreement between two animatronics and nothing else because none of them were born from wombs. That means respecting canon when characters in canon decide that they aren't comfortable being family (like Eclipse) or just straight-up disown everyone (like Bloodmoon). It's okay to have headcanons, but don't try to push them onto canon.

[qiu-yan]

in order to say "wei wuxian is morally good," you must first define what it means to be morally good

though this is by no means exclusive to them, one logical fallacy i sometimes see wei wuxian stans make in their arguments is that they begin their analysis of wei wuxian as a character with the statement "wei wuxian is morally good."

so their argument becomes:

wei wuxian is morally good.

a morally good person would do XYZ.

therefore, wei wuxian would do XYZ.

alternatively, when they're objecting to someone else's argument about wei wuxian, their counterargument becomes:

this argument says that wei wuxian would do ABC.

a morally good person would not do ABC.

wei wuxian is morally good.

therefore, wei wuxian would not do ABC; the other person's argument is wrong.

while this is in fact a valid argument structure to use for other kinds of traits (ie. "brave," "doesn't think of the consequences," even something like "afraid of dogs"), this format of argument in fact cannot be used for a descriptor as vague as "morally good"--because, unlike the other traits, "morally good" is not precisely defined enough for the above argument structure to work.

"morally good" is not a character trait in the same way that "wants to defend the weak," "is angered by innocent people being harmed," and "does not fear consequences" are character traits, because what is considered "moral" can vary significantly from person to person. what a utilitarian considers to be moral, for example, diverges significantly from what a deontologist considers to be moral. if i were to say "wei wuxian is a morally good person," i have frankly said less about wei wuxian's personality and more about what i myself believe to be ethical.

thus, the reason why the above argument pretty much never works in the wild is that the depolyers in question rarely actually define what they mean by "morally good."

consider the case in which two different wei wuxian stans write on their blogs "wei wuxian is a good person." however, the first person follows a moral philosophy that centers courage in the face of certain failure, while the second person follows a moral philosophy that centers reason and pragmatism. thus, what the first person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who courageously chooses the correct path even when he is doomed to fail," while what the second person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is a reasonable and pragmatic person." these are no longer the same statement.

or consider the case in which the first stan follows a moral philosophy that centers agent-neutral harm reduction, while the second stan follows a moral philosophy that centers agent-relative reciprocity. in this case, what the first person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who helps others regardless of whether they've helped him before," while what the second person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who always repays kindnesses done unto him." again, these are no longer the same statement.

in general, if one wishes to argue that "blorbo is morally good," one must first specify what exactly they mean by "morally good," because not everyone follows the same definition of "morally good." many blorbo stans, however, don't actually do this. instead, they write their arguments as if their own definition of morality is already universal law; a reader can thus only reverse-engineer what the op believes to be morally good from their post. and this leads to no shortage of disagreements: two different blorbo enjoyers might find themselves in an argument over what they believe to be their blorbo's characterization, when in reality they are actually disagreeing over what it means to be ethical at all.

on the topic of disagreement, another fact that must be acknowledged is that wei wuxian himself is also a character with his own specific thoughts and feelings. wei wuxian is not an abstract paragon of righteousness whose definition of morality just so happens to perfectly match the reader's definition of morality; wei wuxian is a specific fictional character with his own specific thoughts as to what is right and what is wrong. and every reader has to accept that what wei wuxian considers to be right can in fact be gleaned from the text--and that what wei wuxian considers to be right will not always match what the reader considers to be right. wei wuxian might, in fact, disagree with you.

thus, if you want to make any sort of statement regarding wei wuxian's moral character (whether that be "he is morally good" or "he is morally bad") you in fact have to consider not just one, but four different questions:

what do you consider to be morally good? what moral framework and/or school of moral philosophy do you use to determine what is ethical?

how well do wei wuxian's actions adhere to what you personally consider to be morally good?

what does wei wuxian consider to be morally good? what moral framework and/or school of moral philosophy does he use to determine what is ethical?

how well do wei wuxian's actions adhere to what he himself considers to be morally good?

