#in general when i say i don't want to hear other people's opinions on something i'm joking

[tyrannuspitch]

Hi! I'm really enjoying your Sherlock posts and I keep wanting to react to them, but I have actually no idea if you're open to that. so my question is: is this topic something you like to post about but not interact over, or would that be something you welcome? I hope you have a lovely day!

oh yeah feel free! when i say i'm avoiding the fandom for now, i mean that i'm not seeking out fanworks, not that i'm trying to totally isolate myself from anyone else who's seen the show. conversation is very welcome ^_^

[3hks]

How do I write a character to be a little mean and surly but with hints of softness, without making them annoying?

Ahaha, hello! When I saw your ask, I immediately jumped on it because it's such a fun question! I present to you...

How to Write a Surly (Yet Soft) Character Who ISN'T Annoying

Mean For a Reason + What Makes Them Appear Mean

One thing that is incredibly important when writing characters with a "worse" personality is considering what shaped their personality. Your character should not be rude just because you want them to. Add some background and context to their attitude. Oftentimes, this rudeness serves as a defense mechanism.

Additionally, consider what makes your character appear mean. Do they bully people? Are they inconsiderate of others? Or perhaps do they simply state the truths that people do not want to hear? A "mean" person can look like many things, and not all of them are stereotypical bullies.

Apologies

One of the best ways to showcase character development (in this case, it might be revealing some softness) for a surly character is through apologies.

Having a character who's normally stuck-up, rude, and/or inconsiderate genuinely apologize and realize their wrongdoings is a HUGE moment. It might not cause a monumental shift in the story, but it demonstrates that they feel guilty, responsible, and that they care enough to overcome their pride to apologize.

Awkward, Not Reluctant

A common thing I see when authors write a poor-tempered character apologizing, for example, is that they often seem very reluctant to do so. While the reluctance does make sense because they're doing something they are unfamiliar with, it becomes one of those things that can get annoying when overdone.

So instead of making your character too reluctant to do something nice to someone else, make them more awkward. Reluctance creates a sense that the character doesn't exactly want to be there but is doing it, nonetheless. Although it can seem charming, you don't want your character to appear to be forced to be kind.

However, if you make them more awkward/nervous when apologizing or helping someone, you demonstrate that they WANT to be there, they're genuinely putting effort into trying, despite it still being something that's out of their comfort zone. And honestly? That looks way better.

Avoid The Irrevocable Point

Before I start this, remember that all of these points are my opinion, and this is definitely one of them. If you disagree, that's alright! You're never obligated to listen to everything I say, and many things depend on context!

When writing a poor-tempered character, it's easy to get carried away. Despite that, I suggest being careful about the actions they take. No matter how rude they are, they should not go past a point that's irredeemable for them. Now, this point depends on many factors, but as the author, hopefully you can tell. It's just generally harder to rebuild their reputation as a character and any attempts to do so later on may seem insincere when trying to fix a mistake that's simply too bad to be fixed.

Subtle Actions

Realistically speaking, it's hard for someone to admit something they're uncomfortable with admitting. This applies to your character: verbal forms of kindness are often more difficult for "mean" characters to express.

Thus, I suggest using small, subtle actions to show that they care. It doesn't have to be saving a child from a building on fire or even helping an old grandma cross the road. It can be something like paying for a friend's meal without asking, leaving a bottle of water on an athlete's bench, or just listening to someone.

Pattern of Softness

A surly character is, by definition, not the nicest person, and they are definitely not going to be nice to everyone, ESPECIALLY in the beginning.

What makes your character feel empathetic/sympathetic towards someone? It could be an event someone went through, a few key traits, or their general personality that makes your mean character turn soft. They will not be soft towards everyone, but they might act nicer to those that fall into those specific categories.

It might help to remember that we tend to feel bad towards people who have experienced something similar to us. If it's not something we can't relate to very well, we'll feel less sorrow on the other's behalf.

Don't Make It Forced

When I say "don't make it forced", I mean it in two ways.

For starters, please don't force your character into being extra rude or being nice. You want it to be as natural as possible; remember that you determine your character!

However, I also mean that you should make your character feel forced to be nice. If they wish to correct past mistakes, then yes, there should be solid motivation, but don't force them into feeling like they have to change.

Remember: the key to all this is genuity. An annoying character, no matter their trope, often appears annoying if they lack sincereness.

I hope this helped!

