#i have no problems blocking people who act like differences in opinion are a moral attack

[lennjamin-o7]

Gosh, I'm sure I'll get some discourse on this, but I'll just delete it if I do-

I feel like people forget that L'manburg tried to kill Technoblade.

Like, when they talk about the Tommy/Technoblade betrayal, some people act like Technoblade should have just walked away and shrugged off that Tommy joined the people who tried to murder him. And who still WANT to murder him. Like, remember, after the failed Execution, Quackity talked about how they needed to put killing Technoblade on the back burner because Dream was a bigger threat, but they still VERY MUCH WANTED TO KILL TECHNOBLADE.

Did Tommy know all this? No, he couldn't have known it. He wasn't there. And I think Tommy choosing to go back and make amends with Tubbo was the correct thing to do for himself. I don't think it was the best choice to abandon Technoblade in a crater surrounded by enemies that want him dead, but I do think that Tommy NEEDED to reconcile with Tubbo. That was always a step he needed to take. That's his Tubbo.

But, like, why does it seem like some people just wanted Technoblade to shrug and give Tommy a pat on the back and let him keep the axe? What kind of rational person hears "Actually, now that they'll have me back, I'm going to rejoin the group of people that dropped an anvil on your head! Their companionship is more important to me than your safety" and reacts positively?

Did Tommy say that, word for word? No. Again, he didn't know about all of the hurt L'manburg caused Techno. But that's the message his actions send. Tommy chose Technoblade's would be murderers. Tommy chose the people that would definitely try again to murder Technoblade.

Why would Techno take that positively? Why wouldn't he be angry? Why wouldn't he feel like Tommy doesn't see him as a person, only a means to an end? Whether you think his reaction of blowing L'Manburg up was correct or not, how could you expect Technoblade to be anything less than hurt and angry at that?

It confuses me.

[adamnablelittledevil]

I usually just reblog here and don't speak much, but I've been reading too many different takes on this and wanted to say this. This is a Gothic horror about monsters, yes. You can't watch this show thinking is a Disney animation and they'll be basically perfect all the time. There's murder, physical assault, sexual assault, there will probably be incest at some point and more. Everyone that decides to still watch the show is willingly signing up for it. Nobody is forcing them to watch it, it's their call and they should recognize that. And, yes, the show isn't about moral codes and punitivism. It's about exploring the depths of existence and immortality, how high and deep down they can go, if they're condemned to suffer forever or if they can evolve, forgive each other, forgive themselves and find some sense of peace. If you want characters to be condemned and die for their crimes and mistakes, there wouldn't be anyone left to tell the story. Sure, you can still watch it anyway, because the writing, the acting, the score etc are phenomenal, but know that's not happening and that's never been a promise the cast or crew has ever made. Know that certain wishes for yours won't be granted. You can still have a lot of fun, but you know what to expect and that you'll never be fully satisfied.

That said, this doesn't mean the characters should always get a free pass to do whatever the hell they want and everyone should always accept it either. Even on the show, their actions have consequences, the characters get disappointed, hurt, angry, remorseful etc. They break up. They need to make up for each other and gain their trust back. Yes, they're vampires and their bodies and minds work differently, but they still have pretty human feelings and that conflict is one of the premises of the show. Not to mention how a lot of their problems are pretty human too, and stuff that hit close to home for a lot of individuals, so their audience made of real people will react in different ways. If somebody isn't counting the days to see rape, sexual exploitation, incest or any of these heavy topics, it's their right. They may even have traumas with it and, honestly, they shouldn't reveal their personal stories so people learn how to be sensitive and stop calling them weak or mocking them. But if people don't have problems watching that kind of content, or even like some characters known for such actions (focus on some because I don't know how they'll adapt them and if/how they'll be redeemable), that doesn't necessarily mean they support or do that in real life themselves. Perhaps don't make assumptions about strangers without having a pretty good reason to.

People have their own tastes, experiences, triggers and boundaries and they know what's good for them or not, when they can keep watching something or when they should drop it. And that counts for people of color, women, people who are queer, disabled, neurodivergent, part of any minority and/or have a history of being abused. You may be in one of more of those categories, but other people may react different and have different opinions too. People aren't a monolith. We can talk about it and this should be a healthy place for anybody that feels safe to talk and share their opinions and experiences. But if you ever have an impasse, you can mute, blacklist, block words and people. There's nothing wrong in respecting your own personal boundaries and you should never risk your own peace of mind for something that is supposed to be entertainment. Just don't go to people's Twitter/Tumblr accounts to bother them, change their minds or make insensitive jokes, maybe? It's really not that hard.

[cryscendo]

i was gonna reply to your comment on my post but i thought id bring the discourse straight to your inbox instead alskfjdslk its not like we're telling teenagers to go out and discover some weird kinks of their own right this second lmao but they absolutely have to learn to be comfortable with the fact that people are going to be into kinky shit they think is weird and thats its not in fact a moral issue and also none of their business lol

like when i was a kid everything was so fucking raunchy and im not saying it was better but everything has to be so fucking sanitized now and thats not good either. when i was a kid online in the 00s people would literally link you to shock porn videos as a joke and that was just an accepted norm. nowadays there are so many ways to tailor your online experience to you and people are just ignoring all these block and filter functions and look at shit they know they dont like and bitch about it when they had every opportunity not to see it

and it goes back to the fucking rocky horror discourse like god forbid youre trying to portray a queer character in a way thats anything other than the most palatable beige blank slate that ever was. god forbid a queer character acts or dresses or looks or behaves in a queer way aksfjsld they want everything to be so fucking boring and palatable to 1) encapsulate every single queer experience on earth in a single piece of media and 2) be tolerable to straight people because theyre under the illusion that there is any acceptable way for a queer person to be to a bigot other than dead. both are a useless endeavor and they need to quit wasting energy on caring about either

like god fandom just feels so bleak nowadays and i know part of it is bc of how fast things move and no one can hold longterm interest in stuff anymore but a huge part of it is how flat out prudish people are all of a sudden

let ships be problematic let queer characters be weird let sex be kinky lmao let fandom by fun again my godddd

sorry for the rant aklsfjkdshfdk i apparently had a lot to say but hey i love you thanks for complaining with me xxxxx

omg i’m so sorry i meant to respond to this earlier than now!!! i saw it originally when i was waking up for work and thought “ooooh she’s making some banger points i’ll respond to that on my break” and then i just… forgot. so here i am now better late than never 🥰

i’ve always had a bit of a problem with the incessant need to sanitize fandom. i’m not saying ppl can’t curate their fandom experience to appeal to their interests, because obviously, they absolutely can. HOWEVER i do think it has become much more policed than it once was.

i think kink, and understanding its place on a fundamental level (especially within queer spaces), is something that takes maturity to fully understand. like with the rocky horror thing, the use of sexuality and kink is inherently different than what a young person of today might perceive it as. it doesn’t particularly surprise me that people are so sensitive to it, because they simply don’t understand their roots — they’ve formed this concept of queerness that pleases them, and therefore find other demonstrations of queerness to be antiquated or “back-pedalling” (even though we both know it isn’t). i think it’s dumb and immature to try to dictate “right and wrong” ways to be queer, but i’m also not all that shocked that it’s happening.

all this to say, queer characters don’t have to fit into the boxes that we deem as “appropriate”. just like how real queer people don’t owe an explanation for who they are, these queer characters don’t HAVE to reflect every queer person that engages with their media.

personally for me, kink is a MASSIVE component of the queer experience. so because of that, i like my favourite bitches to be kinky but that’s just me 😌

absolutely feel free to rant anytime your opinions are literally always correct to me <3

[piracytheorist]

What is a common fandom opinion that everyone is wrong about?

I'm taking this back to Once Upon a Time, and it's the idea that Killian's journey was to go back to his "Lieutenant Jones" persona. Only I am RightTM of course, and my RightTM opinion is that Lieutenant Jones was even less of himself than Captain Hook was. Killian is, at his core, Chaotic. He doubts and rejects authority, he acts on his own moral code (whether that's fucked up or a little more sane) and he hates being controlled and told what to do. Lieutenant Jones was in the Navy, and you cannot survive in such a place if you're not full-on Lawful and willing to abide by someone else's rules.