all of these are different questions! they cannot be conflated with each other.

to write a good analysis, you must accept that [what you consider to be morally good] will not always match [what wei wuxian considers to be morally good]. when such disagreements arise, rather than distort wei wuxian's character to match what you personally believe to be morally good, perhaps consider just allowing wei wuxian to disagree with you instead. even if he's doing something you honestly can't defend, maybe wei wuxian is still striving to live as best he can according to his own ideals, and it just so happens that his ideals do not match your ideals. you really should not distort wei wuxian's motives or beliefs just to make him more palatable to you, simply because you have wedded yourself to the idea that "wei wuxian must be morally good by my own standards."

closing thoughts: this isn't really exclusive to wei wuxian stans. i've seen all sorts of character stans in all sorts of fandoms make this same logical fallacy. i certainly think that some of the jiang cheng analyses i see from fellow jiang cheng stans are born less from an objective analysis of his character and moreso from the op's desire for his actions to align with their moral compass. but, out of all the characters in MDZS, it seems like people commit this logical fallacy when discussing wei wuxian specifically far more often than they do with any other character, save perhaps lan wangji.

[utilitycaster]

I think it's gotten better as of late but I must admit. unbelievably validating to, after months of being like "I feel so much discussion of TTRPGs and actual play rests on the idea of novelty rather than skillful execution and I disagree" to turn on the Sam Reich episode of Adventuring Academy and for Sam and Brennan to say "I would watch any well-executed premise the creators were passionate about, no matter how many times I've seen the same concept."

[psychicdisaster]

The. Idiots.

(affectionate)

[haruzes]

Okay, but can we normalize also considering/calling the 2012 turtles "weapons"?

Like, i see so many people saying that the Rise turtles would beat the 2012 turtles in a hand-to-hand combat because they were purposely mutated for war... And i just don't agree with this argument??

The very concept of the 2012 form of ooze/mutagen is that it basically mutates the individual who makes contact with it into something stronger/dangerous, as we can see with literally every mutant in the series.

So, BASICALLY if any live-being makes contact with mutagen it'll turn into a dangerous mutant weapon, intentionally or not, the mutation boosts the individual skills to an extreme, really.

Gosh, there's a literal episode in the 2012 TMNT series where Donatello is hit by a missile and he survives without major injuries, in almost every episode we can see the turtles doing something inhuman like being super fast, holding or doing things that require some kind of super strenght (cof cof Leo holding back Kraang prime with only a chain cof cof), inhuman resistance, and sometimes it even looks like they can regenerate (although i think they just don't have scars for style purposes).

Anyways, i just wanted to say that i don't really agree with this argument and ended up making a little rant about it lmao.

[watermelinoe]

just putting this out there but if you believe we should consider someone a woman if they were socialized female, will this also apply to the male children who are transitioned as toddlers?

[irregularbillcipher]

the "paul is richie's uncle" headcanon is really cute but i really love it in tandem with the idea that ted is surprisingly involved in his little brother's life while paul is more just vaguely fond of his nephew, but doesn't really know all that much about his friends or his day-to-day life

like, the idea of ted knowing all his geeky little brother's friends really well, like letting them chill in his apartment every now and then to watch movies or driving them home when they have their stupid library study sessions or whatever is already pretty fun, just the idea that the Local Bastard has accidentally and begrudgingly been saddled with these two loser highschoolers because they're his little brother's dweebus friends that he doesn't want to admit he has a soft spot for, but it's made doubly funny if paul just has no idea that his nephew's best friend is the little brother of the Worst Guy In His Office. ted comes over to paul's desk one day with a stack of dog-eared manga like "pete forgot to take these this morning, so you give 'em back to richie for me, okay? also, ruth's right, stein and spirit are definitely fucking and i want him to stop fighting with her about it when i pick 'em up from the library" and paul is just like. okay. i have several questions about this.

[aalghul]

Saying that what fans (and post-flashpoint) make Jason is what Helena already is always gets one of two reactions: I hate Jason and this is true, I love Jason and this is completely wrong. Everyone's losing with that btw.