Happy writing~

3hks <3

[astrosamara]

Moon Sign Observations

Observations from a Pisces Moon :) All these opinions come from my own personal experiences with the different moon signs, so it might not apply to everyone. Various aspects to the moon and house placement can also change interpretation and expression of that moon sign.

Aries ☾

They hate wasting time. When they make their mind up on something, they don't like to sit around and contemplate on it, they want to go after it right away. Super action oriented. I love being around Aries moon's, even if our energy levels can be quite incompatible. I've also seen so many Aries moons that stand up against bullying and root for the underdogs. They can be great in leadership positions. Even with their competitive nature, I feel like they're the moon signs who want to see everyone win, especially the people that they love.

Taurus ☾

I haven't met many Taurus moon's, the one's I have met though always seem to be super big on luxury items and comfort. They can live beyond their means sometimes because they just want to have the best of the best. I've noticed this more frequently in younger Taurus moons though. Very beautiful people who seem to always look good without trying hard and can have a very strong interest in beauty and fashion. They can also be SUPER stubborn over their opinions and can be pretty closed off to hearing what other people have to say.

Gemini ☾

Deeply fascinating minds. It's hard to pin Gemini moons down and they tend to live a double life. You can think you're really close to a Gemini moon, but there can be so much about them you still don't know. Excellent communicators that tend to be lighthearted and funny in conversations. They think deeply about life and I know many Gemini moon's that are insomniacs because they have a hard time shutting down their busy minds. They also tend to have a wide variety of interests and are incredibly smart in any area they apply themselves in. Incredibly analytical and perceptive.

Cancer ☾

I feel like I've met more Cancer moons than any other moon sign. They just appear to be everywhere in my life lol. Very caring and sensitive people. A lot of them wear their heart on their sleeves. They tend to be the mother friend of their friend groups and this sensitive energy can often be taken advantage of by people who only want to use them as their therapist. I've also noticed many people tend to baby Cancer moons and don't hold them accountable for some of their more toxic behaviors. They also have an energy about them that makes people feel safe and comfortable around them almost instantly. Strangers will just start telling them their life story and want to open up to them.

Leo ☾

Leo moons are LOUD, especially when they're comfortable. They also tend to have a very lively and radiant aura to them. Unfortunately, I know a lot of Leo moons that can be a little too self involved to the point that they're uninterested in the people around them. They love having attention on themselves and can become upset if they feel like they don't have that attention. They like to put on a show with their emotions and express themselves in a theatrical manner. I wish I had more positive experiences with Leo placements in general, but I haven't tbh. I will say though that I love how open and expressive they are with their love towards others. Rarely are they emotionally cold and distant, which is refreshing to be around.

Virgo ☾

HUGE worriers. Feeling like they need to be perfect in order to be accepted by themselves and by others. Can stress themselves out to the point of sickness. Underdeveloped Virgo placements in general tend to have very fragile egos and crave external validation to an unhealthy extent. They can struggle with intrinsic motivation, because they don't see the point of doing something unless they're rewarded or praised. I haven't met very many Virgo moons in my life, mostly Virgo suns, but I feel like this would be one of the more challenging moon placements to have. Frequent overthinking and anxiety, similar to that of a Gemini moon. I feel like Virgo's are much more hard on themselves though than Gemini's.

Libra ☾

Super charming and flirty people. They crave beauty, peace, and harmony in their lives. They tend to have a natural way with people and can have many friends throughout their lives. Libra moons are just very friendly and polite people overall. I've found that Libra tends to be more happy in the moon than in the sun, which is why Libra moons can have stronger positive Libra qualities. Similar to Taurus moons, they tend to be very beautiful people with a strong interest in beauty and fashion. Unlike Taurus moons though, Libra moons have a strong disinterest in conflict and fighting. Due to their strong desire to keep the peace, they can probably easily fall into habits of people pleasing and not speaking up for themselves.

Scorpio ☾

I'm in love with Scorpio moons. Incredibly emotionally intelligent and aware individuals. They go through a lot of dark shit in their lives, but they really know how to grow from their pain and transform with it. I've never met a Scorpio moon that didn't have this intense and magnetic presence to them. I've found them to be much more intense than Scorpio suns (being one myself) because this tends to be a really challenging moon placement to have. They have a very dark and deep inner world and they grow accustomed to carrying a lot of pain with them in their daily lives. There's also a very painful and strong desire for intimacy and to feel deeply understood that could stem from a difficult childhood. They have a strong disinterest in superficiality and their intuition guides them heavily throughout their life. If you meet a Scorpio moon that is emotionally healthy and healed, they probably went through hell to get to that place of contentment in their life.