So there were a lot of people who saw Lieutenant Jones and went like "This is what Killian needs to return to" and it's the absolute wrong way to interpret his character. Killian only joined the Navy because Liam wanted to join, and because Killian still (and always) idolized him and thought that Liam is always right and he should follow what Liam does. But it's not how Killian works as a person. People only think he should have gone back to that was because Lieutenant Jones was GoodTM, and the only way for Killian to be redeemed and become a good person was by adapting back into a place that went directly against his actual beliefs and stances.

--

Wait, I thought of another fandom opinion as well, and it's about Mia Winters from Resident Evil 7 and 8. So much of the fandom seems to have the interpretation that we're meant to hate her, and I cannot begin to tell you how wrong that feels. I don't think we're meant to fully forgive her, of course, but the narrative gives us enough material to show that Mia really, honestly cared for Ethan and yet the "Mia Winters bashing" tag is a common tag on ao3, but I'm not surprised that a video game fandom is overflowing with misogyny. Because, especially seeing how easily people forgive Heisenberg for his far more atrocious behaviour against Ethan, not giving a female character the benefit of the doubt, completely disregarding the idea of Author's Intent and only basing ones' opinion on her on their biases can also be traced to misogyny, I am sorry to tell you :)

So yeah. It's mostly because it's obvious people allow their biases to influence their opinion on Mia and don't take Author's Intent into consideration like, why were we given this and that scene? What is the narrative meaning of the two different endings in Resident Evil 7? How does Ethan react to Miranda's words while she poses as Mia? How does Chris Redfield, beloved character of the franchise, react to Mia's outbursts at the end of Resident Evil 8? Some people just don't give a fuck about any of that and go like "She's not sexy, mysterious or OP enough so into the trash she goes". And I am not even a Mia fan. It's just very obvious how biased people are about her.

Which is not a bad thing... if you recognize that. It's okay to have biases and for some characters to hit you in a very very bad way. The problem is most people don't realize that and they make going through the "Ethan Winters" tag here a nightmare until you block the right people.

🔥 choose violence ask game 🔥

[livvyofthelake]

special edition show i haven't really seen you complain and/or talk about in a while: 7 8 & 12 for julie&the phantoms, shadow and bone and the wilds

oof the wilds….. that was an ERA fr. also what are you TALKING about including shadow and bone as something i haven’t talked about in a while….. i’m IN my alina era rn…… well ok let’s do this

7) what character did you begin to hate not because of canon but because how how the fandom acts about them?

for julie i don’t hate anyone but lowkey i kinda hate those boys on the grounds of the fact that before i watched the show every post i had seen about it was ONLY about the boys and i didn’t even know who julie was or what she looked like because no one ever talked about her despite her being THE TITULAR CHARACTER like come on besties… for shadow and bone i’m not involved in fandom for that but from what i remember seeing back when season one came out and people were talking about it was that there was SO MUCH discourse about kirigan/aleksander/the darkling whatever the FUCK i’m supposed to call that man. well that didn’t make me hate the character but it DID make me realize that fandom was annoying as hell. the wilds… idk i don’t think i hate any fan favorites in the wilds. i think some people went too hard for shelby and toni tho. oh actually and kirin. yes i know i participated in loving that guy. i’m different tho. i’m never the problem haven’t you heard….

8) common fandom opinion that everyone is wrong about

i don’t think i know any fandom opinions about julie i’ve never really engaged with that. i assume though that there are people that ship luke and reggie and call julie a lesbian to push her out of the way. so that. no i don’t know that, i don’t know what i’m talking about I’ve just been around the block and i assume that’s a thing people in fandom do/did. shadow and bone…. well i think discoursing about whatever the hell his name is is dumb. i haven’t read the books yet but he’s well written enough in the show that there’s clear nuance we don’t have to do black and white morality discourse idk. as for the wilds…. when people were arguing about who we should ship for a potential third season and everyone was like omg martha and bo!! like. 😐 just say you want my girl martha to die goddamn. also true about every martha ship people tried to push. all of them would have been bad sorry. except maybe one. which i won’t say. unless….

12) the unpopular character that you actually like and why more people should like them

well. JULIE. oh my god why does no one talk about julie ever it’s ridiculous she is the TITULAR CHARACTER…. like was i just in an insane bubble at that time or something?? well i still never see anyone talk about julie when they talk about the show so idk. idk but i love julie a lot she’s my favorite :) this is also true for alina but i’m definitely in a bubble for that one. hm idk what the widely disliked in fandom characters are in shadow and bone so i can’t really speak on this one. do people hate mal? i’m just guessing that based on his gale-ism, there’s probably people that hate him right? well EYE think he’s neat, he’s alina’s best friend, they’ve been there for each other nearly all their lives…. he’s a brave man but deep down he’d rather be taming horses…. i like him!!! and the wilds. well. i liked raf, nobody else liked raf, he had that problematic swag and those big brown eyes he was like a pathetic little lamb to me idk. also leah but i think people warmed up to leah in s2, more people didn’t like her in s1. so like we won on the leah front fr!!

[rantingoverbadfic]

Only Sith deal in absolutes

but goddammit if there isn't a great deal of writers salivating at the idea of committing to the sithly path in the name of the Light.

It isn't like this maxim isn't widely known - it is one of the most recognizable quotes from the movies and firmly established as canon, instead of being in that grey area of Legends canon that a lot of our other worldbuilding blocks are, like Obi's background and upbringing, or the fighting styles and forms, or the clone troopers own internal culture and the mandalorian influence on it. And while there is some sophisticated wankery about the statement being an absolute in itself, Obi-Wan is still voicing a prevalent belief held by the Order.

And then an author goes and says, you know what would be a splendid idea? If we had one chosen being or one designated race that is hundred percent immune to the Dark Side! I am going to create an Absolute that is Light!!11! Talk about failing to understand the assignment.

I understand where those authors come from - it is so much easier to deal with amoral choices when you can chuck off all the responsibility on some Chosen One, so much easier to argue that it is not you, the author, who had killed off a fave, or failed to reconcile a conflict that had caused a lot of pain and grief in canon (Jaster, my beloved, you died too young!), but it was the Force's will, or the inability of your savior to act in time.

But this is bullshit reasoning. People fail. Bad things happen. If you are immune to the struggles normal Jedi - and normal people - have of finding the most honorable path forward out of only bad choices, then you can't understand that struggle and you will lack compassion for those who are fallible. Your own choices will be based on something other than compassion and honor, most likely efficiency, which will in turn likely make your decisions monstrous in eyes of others, making you a monster. Just because the author writes the most positive outcome possible, doesn't change that this is the same road paved with good intentions that Anakin embarked on - if only there was one good, trustworthy politician who could be trusted with absolute power to make decisions over everyone! We all know how that turned out.

The danger of the Dark Side is not in merely existing. That 's a purity wankers' mindset and I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. The danger of the Dark Side is that it is pervasive and can corrupt even the best of men, no exceptions, if they don't stay vigilant and guard against letting small exceptions slide that tend to be followed by big exceptions and being open to blackmail until they suddenly find themselves doing the work of evil unquestioningly and enthusiastically, even if it is just to stay ahead. That is what the Jedi were supposed to learn - not to stagnate in their moral superiority but to be ever vigilant and not compromise their beliefs. And that is much more difficult to write, and much less rewarding emotionally, when whatever you choose still leaves your hands dirty.

(I am not calling out those who write fic using those tropes - I have read plenty of fic in SW utilising it with great enjoyment. It's just - as as I loved those fics, they always ring wrong because they go against everything I understand about the Force from canon. Even the prophecy that Qui-Gon believes to apply to Anakin talks about bringing balance to the Force - not the complete eradication of one side of it. But it's not like I don't have my problems with the Jedi's interpretation of what the Force wants and how to achieve that anyway, and I suppose that this is a matter of a difference of opinion. After all, if only the Sith deal in absolutes, then only the Jedi are capable of waffling the smallest disagreement interminably until everyone involved longs for the sweet embrace of death.)