Helena and Jason are fundamentally different enough that it can't be exactly true. Helena and Jason's backstories don't have much in common either. Helena's involved betrayal, schemes and fights for power. Jason's was a product of Park Row being continually failed by Gotham. Jason also has a history with the Bats specifically, as the second Robin and a son of the family, that Helena doesn't. There is an appeal in that that's not transferrable; Jason's been a Bat and has had his own various roles since his he was created pre-crisis, not just since his resurrection or since he got a softer role post-flashpoint. He doesn't get to just not be a bat character.

In going "fanon Jason is exactly like Helena" you're also ignoring her time on the JLA and BOP, because remember that fanon thinks Jason sits around staring at his wall angrily until his family tell him to stop being a brainless killer OR runs around half-assing missions with his brothers friends because he has none of his own. It's honestly a disservice to her to pretend that brand of fanon Jason could ever be her.

However, Helena is the one who fought to be trusted by the Bats and compromised on killing because of them (whether that be due to the aforementioned struggle to fit in with them, or, at low points, because they know her identity). Jason did not due this pre-flashpoint, and even those abandoned attempts in Countdown didn't begin with the main timeline's version of Bruce. Pre-flashpoint Jason was not asking for anyone's trust or for a seat at the table. That's not even to say that any interpretation of Jason that has him reconciling with the Bats if a rip-off of Helena, it's just that Jason put himself on the outskirts of the family because he has personal issues with them. It's not just them making that decision. The role that Jason now occupies is very much the one that Helena had.

I'm not going to sit here talking about all the similarities and differences, or how they got tangled along the way. I just want to say that people who act like Jason was dealt a good hand by being given Helena's characterization by fanon and post-flashpoint are never going to be able to prove their point because you're focusing on the wrong thing (something that isn't even true). People who refuse to accept that the Jason they're talking about is a whole different character are going to miss out on any of the many interpretations of Jason that aren't just knock-off Helena's. And they're all pissing each other off in the process.

[knockknockitsnickels]

Day 16, final day before the Pristine Cut, my attempt at Ms. Chain Princess (possibly Prison3r but I've seen ppl speculate she's sp3ctre) from the trailer. See you all post pristine-cut 🫡

[swinging-stars-from-satellites]

with a few minutes' reflection and a second conversation with my parents I have realized that I may have overblown things and overreacted a bit and also in some ways they're correct even if I think they're also harsh about it

[weathernerdmando]

I do have on thing to say about the fact that "one of the passengers is a 19 year old" for the Titan.

A 19 year old is still a "teenager" but that is a whole ass adult. That is an adult who has been an adult for a year and acting like he has no self agency to not make the choices he did is just ridiculous and I'm seeing *way* to many people on this site pretty much just infantalize him. 18 is *also* an adult. A new adult, but still an *adult*. If you are seriously in the mindset of "but that's a child still!" You need to step away from Tumblr and just think about how you view the various human stages of development.

19 year olds aren't kids. That man made that choice to go down there.

(also as a trans man who's rights are under attack and that people are using the argument of "kids can't consent" to get their foot in the door and then further take them away from literal adults, some under the argument of "well a lot of y'all are autistic and Don't Really Understand what's happening even though you're adults!!" This shit infuriates me. Stop infantilizing people!!! This may not be about my rights as a trans person but the issue of infantilizing literal adults is still the same!!!)

[statementlou]

I feel like when people ask famous personalities to participate in activism, they may be influenced by the parasocial relationships they have formed with these celebrities and not that they really care about what is going on. They expect famous individuals to act as role models or representatives of their beliefs. That's why I think, it is crucial to maintain a critical perspective and not depend solely on celebrities for activism. This can result in a passive approach to social change and disregard the significance of collaborative action and personal engagement. The majority of celebrities don't care lol even who speak up about it publicly. Their reality is different from ours, like Gigi Hadid also drank Starbucks the other day, Bella Hadid worked with a lot of Zionist brands and did a photo shoot with them recently, etc etc. And let me not start on stans culture... the worst thing ever