Sagittarius ☾

Super funny people. Being a Jupiter ruled moon sign, they have very expansive and limitless minds, which they have in common with Pisces moons. Freedom to express themselves and their individuality is super important for them. Usually a very strong connection to spirituality and a strong interest in learning about other cultures through traveling. I've found that with many Sagittarius moons, people really want to listen to them and hear what they have to say. People see them as a wise guru. They also have a tendency to struggle with commitment and being tied down to anything or anyone (I've found this to be more true for people with heavy mutable energy in their charts overall).

Capricorn ☾

I've rarely met a Capricorn moon that I didn't like. Very loving people that like to take care of the people closest to them. They can struggle pretty intensely, especially younger people with this placement, with a fear of failure and never reaching their full potential. They can have this innate sense of responsibility and structure as a connection to their emotional fulfillment. Capricorn isn't happy in this moon sign, so emotions can be quite challenging for them to navigate. Even though they don't like expressing their emotions openly, when they do, they can express it in a very beautiful and poetic way. There's a lot of singers with this moon placement that have songs with deeply emotional and impactful lyrics.

Aquarius ☾

Aquarius moon's often get described as emotionless or cold, but they actually feel quite deeply. The problem is they intellectualize their emotions more than they actually feel them. I've also noticed they can shut down or feel distant and uncomfortable when they witness other people be emotional around them. This is a moon placement I truly feel for. They can feel incredibly different from the people around them and their feelings can frequently be misunderstood by others. A lot of deep emotional loneliness with this moon sign. I've noticed this to be a common "black sheep" placement, more so than with other Aquarius placements. They have very beautiful and unique souls with a strong interest in bettering society. Very humanitarian.

Pisces ☾

Pisces moon's tend to have strong connections to their grandparents from a young age, or older people in general. They also tend to be into grandma or grandpa activities because they feel like such an old soul lol. Might feel a disconnect from their generation and modern trends. I've noticed many Pisces moon's have these dreamy and sparkling eyes that appear to be filled with magic. They tend to have a very powerful connection to music and they're the type to just be huge music lovers in general, connecting to the vibes of music overall, instead of having a specific genre they listen to. Can be heavily addicted to isolation as a coping mechanism when life gets too overwhelming. Reality can feel very limiting and restrictive for them, which is why I think it's so important for Pisces moon's to have creative and fulfilling outlets (especially during this Saturn in Pisces transit that has definitely been testing them. I know it has for me lol).

[seahorsepencils]

I 100% believe that Nathan Fielder made a deliberate choice in focusing the episode around footage of him interacting with two autism "advocates" who are ultimately ableist and reductive in their understanding of autism. A congressman who doesn't even know what masking is, and an advocacy organization founder who uses outdated tests and won't acknowledge that not-autistic folks might benefit from rehearsing difficult social situations? That's not an accident.

If you look up Doreen Granpeesheh, you'll see that she is known for promoting the idea of autism "recovery," and that she has a history of publicly supporting the claim that there's a link between vaccines and autism. Her Wikipedia page makes very clear that she is a problematic figure whose work has been critiqued, and that she should not be taken seriously. Fielder, along with his writers and producers, would have known her reputation when booking her for the show.

A screenshot from Granpeesheh's website. Yes, it would appear she is actually proud of this headline.

And I think he's using the meeting with Cohen as a commentary on how autistic folks (and minoritized people in general, most likely) are treated by people in authority. Instead of masking and politely leaving the room, instead of picking up signals that Cohen is wrapping up the meeting without wanting to announce he's doing it on camera, Fielder purposely doesn't "take the hint" so that Cohen has to flounder and keep trying to wrap up the meeting in a way that is ultimately vague, dismissive, and rude. The longer the audience has to sit and watch that dynamic play out, the more likely we are to recognize Cohen as the bad guy in the situation rather than Fielder. It's brilliant.

And it's the exact same strategy he's using by spending the first half of the season ostensibly focusing on the first officer in those cockpit interactions, while deliberately giving screen time to guys like the "banned from every dating app" pilot to make it clear who is actually the source of the problem (and to hopefully trigger an FAA sexual harassment investigation in that one instance). In all three of these situations, he's showing us how a problematic person in power holds all the cards and is unwilling to budge.