((I wanted to say the Dark Side is capable of corrupting everyone and everything, with no exceptions, so long as you draw breath, but had to rethink that. Is it really true that the Force stops influencing someone when they are dead? We DO have Force Ghosts. And while Anakin did repent upon dying, was it really long enough to reverse his Fall, so that he could become a Ghost himself? Do we really know how far the effects of Sith Alchemy reach? So, yeah, you might not even be safe when you are dead. I would watch out, Bail, if I were you; the enemy knows your name.)

[the-conscious]

I am not and will never be in the business of burning myself to ash for the hateful. If you enter a discussion by being viciously hateful and self-righteous to boot, I am not going to be kind to you, I am not going to gently hold my hand and compose the hostility out of my voice. I'm not going to be a fucking saint while you're a rampaging monster, because that's fucking abysmal for my sanity and you aren't worth it if you're hateful. You just aren't, and you never will be until you clean up your act. And even then, I have too many things to do to hold your hand. I'll give you my words ONCE and if you double-down, I'm blocking without reading it. I write my one message with consideration that the chances I'll be listened to at that point are low, but I also know that my words orbit people's minds like angry bees. So you can let your ego get ahead of you, you can trip over my advisory and punch yourself in the face about it all you want.

But I won't be hurting myself for you.

If I let myself be burnt by every self-righteous prick that was hellbent on killing me because it bothered them that much that I asked them to care about other people, I wouldn't be here. If I let myself be burnt by half of them, I wouldn't be here. A quarter, a fifth, a tenth, a twentieth--I still wouldn't be here.

Turns out it really pisses people off when someone cares, and especially when they're loud about it.

They decide that I'm personally accusing them specifically of a global, collective problem and decide to refuse to grow about it, because I delivered imperfectly. So I don't try to deliver perfectly anymore, and if you hurt people I'm not going to be so careful as to make sure I don't give you a headache.

Hateful arguements are rarely unique in any way shape or form. The amount of times I've had to explain to a bigot (and, just fyi, there's a staggering increase in "woke" biggotry, so it's become increasingly normal to see tons of leftist labels in the description of somebody that spews fascist propaganda on the regular, as if it's different because they changed who the them in us vs. them is) that no, this opinion isn't new, and yes, I know vaguely where you got it and no, I'm not going to listen to you regurgitate something I've heard a million times and no, I'm not rude and ignoring your own personal opinion. It's not your personal opinion. It was a designed opinion that you just as millions of others were tricked somehow in to believing you made as if there wasn't hundreds of different things angling at you, nudging you in to that exact belief--which is precisely why it's not remotely unique. If you make this a personal moral thing you'll get nowhere except Worse.

What you give is what you get, so if I'm snapping at you you should be paying attention. You don't know me, or not yet, but I don't fucking snap at people who don't deserve it, and I'm not disproportionate with it either. If anything, I've been told a lot that I'm far, far too kind. And I agree. But unfortunately that's the only way to make anyone grow up at all, because at the point that you're hurting people and refusing to listen you sure as shit aren't going to listen to a "please" despite how much some of you will throw around insults, and slurs, and vitriol, and wishes of violence. You beg for a perfect saviour and attack anyone for having the slightest bit of care for anyonelse; use their imperfection as a further reason to attack them.

So next time you wonder where all the nice people went, Try looking in the mirror, and asking yourself what needs to change.

Either you've been a massive prick, resulting in you being surrounded by massive pricks, or you found yourself stuck in a pattern that kept you surrounded by them, at which point it becomes inevitable that you become worse because why wouldn't you?

You have to survive, don't you?

Keep bad company, become bad company. Be bad company, make bad company.

Ignore reality, don't learn from it. Run away from reality, fail to fix problems.

If a problem won't go away it's because you don't have the complete solution, perhaps none of the "right" solution at all. If you're constantly miserable, and argueing, and don't know why nobody's hearing you?

You're not doing what you need to be doing.

Somebody with the right words will do what you're trying to do. And if they aren't, then it's just because it wasn't the thing to do. And that's fine. We all make mistakes. A lot of the time they're unavoidable mistakes that are unfair to claim are individual. But it's still our jobs to fix it, so if you keep sabotaging the movement to heal, to fix things, and then you bitch that you're being left out of the help...hm...

Consider that you're asking for something more expensive than you seem to think, and actively increasing the cost every time you're difficult, mean, violent, and we have to put our sanity on the line in order to teach you anything at all--unpaid, to boot. Unrecognised, to boot. And insufficiently supported, too.

[ivegottale]

TRANS-GENDER......

I'm sorry but us women have worked very hard to get to the place we are today. In the work place, to elections, to sports. Just doesn't seem very balanced today. Did anyone ask us women for our opinion thee invasion to public restrooms, locker rooms or body mutilation to the under developed brain of a child. That's a women's job. Is to Bare & raise the children. Here are my thoughts on the subject.

1) Sports: Men are stronger than women. Not only do men have more muscle mass but we are designed different than men. Bone density is different. Men think more by logic. Where women are more on feelings.

2) We are throwing modesty right out the window. We already have a problem with girls acting like pigs. A term we used to describe some men who have behaved like pigs. Opportunity low hanging fruit women are giving the rest of the team a bad reputation. All around the world an American women is the least desirable female to wife amongst internationals. No man wants a women that has been around the block a few times or has no moral compass. There's an old saying; "Men undress you with their eyes." Seems to me, society just wants us undressed.

3) The fracturing of the English language. We already pronounce vase & harassment incorrectly. I'm not willing to change the way I was taught to speak for anybody. (It's 'hair-es-ment" not 'har-rass-ment. ). I'm not willing to entertain a person's delusion by going along with it. I have a saying I made up a longtime ago when I was dating a habitual liar. "If it's snowing outside and you come to my door selling ice. Doesn't mean I gooda buy it.". I'm not changing my pronouns for the sake of someone's BPD. (borderline personal disorder)

4) Mutilation of an under aged adult or child. If one can't smoke, drink, vote or get a tatoo before their 18 or 21. They certainty can not make an irreversible decision like this. The doctors that perform these procedures should be stripped of their licenses. a) It's a very dangerous surgery. b) It leaves a very bad scar. c) Why are we so determined to push these bata blocker medications into our children. We are still fighting ritalin from being used. I think it's just another way to get these pharmaceutical companies to get rich quick by prescribing something that would be taken for life from the time they are an adolescent or since abortion is off the table. They need to compensate somewhere else to maintain their lifestyle. So they came up with this brilliant idea.

4) Transgender doesn't exist. There are men and there are women. We think differently, feel differently, and react differently. Our genes determine that with a XY or a XX. Just because one saids it enough or long enough doesn't make it true. Hollywood has been paying male actors to put on a dress on film for years. A very prominent actor have been offered as much as $50 million dollars to perform this humiliation. I guess the elite know the U. S. is in a real financial crisis right now and trying to figure out how to hang onto their cash but not at the expense of their entertainment game they play with us "ordinaries" without digging into their pockets anymore.

If we keep pushing this issue. It's going to get a lot of people killed or get off scott free for murder. Murders won't need to hide the bodies anymore. All they have to do is cross dress the person and call it self-defence.

(one of my other little sayings)

"The kidnapper or rapist doesn't get you in the back of their van because they were mean."

Think we all need a course in "Charm School" and stop devaluing women.

This sounds more like, a war against evil and Gods design.

[tired-inyxe]

I have OPINIONS on this, so…

tw: talks of rape against minors, rape in general, murder, child porn, policing and the human psychology behind these acts. This is a post justifying how the above example in this poll is not an example of rape against a minor, but it still discusses these very heavy subjects. Skip it if you feel uncomfortable. The rest is under the cut

Before anyone comes for me: no I do not condone rape nor cp, Jesus fucking Christ. I really hope that saying that was an unnecessary addition to this, because I’d be legitimately horrified if someone thinks that I would condone rape against an actual person, let alone a minor. I am being deadly serious here; I will NEVER apologize for, accept, or say ANYTHING positive about a real life rapist. Anyone who would dare to commit a horrific crime such as rape is the scum of the earth and I hope they rot in their own misery behind bars.