Okay this is fascinating because yes! I agree with you so much! But then I was completely floored by the choice of the HADIDS (literal Palestinians who never shut up about the cause) as examples- but actually I love it because I think it opens up two really really important points that maybe get to the heart of the whole issue. Gigi and Bella Hadid are, as I said, literally Palestinian, and have throughout their public lives (not just recently) never been silent or backed down in defense of Palestine even when it has very publicly lost them (Bella primarily) jobs and opportunities, and they both continue to be outspoken even while literally targeted and threatened by zionists. Pretty much everything anyone has wanted or asked for from any celebrity, right?! But here we have, first of all, Gigi having all of that discounted because she bought Starbucks, a brand that is not even an official boycott! I feel like this is a perfect example of prioritizing performative and symbolic activism over actions with material impact, if someone who has been so consistent and stalwart can see all that dismissed because they spent $5 on a coffee (that, again, has no material financial relationship to Israel). I personally think that on a scale of good done vs harm, Gigi can afford a lot of problematic coffees, and this is not even getting into the Hadid families finances which involve huge amounts of money being used and moved around in ways that do more to help the cause than any image choice can unbalance. And then you say that Bella has worked with zionist brands- I don't know anything about this so I can't speak to it. Given that we are also apparently considering starbucks a zionist brand despite the company not operating in or having any ties to Israel, I would question what this means. But it doesn't matter- I think the point is that consumer/ individual purity isn't possible! No one is making pure consumer choices, no matter how many brands they boycott, and certainly no celebrity can continue to be one without having unsavory connections. I think that BY DEFINITION no celebrity is politically pure because if they cut all those ties, THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE A CELEBRITY. Whether the pursuit of purity is realistic or desirable is a much bigger issue, but the point is that as you say, looking to celebrities to be activists will end only in disappointment. Their job is to entertain in specific ways and they do that; if that's not working for you, then consume some other celebrity's product (persona). As I have said from the start, if you want to stan Louis because he is talented and hot and kind and smart and fun then you are in luck! But if you are looking for an activist spokesperson, he is not going to be that, and yelling at him (or people who don't consider that a deal breaker) isn't going to change that.

[utilitycaster]

I just want to say, that I agree with almost all of your Critical Role takes and you have 1000% better and more nuanced takes than all of Twitter and I greatly appreciate it! The takes over there regarding Liliana and the gods are just wild and you bring some much needed sanity to the content I see

Thanks! I hope you don't mind because I've been thinking about this re: the Twitter takes but the thing about Twitter and Liliana specifically that I've seen is that there's this really bizarre fetishization of like, the fact that she is a (white) southerner (this also weirdly happened for Birdie though to a much lesser extent, and the person who spearheaded that wasn't even American so I have to assume this is a specific corner of Twitter Culture At Large). And like, here's the thing. It's true that fantasy tends to be very British in its accents, and it's also true that accents in a fantasy world are used to convey the same things we'd assume in our world - RP British for educated, southern American for rural, Cockney for rougher types, etc.

It's also true that laying the exact socioeconomic parallels from our world onto, say, Liliana and Orym (who reads to me as non-regional but I, like Liam, am from the Northeast originally) is a recipe for disaster. Or rather, it's not, but it is going to reaffirm your own biases, some of which are dangerous to reaffirm.

There was a popular post on Tumblr a while back, probably not long after Trump was elected, of someone talking about how they were convincing a relative with the confederate flag towards socialism by appealing to the idea of "isn't in unfair how uneven wealth distribution is and how a small group has so much control" and a number of people were rightfully like "uh, maybe you should focus on the racism" or "hey OP ask your relative who they think that small group in control is because I'm getting a really bad feeling they're going to say it's The Jews." And I feel that a lot of the empathy for Liliana from those spaces feels like that OP. Or in other words: I get that you see your relatives in Liliana. Unfortunately, I cannot help but see me and mine in Orym.