I know there are differing opinions on what aspects of the show and his character are exaggerated or performed. As a very self-aware autistic comedy writer, this is my assessment: I think he's semi-deliberately not filling silences with masking behaviors, and asking questions he probably knows are uncomfortably direct, to create a space where others (often the neurotypical folks in these situations) have no choice to fill in the silence, which ultimately makes them say or do something relevant. I think he also acts like an unaware, unbiased observer in situations where he has a strong idea of what's going on. So whenever he says "I didn't know why" or "I didn't understand," he probably mostly does know and understand, but he knows that performing the role of an unbiased observer is a stronger strategic choice to get his message across.

He's basically playing the role of a journalist who knows that two of the most effective tools in his toolkit are a) silence when he wants a subject to reveal crucial information, and b) an "unbiased" narrative frame that makes the audience feel as if they're coming to a conclusion on their own, rather than being told what to think.

It's a nuanced approach but I think it's a smart one, especially considering that autistic-coded folks are very easily dismissed when speaking truth to power. And yeah, he's not gonna get his Congressional hearing. But pointing a camera at the problem and airing it for a massive audience, while saying "Me? I don't have an agenda; this data just presented itself in response to my neutral, unbiased question" is a pretty autistic—and often effective—approach to problem-solving.

[glitter-stained]

Damasio, The Trolley Problem and Batman: Under the Hood

Okay so @bestangelofall asked me to elaborate on what I meant by "Damasio's theories on emotions in moral decision-making add another level of depth to the analysis of UTH as a moral dilemma" and I thought this deserved its own post so let's talk about this.

So, idk where everyone is at here (philosophy was mandatory in highschool in my country but apparently that's not the case everywhere so i genuinely have no clue what's common knowledge here, i don't want to like state the obvious but also we should recap some stuff. Also if I'm mentioning a philosopher's or scientist's name without detailing, that means it's just a passing thought/recommendation if you want to read more on the topic.)

First thing first is I've seen said, about jason and the no killing rule, that "killing is always bad that's not up for debate". And I would like to say, that's factually untrue. Like, no matter which side of the debate you are on, there is very much a debate. Historically a big thing even. So if that's not something you're open to hear about, if you're convinced your position is the only correct one and even considering other options is wrong and/or a waste of time... I recommend stopping here, because this only going to make you upset, and you have better stuff to do with your life than getting upset over an essay. In any case please stay civil and remember that this post is not about me debating ethics with the whole bat-tumblr, it's me describing a debate other people have been voicing for a long time, explaining the position Damasio's neuropsychology and philosophy holds in this debate, and analyzing the ethics discussed in Batman: Under the Red Hood in that light. So while I might talk about my personal position in here (because I have an opinion in this debate), this isn't a philosophy post; this is a literature analysis that just so happens to exist within the context of a neuropsychological position on a philosophical debate. Do not try to convince me that my philosophy of ethics is wrong, because that's not the point, that's not what the post is about, I find it very frustrating and you will be blocked. I don't have the energy to defend my personal opinions against everybody who disagrees with me.

Now, let's start with Bruce. Bruce, in Under The Hood and wrt the no kill rule (not necessarily all of his ethics, i'm talking specifically about the no kill rule), is defending a deontological position. Deontology is a philosophy of ethics coined by christian🧷 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The philosophy of ethics asks this question: what does it mean to do a good action? And deontology answers "it means to do things following a set of principles". Basically Kant describes what are "absolute imperatives" which are rules that hold inherent moral values: some things are fundamentally wrong and others are bad. Batman's no-kill rule is thus a categorical imperative: "Though Shall not Kill"🧷, it is always wrong to kill. (Note that I am not saying Bruce is kantian just because he has a deontology: Kant explained the concept of deontological ethics, and then went up to theorize his own very specific and odd brand of deontology, which banned anything that if generalized would cause the collapse of society as well as, inexplicably, masturbation. Bruce is not Kantian, he's just, regarding the no kill rule, deontological. Batman is still allowed to wank, don't worry.)

In this debate, deontological ethics are often pit up against teleological ethics, the most famous group of which being consequentialism, the most famous of consequentialisms being utilitarism. As the name indicates, consequentialist theories posit that the intended consequences of your actions determine if those actions were good or not. Utilitarism claims that to do good, your actions should aim to maximise happiness for the most people possible. So Jason, when he says "one should kill the Joker to prevent the thousands of victims he is going to harm if one does not kill him", is holding a utilitarian position.