Now that that’s out of the way, let’s get to the point of this small essay

Let me say this loud and clear

Fictional characters are OBJECTS, they aren’t real people. If someone chooses to write fictional sex using fictional minors, there is no ACTUAL PERSON being harmed here. And no, someone writing this doesn’t mean they’re actually going to rape a real life minor. If somebody writes about murder, they aren’t gonna suddenly have the urge to kill someone. A rapist doesn’t get the idea to rape from a fucking book.

Normalize looking at something, finding it weird, and looking away if it’s not harming anyone. If you don’t like it, IGNORE IT. If someone who has read underage before commits rape against a minor, they were already going to do that. It has nothing to do with the media they consume, it has everything to do with their culture outside of it.

The reason why representation matters is because people who don’t have a fully fleshed out view of a minority can learn about them through that. When it comes to legitimate crimes, you are told from a young age that that’s wrong, and no amount of media will change your opinion on that. Murders don’t commit murder because they saw a horror movie once. However, people with no black friends in their lives can learn that black people are human through good representation because they don’t have a solidly formed opinion on black people, but that’s not the same as LITERAL CRIMES. You have a solidly formed opinion on crimes pretty quickly into development. Again, no piece of media will be enough to change that, and if it is that’s a problem with the persons upbringing, not the media itself. If someone rapes because they saw someone do it in a book, that means that they had a vague enough moral judgment on rape that something incredibly small could change it, and again, that’s a judgement on the culture they grew up in, not the media itself.

Trust me, I personally don’t like underage sex about fictional characters being written, it’s absolutely not for me. HOWEVER, making moral judgments on someone writing it is frankly authoritarian. You have no idea who that person is, they could be writing that for any number of reasons.

I’m gonna say it; yall sound like those parents who were afraid their kids were gonna beat someone up because they played COD. That’s not how human psychology works. Writing about taboo subjects is not the same as endorsing them against actual people irl, it just isn’t. Stop conflating the two and just block the tag. It will save you a whole lot of energy

TLDR: The example in the poll is not rape of a minor because a fictional character is not an actual person. There is no one being harmed in said example. Don’t like? Don’t read. Move on with your life and stop being a cop

An extra note: if someone is actually writing underage sex using a real person that is a WHOLE DIFFERENT story, however they aren’t necessarily a rapist. For example: writing about a rape that happened to someone for any number of reasons (biography, history keeping, a story spreading awareness etc). If the person is still alive, you would need their full consent to write about that, for obvious reasons. If you don’t have their consent… at that point you’re making child porn, which is a whole other crime that is equally disgusting. I don’t need to explain that cp is wrong. If you somehow think that actual child porn is ok then get the fuck off my blog. Same thing with actual rape.

*This poll was submitted to us and we simply posted it so people could vote and discuss their opinions on the matter. If you’d like for us to ask the internet a question for you, feel free to drop the poll of your choice in our inbox and we’ll post them anonymously (for more info, please check our pinned post).

[mbti-notes]

hi i’m an istj. i fear the problem im going to describe is resolved by being more Te proactive and taking on more leader responsibilities and failing. just typing that out makes me feel burned out and miserable. anyway i get involved with groups that align with my values to get things done but it always feels like i somehow join things that aren’t as efficient as i’d want them to be or stagnate. at the same time that i have strong opinions about what to do i resent having to take on more responsibility to enact it. i want to be part of an established, moral, process/group but it seems like everything is in flux all the time. just making sure: is this Te-Ne dysfunction ?

Your question is about type development. An important aspect of type development is understanding the weaknesses and flaws of your type, in terms of the ways that your type tends to misuse functions. You seem to believe that your problem boils down to a simple lack of desire to lead in group situations (weak Te?), but it probably goes far deeper than that.

Si-Ne problems often manifest as a general aversion to change, specifically, unwillingness to change how one looks at a situation, which would then significantly alter one's approach to it. Imbalance between Si and Ne becomes a very unhealthy stubbornness when one is also prone to Si-Fi loop that thinks in terms of pure absolutes. In essence, you believe what you believe and you want what you want, and nothing and nobody can break through that mental wall. Perhaps not even you.

Auxiliary development is meant to help with Si extremes and Si-Fi loop stubbornness by making you care more about empirical facts (Te) than your frustration (Fi). It isn't always easy to develop the auxiliary function when you come to believe that it interferes with what makes Si feel most comfortable (e.g. "just typing that out makes me feel burned out and miserable"). If using the auxiliary function feels so "tiring", it doesn't mean that you should avoid using it. Quite the contrary. It's an indication that you haven't yet learned to use it properly, which means further development is necessary.

Te wants efficiency, that much is true. However, what separates immature Te from mature Te is how exactly one conceptualizes "efficiency". When Te is immature, one has a very rudimentary understanding of how to be efficient. For example, one is likely to believe that efficiency is achieved through assertiveness or even brute force, i.e., "making" things happen despite all the obstacles in the way. Is it any wonder that using Te feels tiring, then? You're essentially forcing yourself to swim against the current. Si doms are painfully aware that their energy is finite, so they quickly run out of steam.

However, Te isn't really about mustering up energy. This is not what makes TJs smart, strong, and formidable. Mature Te conceptualizes efficiency as reducing the amount of energy required whenever possible, which is why they have a lot of energy to take on very heavy workloads - some people call it "working smart". This is done through facing the empirical facts of a situation head on and learning to work closely with them, which makes it far easier to make them work in your favor.

Your problem requires a two pronged attack:

Are you able to change how you look at situations in order to improve your approach (to address Si-Ne imbalance)?

Are you able to face the empirical facts of the situation and work with them rather than against them (to develop better use of Te)?

Wanting to be part of a process/group that aligns with your values in order to enact some good in the world is an admirable thing to strive for. Presumably, the other people involved in the group have the same sense of mission, otherwise, they wouldn't have joined. However, what you fail to take into account is that people aren't generally single-minded.

Human beings are complex because they are motivated by a multitude of factors, whether they realize it or not. They are full of psychological conflicts, contradictory desires, irrational impulses, old baggage, and unconscious bad habits. And when you bring people together, all that stuff comes out and creates complicated entanglements. A "group" only becomes a "team" when it is able to overcome those psychological obstacles together, and it can be a very long process of learning how to maximize strengths and mitigate weaknesses in every individual member. That's why a lot of groups simply fall apart. While your intention to join the group seems simple and straightforward (because Si-Te is admirable in its ability to keep things simple and straightforward), other people's intentions might not be so simple. If you fail to take into account the irrational aspects of human nature, you will cause yourself needless suffering.

Your frustration with people is likely a manifestation of your unrealistic expectations of them. Perhaps you aren't able to understand people who don't resemble you, let alone work with them. And you will certainly be doomed to fail if the only way Te knows to deal with individual differences is to force everyone to become more like you. That's an impossible task, not because it requires the energy of a thousand suns as you assume, but because you're choosing to fight against reality. Mature Te would advise that you should first face down the empirical facts of how people operate if you hope to discover the most effective way to influence them. Your repeated experience of feeling disenchanted with groups tells you that you're missing an important piece of knowledge about groups and how they operate.

I'll give you a very simple example from my own life. I used to gather with a group of 30-50 people once a week to conduct planned discussions. The discussions never really started on time despite everyone being in their seats because people weren't focused enough at the start of the session. There was often whispering and sidetalking and such that would go on for about half an hour before the room felt settled and focused.

One method of addressing the problem arose organically. Whoever was the main speaker simply started shushing people and it became a thing. Sometimes, it would even escalate to calling people out, like a teacher scolding a student in a classroom. This definitely made the social atmosphere less inviting and more tense. Sure, people would shut up after being called out, but they became less focused due to seething with resentment. Power struggles aren't great for group morale, especially if it's supposed to be a group of equals coming together for a common cause.

It all sounds quite childish, but these kinds of judgments are useless. You can call people childish, inefficient, incompetent, etc etc, but it doesn't solve the problem. And, worse, being judgmental blocks you from understanding people better and working with them. Perhaps an ISTJ would see this as a "mess", an "inefficiency" that wastes time, and evidence of bad character when people break the rules.