You see someone trapped by circumstance and desperation in a dangerous ideology. I see the fact that I haven't gone to a synagogue in easily 6-7 years without there being a security guard present and usually, the doors locked with someone looking through the window to let you in, and then in the sanctuary there's been an installation so that you can quickly bar all the doors in case an alarm goes off or you hear shots in the lobby.

I think there's a great case for seeing yourself in Imogen, who is in a painful struggle with the fact that her mother does love her very much but is in dangerously deep and has done a number of incredibly terrible and harmful things. That latter point is important, incidentally; I get that cult members sometimes rise through the ranks but all but the leader are being manipulated. But the fact remains that a brainwashed person can still commit atrocities, and in this story, they have, many times over. It's especially true because like...sure, plenty of people are like "I lost my relative to a cult and I just want them back and I couldn't harm them," but also, as we've seen, this cult can and will harm Imogen! Plenty of people are also like "yeah I gotta cut them off, it hurts but unfortunately my horribly bigoted and violent relative, while a victim of brainwashing, is a threat to me too." It's not even the full picture of the Temult side of things, let alone the picture that includes the Vanguard's victims.

I also think the Southern gatekeeping is unhinged because it's like. guys there's QAnon members and other cults across the country; the Confederate flag example above was actually notable in that OP wasn't even Southern so you couldn't even write the flag off as deeply misguided heritage but rather was explicitly being used as a hate symbol. It's awfully presumptive to assume all southerners have the same experience (especially since the Temults are portrayed, physically and in accents, as white southerners, not that the experiences of white southerners aren't also incredibly varied). It's awfully presumptive to assume that people find Liliana threatening because they have no personal experience with people like her; often, it's because they have all too real experience with people like her, and it says something even worse about you if you can say "but you guys, I see me and my family in Liliana" when people are telling you that they see them and their families in Orym. I would not, personally, publicly admit that one's empathy extends to the people who remind you of your family but runs out before it reaches their victims. Nor would I publicly admit that I assume everyone who disagrees with me clearly has never had personal experience with this topic.

I should also note that, as I've noted a number of times before, that these are fictional characters and not real people. Twitter seems to be really fucking bad at grasping that. Like, yes, this is the other thing; I do not think that OP should kill their Confederate flag-toting relative, whereas if Imogen did so to Liliana I'd be like "hell yeah." The former is a real person who I do hope gets deprogrammed, just, you know, maybe adjust those priorities; the latter is a fictional character in a story.

[heretherebedork]

Ray is so weird, I can never accept him dating ANYONE in this show. The way he got aggressive against Mew, because Mew did not want to have sex, is horrible. Just because you're a nice friend does not mean you're entitled to sex.

Ray is messed up and that was definitely wrong of him. Like, no hesitation, he pushed hard because he's been nice and Mew agreed to date him and he was wrong for that. No denials.

Ray is an addict with serious mental health issues and past trauma who was being used by his friend to hurt another person and actively lied to about their relationship.

Ray was wrong. Ray was upset that he was being used and his love was being used and he was asked into this relationship not because he was loved but because he was the best way to hurt someone else. And he lashed out in a moment because he saw this as just another thing that he was never going to be able to do that someone else did, more proof that he was being used and that he wasn't worth anything.

Ray was wrong. He should not have pushed Mew for sex or gotten upset when he was rejected. But he wasn't wrong in that Mew did ask him to be in a relationship entirely to hurt Top and that his love was being used to hurt another person.

He was not entitled to sex and he didn't get it and he was wrong to be upset by Mew's boundaries but that doesn't mean that Mew wasn't drawing boundaries meant to hurt Ray because he wasn't choosing him.

Mew only chose Ray because he was the easiest way to hurt Top.

This is not a show about anyone being morally superior, it's a show about messy young adult gay men who are discovering themselves and each other as they process their friendships, relationships, traumas,a addictions and the start of healing.

Ray is not worse than the rest of the show. He is different but everyone is making mistakes and that's the point.

Anyway, hi anon from last week. Again. You can block me if my takes bother you that much. Please do. I am just here to enjoy this morally ambiguous show for what it is, my own biases and all.