The debate between deontology and utilitarism has held many forms, some fantastical and some with more realistic approaches to real life like "say you're hiding from soldiers and you're holding a baby that's gonna start crying, alerting the soldiers and getting everyone in your hideout massacred. Do you muffle the baby, knowing it will suffocate and kill it?" or "say there's a plague going on and people are dying and the hospital does not have enough ventilators, do you take the one off of the comatose patient with under 0.01% chance of ever waking up to give it to another patient? What about 1%?", etc, etc. The most famous derivative of this dilemma, of course, being the infamous trolley problem.

This is what is meant when we say "the UTH confrontation is a trolley problem." The final confrontation at the warehouse is a variation, a derivative of the utilitarian dilemma that goes as follows: "if someone was trying to kill someone in front of you, and that murder would prevent the murder of thousands, should you try to stop that murder or let it happen?"

Now, here's a question: why are there so many derivatives of the trolley problem? Why do philosophers spend time pondering different versions of the same question instead of solving it?

My opinion (and the one of much, much smarter people whose name i forgot oops) is that both systems fail at giving us a satisfying, clean-cut reply. Now, most people have a clean-cut answer to the trolley problem as presented here: me personally, I lean more towards utilitarianism, and I found it logical to pull the lever. But altering the exact situation makes me change my answer, and there is very often a point where people, no matter their deontological or utilitarian velleities, change their answer. And that's interesting to examine.

So let's talk about deontology. Now my first gripe with deontology it's that it posits a set of rules as absolute and I find that often quite arbitrary. 🧷 Like, it feels a little like mathematical axioms, you know? We build a whole worldview on the assumption that these rules are inherently correct and the best configuration because it feels like it makes sense, and accidentally close our mind to the world of non-euclidian ethics. In practice, here are some situations in which a deontologist might change their mind: self-defense killing, for example, is often cited as "an exception to the rule", making that rule de facto non-universal; and disqualifying it as an absolute imperative. Strangely enough, people will often try to solve the trolley problem by deciding to kill themselves by jumping on the tracks 🧷 which is actually a utilitarian solution: whether you're pulling the lever or you're jumping on the tracks, you are choosing to kill one person to stop the people from being run over. Why does it matter if it's you or someone else you're killing? You're still killing someone. Another situation where people may change their answer would be, like "what if you needed to save your children but to do so you had to kill the ceo of united healthcare?" Note that these are only examples for killing, but the biggest issue is that deontology preaches actions are always either good or wrong, and the issue with that lack of nuance is best illustrated with the kantian problem regarding the morality of lying: let's say it's the holocaust and a family of jews is hiding in your house. Let's say a nazi knocks on your door and asks if there are people hiding in your house. You know if you tell the truth, the jews in your house will be deported. In that situation, is it morally correct to lie? Now, Kant lived before the Holocaust, but in his time there was a similar version of this problem that had been verbalised (this formulation is the best-known derivative of this problem btw, I didn't invent it) and Kant's answer, I kid you not, was still "no it is not morally acceptable to lie in that situation".

And of course, there are variations of that problem that play with the definition of killing- what defines the act of killing and can the other circumstances (like if there's a person you need to save) alter that definition? => Conclusion: there is a lot more nuance to moral actions than what a purely deontological frame claims, and pushing deontology to its limits leads to situations that would feel absurd to us.

Now let's take utilitarianism to its own limits. Say you live in a world where healthcare has never been better. Now say this system is so because there is a whole small caste of people who have been cloned and genetically optimized and conditioned since birth so that their organs could be harvested at any given moment to heal someone. Let's say this system is so performant it has optimised this world's humanity's general well-being and health, leading to an undeniable, unparalleled positive net-worth for humanity. Here's the question: is this world a utopia or a dystopia? Aka, is raising a caste of people as organ cattle morally acceptable in that situation? (Note: Because people's limits on utilitarianism vary greatly from one person to another, I chose the most extreme example I could remember, but of course there are far more nuanced ones. Again, I wasn't the one to come up with this example. If you're looking for examples of this in fiction, i think the limits of utilitarianism are explored pretty interestingly in the videogame The Last of Us).

=> Conclusion: there is a lot more nuance to moral actions than what a purely utilitarian frame claims, and pushing utilitarism to its limits leads to situations that would feel absurd to us.