However, if you change the way you look at the situation, you might not be so quick to make such judgments. Actually, it's kind of weird for a bunch of people who know each other well to enter a room and immediately sit down quietly. Humans have a natural tendency to socialize as a way to strengthen interpersonal bonds. Isn't group cohesiveness a good thing, since it encourages better cooperation? If you are able to see the benefits of their chatty behavior and how it contributes to group cohesiveness, then instead of fighting against it, you would think of ways to harness it.

The real problem wasn't inefficiency; inefficiency was merely the symptom. The more primary problem was that a lot of people joined the group not just to "get things done", but also to make friends. The structure of the event denied them from fulfilling that important need and then they were more likely to act out. This problem was discovered when people had a chance to talk about what was frustrating them, which meant that the group had to make space to conduct some uncomfortable conversations.

To address the problem, the group eventually decided that the first 15 minutes would be devoted to socializing and allowing people to catch up, with the explicit promise to get down to business when the time was up. Some people brought drinks, others brought snacks. Some even showed up early to have more time to socialize. It enlivened people and enriched their relationships. Being "officially" allowed to get the chattiness out of their system, they were better able to sit down and focus on the planned agenda. The meeting felt like fun rather than a chore. And if you're interested in a cause, don't you want to recruit more people to support it? Making things more fun is one good way to attract support. You can look at it as wasting 15 minutes OR you can look at it as a 15 minute investment.

Solutions to human problems require:

cognitive empathy: figuring out what's really going on inside people's heads (in Te terms it means working only with the empirical facts of the situation, rather than indulging negative Fi judgments)

strategy: taking the time to work with people and figuring out the best way to help them get over obstacles (in Te terms it means investing energy early and wisely to maximize your returns later, rather than putting effort into the wrong places or only stepping in to tackle mere symptoms of the problem)

creativity: harnessing natural human tendencies to produce something useful or worthwhile (in Te terms in means taking what's already there and transforming it into a NET positive, rather than getting too fixated on every little negative detail and losing sight of the bigger picture)

Te can be a great function for dealing with human problems as long as you overcome the immature aspects of it, such as impatience, bluntness, or inflexibility. Every person is unique, so every group is different. Let go of the idea that there is only one way to approach a problem/conflict and you will start to be more creative in your approach. By accepting the fact that things are always in flux and using empirical evidence to understand and predict how change works, TJs become much more effective and efficient at everything they do. When it comes to people, meeting someone different from you is an opportunity to learn how to deal with that kind of person. The more knowledge you have of human psychology under your belt, the better you get at dealing with people's weird or negative tendencies. If a strategy works, use it again. If it doesn't work, adjust it to fit their psychology better.

In your situation, you see the problem as people being inefficient, so your inclination is to step forward and do something to "make" them more efficient. Humans aren't built with the prime directive to be efficient. They're not machines. Their psychology is messy, so trying to force them to behave like a machine is to force them to go against their psychology. In other words, you're choosing the least efficient approach. The more efficient approach, though it requires more intelligent thinking on your part (you want to become more intelligent, right?), is to properly understand the more primary problem of what's really causing them to be so inefficient in the first place. That is the way to discover the right strategy. If you are able to target those obstacles at the very root, efficiency improves more naturally.

Oftentimes, working smart doesn't require you to step up and be THE leader for everyone. As an introvert, it's probably more comfortable for you to work behind the scenes to talk to people, get a better idea of what they need and/or what problems they're experiencing, and incrementally remove the obstacles that are preventing them from focusing on what they should be focused on. You can't fix everything all at once, so just do what you can to fix what you are able to fix at any given point in time. It's a process and some progress is better than no progress.

[the-irken-pony]

For the record, there seems to be some commentary on the iffy morality of hunting down the bonus boss *at all* in Chapter 2, with how off-putting everything is, even if you intend to spare him.

Think about it - you have to go out of your way as the player/Kris to solve puzzles. Then you have to backtrack to hunt down the crazy guy who specifically told you to come alone and whose presence is meant to freak you out, so you can help him with an undefined "deal" that supposedly will make all our dreams come true. This is screaming "TRAP" to anyone who is paying *any* attention, so the player is knowingly walking into this with the distinct impression that it's likely going to turn into a fight, if not instant death.

Also - by the time you get to the mansion and thus make it possible to fight the bonus boss, the game is shoving problems at you. Lancer is turning to stone - Noelle is in danger - the Queen is planning something. Even if you wait until after solving most of the plot, you definitely can't help Lancer without leaving this Dark World first, but if you do that, you can't come back to fight the bonus boss. Which means we have to prioritize fighting this guy over helping Lancer as soon as possible - and maybe that's the norm for sidequests in RPGs, but there's something different about seeing Susie carry Lancer around and ask you/Kris to hurry up with puzzles and beg Ralsei to help that makes this seem more urgent than a lot of world-ending crises in other games ever do.

And lastly, that talk after the bonus fight, where Susie and Ralsei are questioning and trying to comfort Kris, who is clearly rattled by all this. Remember, we're willingly putting this kid in danger for our amusement - and with the rest of the Dark World, you can logically argue that it's necessary, as far as the plot goes. But Spamton needed our help to become a genuine threat in need of defeating - we basically built this boss so we could take him down, and we *knew* that we were doing so (at least with Jevil, there was a chance that people stumbled into that fight truly blind and felt obligated to do something to fix their mistake of freeing him - no such luck here). And yeah, maybe he could have become a threat on his own at some point, but did we really need to be the ones to make it happen? Did Kris really need to be the hero, here? The kid is shaking after everything we put them through just to experience that bonus fight - do we even care?

If I had to guess, the opinion is that people who sought out the bonus boss in the pacifist route aren't exactly saints, even if they aren't anywhere near genocidal. This was 100% optional, but hey - got some nice gear and a crystal out of it, right? Guess that means it's worth it.

Tl;dr - Building a boss with the sole intent of fighting it, even through acting, when we have more important things to do and it's making the characters quite uncomfortable is...probably not the most ethical thing to do. Kinda messed up, really.

I've posted this elsewhere, but I was curious - what do you think about this?

I feel like it’s also important to add that the boss in question is a strong parallel to Kris themself: Spamton is himself a puppet, being controlled by someone behind the scenes. Someone we don’t see is keeping him from communicating this directly; “[[Hyperlink blocked]]” is one of his signature catchphrases, and whoever was controlling him put him in an agonizing glitched state for daring to mention the Knight to Kris. He’s forced to follow their instructions, and is barely allowed to speak for himself until he achieves his NEO form.

And when all of his strings are finally cut, when he’s finally completely free of all control and allowed to live the exact life he wants and make choices that are his and his alone......... he falls to the ground lifelessly and slowly perishes in front of Kris and co. When he obeyed his puppeteer, he was forced through the worst hell imaginable. When he finally found a way he could achieve true freedom, he fought and fought and fought desperately to get it done, even pressuring the only person who understands to risk life and limb so he could do so, only to realize that the controlling force that constantly tortured him was the only thing keeping him alive. At least he got to live his last moments alive, though, right?

Spamton repeatedly projects these issues onto Kris--all the while having a full breakdown over said issues.

Not only are you forcing Kris into dangerous and scary situations for the sake of doing that one boss fight, but you’re making them live through their own personalized hell as they bear witness to a grim reflection of their own issues.

But at least you got to fight the cool secret boss and get the mysterious thingamajig :)

[glade-constellation]

I’m getting a lot of anti-Eclipse people in my comments due to my recent post about Eclipse’s death, and the amount of hatred and blatant childish name calling is astounding. I’ve had to block at least 5 people within the span of a day due to the unnecessary behavior.

Listen, it is completely fine to have a different viewpoint than others. People are allowed to have opinions and express those opinions. The problem arises when you become aggressive about your opinions and belittle others who don’t believe them. As long as the other person’s opinion isn’t causing real life damage, there should be no need to berate them.

And especially don’t use the words “delusional”, “psychotic”, or “mentally ill” as insults. Using mental health issues as insults is just disgusting and ableist. You’re showing that having mental issues make someone a bad person, which is just plain wrong.