This leads us back to Under the Hood. Now because UTH includes a scathing criticism of Batman's no kill rule deontology, but Jason is also presented as a villain in this one, my analysis of the whole comic is based on the confrontation between both of these philosophies and their failures, culminating in a trolley dilemma type situation. So this is why it makes sense to have Bruce get mad at Jason for killing Captain Nazi in self-defense: rejecting self-defense, even against nazis, is the logical absurd conclusion of deontology. Winick is simply taking Bruce's no-kill rule to the limit.

And that's part of what gets me about Jason killing goons (aside from the willis todd thing that should definitely have been addressed in such a plot point.) It's that it feels to me like Jason's philosophy is presented as wrong because it leads to unacceptable decisions, but killing goons is not the logical absurd conclusion of utilitarianism. It's a. a side-effect of Jason's plot against Bruce and/or, depending on how charitable you are to either Jason's intelligence or his morals, b. a miscalculation. Assuming Jason's actions in killing goons are a reflection of his moral code (which is already a great assumption, because people not following their own morals is actually the norm, we are not paragons of virtue), then this means that 1) he has calculated that those goons dying would induce an increase in general global human happiness and thus 2) based on this premise, he follows the utilitarian framework and thus believes it's moral to kill the goons. It's the association of (1) and (2) that leads to an absurd and blatantly immoral consequence, but since the premise (1) is a clear miscalculation, the fact that (1) & (2) leads to something wrong does not count as a valid criticism of (2): to put it differently, since the premise is wrong, the conclusion being wrong does not give me any additional info on the value of the reasoning. This is a little like saying "Since 1+ 3= 5 and 2+2=4, then 1+3+2+2 = 9". The conclusion is wrong, but because the first part (1+3=5) is false, the conclusion being wrong does not mean that the second part (2+2 =4) is wrong. So that's what frustrates me so much when people bring up Jason killing goons as a gotcha for criticizing his utilitarian philosophy, because it is not!! It looks like it from afar but it isn't, which is so frustrating because, as stated previously, there are indeed real limits to utilitarianism that could have been explored instead to truly level the moral playing field between Jason and Bruce.

Now that all of this is said and done, let's talk about what in utilitarianism and deontology makes them flawed and, you guessed it, talk some about neuropsychology (and how that leads to what's imo maybe the most interesting thing about the philosophy in Under the Hood.)

In Green Arrow (2001), in an arc also written by Judd Winick, Mia Dearden meets a tortured man who begs her to kill him to save Star City (which is being massacred), and she kills him, then starts to cry and begs Ollie for confirmation that this was the right thing to do. Does this make Mia a utilitarian? If so, then why did she doubt and cry? Is she instead a deontologist, who made a mistake?

In any case, the reason why Mia's decision was so difficult for her to make and live with, and the reason why all of these trolley-adjacent dilemmas are so hard, is pretty clear. Mia's actions were driven by fear and empathy. It's harder to tolerate sacrificing our own child to avoid killing, it's harder to decide to sacrifice a child than an adult, a world where people are raised to harvest their organs feels horrible because these are real humans we can have empathy towards and putting ourselves in their shoes is terrifying... So we have two "perfectly logical" rational systems toppled by our emotions. But which is wrong: should we try to shut down our empathy and emotions so as to always be righteous? Are they a parasite stopping us from being true moral beings?

Classically, we (at least in my culture in western civilization) have historically separated emotions from cognition (cognition being the domain of thought, reasoning, intelligence, etc.) Descartes, for example, was a philosopher who highlighted a dualist separation of emotion and rationality. For a long time this was the position in psychology, with even nowadays some people who think normal psychologists are for helping with emotions and neuropsychologists are for helping with cognition.(I will fight these people with a stick.) Anyway, that position was the predominant one in psychology up until Damasio (not the famous writer, the neuropsychologist) wrote a book named Descartes' Error. (A fundamental of neuropsychology and a classic that conjugates neurology, psychology and philosophy: what more could you ask for?)