I’m in huge agreement that the morals that the show is currently pushing and has previously tried to push isn’t a good one. The type of mindset the show is pushing for is an extremely damaging one to real life people. The world isn’t just black and white, there’s a lot of gray. There are people who act like these characters in real life, where they will lash out physically/emotionally and are seen as aggressive and abrasive and dangerous people. Bloodmoon and Eclipse both have the undertones of this mindset, it’s just extremely exaggerated by the fantasy part of their fiction.

Telling people that these types of people can’t be saved no matter what doesn’t help anything. If the people watching this show take this message to heart — and they very much do, with how aggressive they are about the show — they will treat real life people the same way the show is treating these characters. Not giving people help just because you think they don’t deserve it only continues the cycle of violence, because that person was never given a chance to learn how to be better.

I usually wouldn’t get this deep with a YouTube VR series made using FNAF characters. With how I just described the show, I shouldn’t have to. But other fans, don’t seem to be able to separate the fiction they take in from their real life. This is a fake story about fake people in fake settings doing fake and unreal things. Having feelings about these stories isn’t wrong, but tearing apart others who don’t have those same feelings is gross behavior.

At this point, it not about me wishing Eclipse had a redemption or about wishing Bloodmoon’s character was utilized better. It’s about pulling back the curtains on what these characters and stories are teaching us and how poorly these ideals are if carried over to real life. Because it’s obvious by how people talk and are genuinely hateful that they believe in these ideals and use them as real life beliefs. That’s not healthy, and definitely not safe.

The aggressive part of the fanbase needs to calm down, and the creators of the show need to stop encouraging them. It’s only causing more drama both in the show and in the fandom. People are losing interest and are leaving because of this stuff.

Why is it. That one somebody complains about the show and being rude to their watchers. Other people immediately believe that they want blood moon and eclipse redeemed. That's not what they're saying. They're saying that the showmakers are being jerks to their own watchers.

No one said anything about blood moon being good or needing to be redeemed. That's not the problem. The problem is the fact that they are slandering the fan base. Ignoring the fact that the messages they are encouraging. Are not helpful for day-to-day life.

Is the line. "If someone doesn't want help, they shouldn't get help." Really want something we want to share and encourage in the public eye?

It doesn't matter if it's a story. All stories contain a message. The one they're currently sharing. Is that bad guys should be treated like bad guys and no amount of kindness should ever be shown towards them.

Why am I getting eaten up. By people saying I want "blood Moon redeemed and I thought he was a really good guy." I don't think he's a good guy! He's a horrible no good murderer who's done nothing but bad! Doesn't mean that encouraging people to not pity them is a good thing.

[edoro]

Yeah I guess I never really thought about that that but hey at least I can use others DNIs to see what people support and block them if they're harmful (if they're not lying of course!(

well, i mean - i'm not saying that DNIs can't be one part of the info that you use to make a decision about whether or not to engage with or block somebody, but kind of the entire point i'm making is that there is no single easy obvious way to tell if someone is a bad or harmful person without spending time and paying attention to that person's words and actions.

like. this is the problem with DNIs. they are broad to the point of uselessness and basically only work on people who inherently are already wiling to seek out and then respect the boundaries of strangers, they don't actually really tell you anything useful about someone. it's easy to say "xyz don't interact", but anyone can say things - it's not even a matter of lying, but just of the fact that words and actions are different.

like here's an example: say someone has "proshippers dni" in their bio. here's what you can reasonably assume about them: they think it's immoral to write/draw/talk about rape or incest as kinks or to create or consume sexual material featuring underage characters.*

(*or at least, like, they publicly say so. because the number of people who publicly say this but privately have very different opinions, Oh Boy.)

here is what you don't know and cannot reasonably assume: literally anything else about them. you don't know how they treat their friends. you don't know how they treat their partners. you don't know if they're a terf - and in fact, anti-kink rhetoric is a big part of terf/radfem rhetoric, and they are on record as admitting that they spread and recruit through fandom spaces. you don't know if they're racist.

you don't know if they harass people or send death threats or, say, to pick a random real thing that people who identify as antis have done recently, literally send for real actual images/videos of children being sexually abused to volunteers for ao3 in protest of what they see as immoral fiction.

you don't know if they have inappropriate relationships with minors. (there is an extremely high likelihood that if they're an adult positioning themselves as being A Safe Good Adult Who Will Tell You What Things You're Allowed To Morally Get Horny About, or even just as An Authority Who Can Tell You Whether Or Not You're Committing Thought Crimes, Horny Or Otherwise, they are a predator.)

you don't know if they're just, like, a shitty rude inconsiderate mean person.

you have to pay attention to their actions and behavior to determine those things. you can't meaningfully tell, beyond extremely broad strokes, what someone actually supports or how they act from their DNI.

i'm sorry. i know that you want a quick and easy way to know who is good and who is bad. there isn't one. that's the whole point. you have to be aware of what actually harmful behavior is, what it looks like, why it's harmful (beyond "someone said so in an authoritative fashion"), how people disguise and communicate those ideas, and you have to engage your own critical thinking and analysis skills in order to make judgments about people based on their actions and behavior.

if you rely exclusively on public, easy, accessible statements like DNIs or profile headers or carrds, then you are going to get taken in by genuinely predatory, harmful people who hurt others while saying all the right things, and you're going to end up being used as a weapon by them against people who actually care about the boundaries of others. that's the whole thing. you have to think.

[redrobin-detective]

So I’m actually taking the time to watch Ben 10 Alien Force and it’s, okay. I can admit it has a more cohesive long term plot process than Omniverse and some of the stories ARE good I just can’t really vibe with it. I’m still watching it but it’s not the same burning need I felt with OV and I’m not sure how much further I’ll get before I entirely lose interest. 

I know a lot of people like AF so I’m going to put my slightly critical thoughts under a read more so those who don’t want to see it can skip it.

The reason I can’t get into the series like I did OV, for me, is the characters are lacking in any true dimension making me not invest in the series. Ben in particular, the heart and soul of the series, feels like a cardboard cutout of a character without much defining personality to make me believe he’s Ben much less an actual person. Having watched both OG and OV I can describe, off the top of my head, what Ben is like. 

Ben of the original series was a horrible little gremlin child with a heart of gold in there somewhere. He was childish and reckless, sometimes acting out or going too far with his pranks. He has a variety of interests and things he doesn’t like but finally gets a handle of his abilities and learns that being a hero isn’t just about beating up bad guys, it’s about standing up and protecting others.

Likewise, OV Ben has been around the block as a teen superhero. While he is still a bit full of himself and reckless, a lot of it is a carefully constructed façade so people don’t see how stressed and nervous he is about the heavy burden on his shoulders. He’s desensitized to how weird his life has become and is good at adapting and thinking on his feet. Like his younger self, he has a variety of likes and dislikes, some the same and some different as he grew up.

15 eps in AF and I still can’t really think of how to describe Ben, he’s got the personality of a freezer burned low fat waffle. He’s just a very standard teen boy without any true defining traits. I haven’t seen him talk about any interests, express any real opinions on anything. Like he had to put on the Omnitrix again after taking it off for a normal life and it doesn’t seem to have any impact on him. AF Ben is also almost always in the right, always the calm one (esp compared to Kevin who’s his own mess of one track stereotypes) with a perfectly straight moral code. He’s quiet, polite, he makes a few quips but otherwise is just kind of there. When he’s not actively engaged in the plot, he’s just sitting there with a vacant expression and a half smile. In an attempt to make him “normal” and “relatable” they not only stripped the character of anything that makes him stand out but also anything that makes him Ben Tennyson. 

OS and OV Ben are always moving, either fiddling with the Omnitrix or bouncing their leg or lounged in a precarious position while mouthing off. He’s a very energetic sort, spirited in a way that’s as admirable as it is aggravating. To watch AF Ben sit passively in Kevin’s car, hands on his knees, back straight. It’s like looking at a stranger. 

I loved Ben because he was fiery lil shit, half feral and running into everything half cocked because he’s stupid but also has a big bleeding heart. He’s a good boy, theoretically and gets better as he matures but he struggles with his self image and decision making. Kid has also straight up, and knowingly murdered and will do so again. He is a one universe force of nature running around, causing and fixing problems in the same breath. God I love this disaster. AF Ben feels so far removed from this Ben and it frankly bores me.

I’ll keep going but I remember when I first watched AF years ago when it first aired, I watched at least the first 10 episodes before I quit. I recall thinking that it didn’t feel like Ben 10 anymore and it really doesn’t. Yes it has some interesting storylines, yes the worldbuilding and lore expansion is appreciated. But god I just can’t invest in these characters. For all of Omniverse’s faults, at least the character felt not only like an actual person but who Ben is supposed to be. Ben is not and never was your ���boy next door good boy superhero’ he’s ‘local child menace gains infinite powers uses them to steal a golf cart’. 

[ninma]

A look at Dream's punishment through irl rules and taking into account UN's rules regarding prisons. Because it is just interesting and it proves how there is NO justification for it. But mostly because it's interesting to look at and you may learn a thing or two.

I have seen too many times people trying to justify Dream's punishment. I did research and read through multiple articles and documents (over 73 pages of two different documents) about the more legal sides of his punishment. While Quackity's physical torture is obvious, I am here to address that even before that it was still very illegal. I know it is fictional! This is just a look into the real life facts and rules regarding prisons because it is interesting to look at Dream's punishment and Pandora's Vault under the light of these. So keep that in mind while reading this!

Welcome to my ted talk with actual facts and be prepared for quite the ride!

While yes, he has done bad things...however he has not done something so bad that he deserves a punishment so cruel that it's considered too inhumane for even mass murderers. Like actually! Stay tooned and you'll see what I mean.

His sentence is indefinite solidary confinement. Which is defined by the united nations as:

"the confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact."

This means his punishment fits the definition for all his time (including visits) except when Tommy was locked inn and now with Quackity (although I'd consider the last one a turn for the worse). Now that we have that cleared up- lets get into the rule breaking. But first, let me introduce you to The Mandela Rules!

"The Mandela Rules reinforce human rights principles, including

 the recognition of the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman

 or degrading treatment or punishment and effective guidance 

to national prison administrations for persons deprived of their liberty"

Now that we have established that, lets get into this concerning fact train!

Rule 43

1. In no circumstances may restrictions or disciplinary sanctions amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The following practices, in particular, shall be prohibited:

(a) Indefinite solitary confinement;

(b) Prolonged solitary confinement;

(c) Placement of a prisoner in a dark or constantly lit cell;

(d) Corporal punishment or the reduction of a prisoner’s diet or drinking water;

(e) Collective punishment.

Yeah...pretty clear breaking of 4/5 there. They can't even break e! Not to mention the pretty explicit breaking of d that was probably a surprise. You can count it as them breaking 4/4 if you count the fact that they can’t even break e. Rest assured my friend, this is just the beginning.

Rule 44

For the purpose of these rules, solitary confinement shall refer to the confinement of prisoners for 22

 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact. Prolonged solitary confinement shall refer to 

solitary confinement for a time period in excess of 15 consecutive days.

Already broken this one too huh. Even visiting days counts because I don't think anyone has been there for hours and I also don't think Sam's interactions would be long enough or count as meaningful human contact. The time with Tommy and Quackity is the only time it dosen't count as solidary. So this is getting...very much concerinng. But this is still only the start.

Rule 45

1. Solitary confinement shall be used only in exceptional cases as a last

 resort*, for as* short a time as possible and subject to independent

 review, and only pursuant to the authorization by a competent authority. It

 shall not be imposed by virtue of a prisoner’s sentence.

2. The imposition of solitary confinement should be prohibited in the case

 of prisoners with mental or physical disabilities when their conditions

 would be exacerbated by such measures

Woops...so not only is it illegal as a punishment...but also the "he is a psychopath" argument (which is already a bad stereotype, but I won't get into psychology here. It's a common misconception and c!Tommy not knowing is almost to be expected. However please do not say that someone, character or real person, have a mental disorder or illness without proper knowledge about psychology and in the case of characters we shouldn’t put labels unless the writer has said that they have taken mental disorders or illnesses into account when making the character) just got yeeted out the window. Actually that argument just took a loop and now is an argument for the other side. It makes sense because as it says: it exacerbates their preexisting mental illnesses. Which is why it's prohibited. 

"In no case may a detainee’s contact with the outside world be

 dependent on his or her cooperativeness, be used as a disciplinary

 sanction or form part of the sentence."

  - Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Civil and Political Rights, Including the Questions of Torture and Detention, ¶ 43, Comm’n on Human Rights,

“…The medical officer should visit prisoners held in solitary confinement

 every day, on the understanding that such visits should be in the interests

 of the prisoners ’ health. Furthermore, prisoners held in solitary

 confinement for more than 12 hours should have access to fresh air for at

 least 1 hour each day” - Subcomm. on Prevention of Torture [SPT]

Wow Sam...it is almost impressive in a dark way just how explicitly these are broken. The Warden's very punishments for disobedience just straight up counts as torture. And for the obvious record I highly doubt Quackity's daily visits to the green bloob counts as anything but 'the interests of the prisoners' health'. You can disagree here...but I am being very sarcastic.

Rule 22

1. Every prisoner shall be provided by the prison administration at the

usual hours with food of nutritional value adequate for health and

strength, of wholesome quality and well prepared and served.

Raw potatoes every day for the rest of your life..eehhh no thanks. If Dream ever gets out he will probably join me in the 'eating potatoes trauma' box. As funny as that sounds, it isn't a joke. I was force fed potatoes as a child and I hated it to the point where it gave me a mental block that stops me from eating them as my body just does not want to swallow it. It's a problem. But I can joke about it. Maybe Tommy will join us too, although it wasn't really the eating potatoes that caused that trauma...rip. Rest in anything but potatoes.

Rule 42

General living conditions addressed in these rules, including those related

to light, ventilation, temperature, sanitation, nutrition, drinking water,

access to open air and physical exercise, personal hygiene, health care

and adequate personal space, shall apply to all prisoners without

 exception.

I think it's pointless to say more on that topic as it's pretty much already summed up. Let us now move over to what are probably some of the qoutes so specific that it's scary.

“Furthermore, [the Committee] is concerned about the use of solitary

 confinement for indefinite periods of time.... Full isolation of 22 to 23

 hours a day in supermaximum security prisons is unacceptable

(art. 16).” - Committee. against Torture [CAT]

Oh wow.. talk about on the nose. I should've just started with this one as it pretty much says pretty clearly how it is unacceptable. Like yikes...can you get more specific? It is just downright ridiculous at this point. (-_-;)

“Solitary confinement, when used for the purpose of punishment,

 cannot be justified for any reason, precisely because it imposes severe

 mental pain and suffering beyond any reasonable retribution for

 criminal behaviour and thus constitutes an act defined in article 1 or article

 16 of the Convention against Torture, and a breach of article 7 of the

 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

Ahaha...ha....yeah for those who justify it...the convention against torture is very much against it being justified...Imagine if the characters could read these rules, that'd be interesting. Although I am pretty sure they don't follow realism for the imprisonment. As I have already said; this is just an interesting look at the irl rules and how Dream's punishment and Pandora's Vault stand under light of them.

“No prisoner, including those serving life sentence [sic] and prisoners on

 death row, shall be held in solitary confinement merely because of the

 gravity of the crime.”

 - Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Like...there are no loopholes here. It is so extremely clear that it truly is darkly impressive how the characters don't seem to have a second thought about this. How do you accidentally sentence someone to a lifetime of torture without realizing? If they do know...It'd be very dark.

Btw Tommy's exile and his time in prison doesn't count as solidary confinement. Just to clear that up.

It amazes me how badly they break these rules...I know they probably didn't take the realism into consideration. However it is still kind of darkly impressive. Especially considering how scary specific they break them too. Even though this is just a interesting (I was about to write fun, however I wouldn't count realizing how inhuman the prison is is 'fun'. But it is interesting) look at Dream's punishment and Pandora's Vault under the light of real life rules for prisons. (lol my paranoid self have said this so much)

These facts also proves how saying it's justified...is kind of morally bad. Not attacking anyone! I just want to also say how while it is pure fiction and the characters in the story can have whatever opinion they want as they are characters. However when it comes to fans approving and justifying it without taking time to consider how it really isn't something that can be justified (real or no). You can have whatever opinion you want, however just maybe take some of what you have learned today and reflect over it? To think twice after having received new information dosen't hurt. I am not here to tell you what to think, so rest easy. Only to share some facts^^ (*so obviously scared of offending anyone*)

I recommend taking some time to look it up yourself if you want to look further into it. The psychological aspects of it is also interesting to look at!