Damasio's book's title speaks for itself: you cannot separate emotion from intelligence. For centuries we have considered emotions to be parasitic towards reasoning, (which even had implications on social themes and constructs through the centuries 📌): you're being emotional, you're letting emotions cloud your judgement, you're emotionally compromised, you're not thinking clearly... (Which is pretty pertinent to consider from the angle of A Death in the Family, because this is literally the reproach Bruce makes to Jason). Damasio based the book on the Damasio couple's (him and his wife) study of Phineas Gage, a very, very famous case of frontal syndrome (damage to the part of the brain just behind the forehead associated with executive functions issues, behavioural issues and emotional regulation). The couple's research on Gage lead Damasio, in his book, to this conclusion: emotions are as much of a part of reasoning and moral decision-making as "cold cognition" (non emotional functioning). Think of it differently: emotional intelligence is a skill. Emotions are tools. On an evolutionary level, it is good that we as people have this skill to try and figure out what others might think and do. That's useful. Of course, that doesn't mean that struggling with empathy makes you immoral, but we people who struggle with empathy have stories of moments where that issue has made us hurt someone's feelings on accident, and it made us sad, because we didn't want to hurt their feelings. On an evolutionary level (and this is where social Darwinism fundamentally fails) humanity has been able to evolve in group and in a transgenerational group (passing knowledge from our ancestors long after their death, belonging to a community spread over a time longer than our lifetime) thanks to social cognition (see Tomasello's position on the evolution of language for more detail on that), and emotions, and "emotional intelligence" is a fundamental part of how that great system works across the ages.

And that's what makes Batman: Under the Hood brilliant on that regard. If I have to make a hypothesis on the state of Winick's knowledge on that stuff, I would say I'm pretty sure he knew about the utilitarism vs deontology issue; much harder to say about the Damasio part, but whether he's well-read in neuropsychology classics or just followed a similar line of reasoning, this is a phenomenally fun framework to consider UTH under.

Because UTH, and Jason's character for the matter, refuse to disregard emotions. Bruce says "we mustn't let ourselves get clouded by our emotions" and Jason, says "maybe you should." I don't necessarily think he has an ethical philosophy framework for that, I still do believe he's a utilitarian, but he's very emotion-driven and struggling to understand a mindframe that doesn't give the same space to emotions in decision-making. And as such, Jason says "it should matter. If the emotion was there, if you loved me so much, then it should matter in your decision of whether or not to let the Joker die, that it wasn't just a random person that he killed, but that he killed your son."

And Bruce is very much doubling down on this mindset of "I must be stronger than my feelings". He is an emotionally repressed character. He says "You don't understand. I don't think you've ever understood", and it's true, Jason can't seem to understand Bruce's position, there's something very "if that person doesn't show love in my perspective and understanding of what love is then they do not love me" about his character that I really appreciate. But Bruce certainly doesn't understand either, because while Jason is constantly asking Bruce for an explanation, for a "why do you not see things the way I do" that could never satisfy him, Bruce doesn't necessarily try to see things the way Jason does. And that's logical, since Jason is a 16 years old having a mental breakdown, and Bruce is a grown man carrying on the mission he has devoted himself to for years, the foundation he has built his life over. He can't allow himself to doubt, and why would he? He's the adult, he's the hero, he is, honestly, a pretty stubborn and set-in-his-ways character. So, instead of rising to the demand of emotional decision-making, Bruce doubles down on trying to ignore his feelings. And Jason, and the story doesn't let him. Bludheaven explodes. This induces extremely intense feelings in Bruce (his son just got exploded), which Jason didn't allow him to deal with, to handle with action or do anything about; Jason says no you stay right there, with me, with those emotions you're living right now, and you're making a decision. And there's the fact Bruce had a mini-heart attack just before thinking Jason was dead again. And there's the fact he mourned Jason for so long, and Stephanie just died, and Tim, Cass and Oracle all left, and the Joker is right there, and Jason puts a gun in his hands (like the gun that killed his parents)... All of that makes it impossible for Bruce to disregard his emotions. The same way Jason, who was spilling utilitarian rhetoric the whole time, is suddenly not talking about the Joker's mass murder victims but about he himself. The same way Jason acts against his own morals in Lost Days by sparing the Joker so they can have this confrontation later. That's part of why it's so important to me that Jason is crying in that confrontation.

Bruce's action at the end of the story can be understood two ways:

-he decides to maim/kill Jason to stop the insupportable influx of emotions, and him turning around is his refusal to look at his decision (looking away as a symbol of shame): Bruce has lost, in so that he cannot escape the dilemma, he succumbs to his emotions and acts against his morals.

-the batarang slicing Jason's throat is an accident: he is trying to find a way out of the dilemma, a solution that lets him save his principles, but his emotions cloud his judgement (maybe his hand trembles? Maybe his vision is blurry?). In any case, he kills his son, and it being an accident doesn't absolve him: his emotions hold more weight than his decision and he ends up acting against his morals anyway.