I hope you have learned something here today and found this post and my research interesting! I spent hours on this so I hope you have enjoyed this! I originally posted this on reddit and I was very surprised at how many stopped by to read it and therefore I choose to post it here as well because you learn something and hopefully also gained a new perspective. 

Ninma over and out!

[not-gae-cuz-i-like-straight-wae]

Part 1: Responding to Jeansaaa

I intended on writing both my response to jeansaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa and another person in one message, but there’s some delay and I only finished the first part some time ago, so I’ll split my message up in two parts with the second part coming later. So NOTE: this message does NOT contain all my answers to this subject and I WILL explain more about the “why’s” in the (I hope) near future.

Introduction:

It’s been a while, but I’ve finally decided to write the respond to both jeansaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa’s last message and someone who I spoke with in the private chat. I’ll start off by saying I’ll call jeansaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa just “Jeanaaa” for short and the other person I’ll simply call “ABC”, because this person preferred to remain anonymous. I’ll respond to this last person later on in this message too, because I might answer several questions others might have as well…

I can’t reblog Jeansaaa’s last message and reply to it, because Jeansaaa blocked me afterwards (I send him/her a private message and asked about whether he/she had never blocked me or unblocked me again and then Jeansaaa said he/she forgot to block me, made a joke about his/her memory, told me not to worry and said he/she would block me with a smiley... like, WHERE even is the logic in blocking someone like THAT), so I don’t even know if Jeansaaa will ever read my message. However, this is a reply to basically everyone who’d say the exact same things in a discussion about lgbt+, so that’s why I’m responding to his/her message anyway and the same thing goes for ABC. I will however speak directly to these people, because it is them who wrote me the things they wrote.

The last thing I wanna say before I actually start writing, is that I might use capital letters and exclamation marks. This, however, will be more often shoutouts out of surprise and confusion instead of anger and aggression or it will be just to emphasize parts of my sentences…

MY RESPOND TO: JEANSAAA

Jeansaaa’s last message:

Listen bro don’t take this personal I have no I’ll intentions at all and I don’t hate straight people ( I’m bi myself so i’m part straight ) but if you’re gonna post your opinions online than your gonna be subject to criticism, and the problem with straight pride is that for centuries lgbtq+ people have been called slurs, demonized even KILLED because of their sexuality, even to this day in certain countries it’s illegal to be to be part of the lgbtq+, until just RECENTLY gay marriage was illegal, nothing like that has happened to straight people, that’s why gay pride exists because homophobia is still ever present, but I’m not gonna shove this in your face, I’m just trying to let you know why gay pride exists and why straight pride doesn’t, have a good day dude 😊

“Don’t take this personal”

Okay, so first of all, EXCUSE ME?! I shouldn’t take it personal??? ERR. Aside from blocking me yourself, you LITERALLY told others to block me as well, so that is PRETTY personal!

No hate to straight people? WOW. I’m blown away!

Like I said before, it would be quite mankind-hating if you’d hate straight people! I know people don’t hate straight people (because THAT would be completely insane), but I still can’t believe we have come so far that you are criticized when you do say you’re straight! Because that’s what’s happening. Lgbt+ supporters want lgbt+ people to show everyone they’re not straight and straight people should shut up about being straight?!

I’m okay with criticism if it’s because I say THESE things…

Yes, I AM posting the things I say online. Those aren’t “opinions”, but I guess it wouldn’t even do any good anymore to explain that to you, so I’ll just say “opinions” to keep it simple… I know a lot of people have the same opinions as me. People that also have no ill intentions (towards the lgbt+ community itself as well), but (like me) they act the way they act and have opinions because they think about it themselves and NOT because the majority (or at least, the ones who are given a voice and scream the loudest and the ones that can control the governments and the media together with – of course – the large herd of people that blindly follows them) thinks that way. Unfortunately, many people don’t dare to stand up for their opinion anymore these days and those who do speak aloud are often silenced. Either because their account gets blocked if they’d speak on the internet or something even worse would happen if they’d stand up for their opinions in real life.

You’re calling the ENTIRE humanity before us STUPID…

So I have a question for you… You say: “for centuries lgbtq+ people have been called slurs, demonized even KILLED because of their sexuality” and you say “nothing like that has happened to straight people”. Now… Don’t you think there is a REASON why all these centuries people thought of lgbt+ as abnormal? Do you really think all these BILLIONS and BILLIONS of people that have lived on the Earth for CENTURIES just thought of lgbt+ as abnormal for absolutely NO REASON?!

Again: I don’t hate gays and don’t feel any need to discriminate them, in case you still thought I did after I already told you a hundred times I didn’t.

Look, I don’t justify the fact that people were killed because of whatever they thought they were or liked and I have said that before. I think they should have human (I repeat: HUMAN) rights and that they should be protected by the government in the country they live in (as long as they act normally, of course, but that applies to everyone). So if they’d get abused or they’d beaten up, the perpetrators should be punished! If people want to make decisions or changes to themselves, it’s their problem. That’s why I also wouldn’t hurt or scold anyone who’s – for example – gay. I fact, some of my very own friends are gay and they know how I think about it, but we have no problems with each other at all. So don’t pretend like I’M the one causing others frustration or whatever!

The problem.

And that’s why I think I should clarify myself one more time: I’m not against gay people. That’s their choice. What I am against is the lgbt+ AGENDA that is being executed (and that too is why I definitely wouldn’t support the lgbt+ community and why I openly said that on my account). I’m against the forcing of changing mankind’s morality. It’s totally fine (to me, at least) if you want to have an opinion, but why all that pushy hassle?! And now it even goes far beyond imposing opinions. Entire cities are changed. I know why and I’ll speak about this more extensively later on, but I’ll first finish my respond to what you’ve said.

I believe you are mistaken about your own goal.

You claim that gay pride is all to make sure gay people will have the same rights as straight people, right? I know many people do. Well, let me tell you something: the way you’re trying to achieve that WON’T change the fact that it’s illegal to be part of the lgbt+ community in some countries! Waving rainbow flags, painting rainbow zebra crossings and creating wall paintings of two men (like I have all seen more than once in my very own hometown and much, MUCH more in the capital city of the country I live in) won’t change a SHIT about what’s happening in faraway countries. And I can tell you another thing: in the places where all these changes for lgbt+ people are made, lgbt+ people already HAVE the same rights! So if you REALLY want to change anything in some country on the other side of the world, GO OVER THERE and try to convince them to treat lgbt+ people differently!

More than just normalizing (whether you acknowledge that or not).

But NO. That’s NOT what you all do. You wave all these flags and stuff here for another reason, because – like I said – lgbt+ people ARE accepted by the community in these countries and waving flags won’t change a thing ANYWHERE even IF it hadn’t already been legalized here. You wave these flags, paint these rainbow zebra crossings and create these wall paintings of two men because lgbt+ is already normalized here, but the lobby who created this agenda wanted people to take it much further than just normalizing the lgbt+ community. That’s also why it’s not called gay “normal”, but gay “pride” and why you all celebrated an entire “pride month”. That’s also why I spoke earlier about you all praising, glorifying or even WORSHIPPING the lgbt+ community now.

So DON’T try to convince me…

… that all these rainbow stuff and same-sex paintings are to reduce discrimination of lgbt+ people (which I, for the record, am also against, but I’ve already explained that before), because it’s NOT. It already IS not allowed to discriminate lgbt+ people in these countries and on social media and you guys are NOT trying to change anything in countries where being gay is illegal, because that would be happening over THERE and not over HERE.

About the next message:

Once again, I know (a couple of reasons) why the lobby wants you all to wave rainbow flags etc. etc., but I’ll speak about that more at some other point in the next (extremely long) message, in which I – like I said earlier – will also respond to someone who texted me in a private chat.

So this is where the first part of my message ends. You’ll hear more of me about this some other time…