It's a very old story: a deontologist and a utilitarian try to solve the trolley problem, and everyone still loses. And who's laughing? The nihilist, of course. To him, nothing has sense, and so nothing matters. He's wrong though, always has been. That's the lesson I'm taking from Damasio's work. That's the prism through which I'm comparing empathy to ethics in Levinas' work and agape in Compté-Sponsville's intro to philosophy through.

It should matter. It's so essential that it matters. Love, emotions, empathy: those are fundamental in moral evaluation and decision making. They are a feature, not a bug. And the tragedy is when we try to force ourselves to make them not matter.

Anyway so that was my analysis of why Damasio's position on ethics is so fun to take in account when analysing UTH, hope you found this fun!

[creatingblackcharacters]

Some General Notes, Week 1

(in no particular order, no you don't have to agree, no they're not "the right answer", no I'm not going to argue. They're just my thoughts!)

-What I definitely enjoyed seeing was (the discomfort and frustration of, rightfully so!) people realizing just how much writing and character design go hand in hand, when told they could not consider the writing! Context is a beast, isn't it? People unfortunately judge with their eyes a lot faster than they bother to read and comprehend (‼️‼️‼️) and so sometimes we have to think about what we've drawn, and what we're trying to or could possibly SAY with that design. It doesn't have to be super detailed, but little things can go a long way.

-White folk tended to overcorrect, with more negative opinions about certain designs than Black and NB fans of color. I don't think it came from a bad place, as much as a place of concern with some lack of understanding.

-Black viewers are overall quite gracious about Black character design if it looks like you cared enough to try (contrary to popular Tumblr and Societal Belief, we don't bite!) But it did sometimes feel that it was to the point of being too nice. There are a lot of Black people who will accept the bare minimum just to feel included, and I hope to one day see less of that. We deserve the effort!

-Measured in three separate groups, we actually tend to be on the same page about design! We won't see the end result of the polls til next week (sorry ahead of time about the poll notification onslaught) so I could be wrong, but usually after the first thirty minutes, our bars tended to trend similarly from what I saw. This is likely due to the bias of my userbase; I'm sure if this poll reached The Unfortunate Masses of Fan Racists, it would be different. We shall see!

-There is usually a beginning wave of NB fans of color that actually find designs better than Black people will, which I found interesting, but then it evens out over time.

-Professional artists seem to be real big fans of the fade. The fade and the killmonger. The fade is funny because fades have been around for decades, and no one ever cared this much, but suddenly there are fades every other character. I wish there were more teeny weeny afros and short locs and just loose curls. Twists too!

-A lot of people were surprised about some characters who were supposed to be Black (and actually were). Which is telling, both on your side as the viewer and their side as the artists! Because that means something was not conveyed, communicated, or understood when you consumed that media!

-Black folk, I love y'all, I'm saying this kindly and I want you to hear me: I think there were times where your emotional attachment to the design affected your answers, even when told to only base it off visuals (e.g., yes, I know that particular character wears wigs! I know that's in the writing! I hear y'all! But unfortunately, when told to look at that character with the pictures provided, without the writing, given the genre, no, that is not an apparent piece of information. I am sorry.)

-I think NB fans of color especially understood this concept, which is just because a character isn't Black doesn't mean they aren't still a person of color. I say that to mean, some of these people felt ambiguously brown to a point that yes, they could be anyone else! 80% of the blue haired characters submitted (and the majority of the gacha ones) fell into this category, imo. Like, we should not all have to share the One Brown for Representation.

-I definitely didn't think that people would assume that the answers were "is this design Black, nonblack, or white"... I must admit that it doesn't make much sense to me 😅 it explained some of the answers I saw, though. Felt like some folks had to be trolling. Unfortunate, not something I can control once posted. Moving on.

-I do wish more people understood that this was meant to be a thought exercise moreso than "this is the right answer" (though sometimes, there was a right answer lmao. Beau is trash IDC.) It's not to gauge "do you know" as much as "based off of what you know, what would you say". It's for you (and me) to gauge where you are! It's okay to realize that you don't know what you don't know!

[collaredkittyboy]

Well it's come up multiple times today so I'll make a post about it.

I think the popularization of the word "twink" has ultimately been really bad for people in general.

I know it's hard to track the positive and negative effects of language but I don't think it's hard to see how creating a word for a group of people wherein the most consistent qualifying trait is "being skinny" is healthy for people's self image. Obviously people have lots of ideas about what it means to be a twink- gay, lacking body hair, feminine, beautiful, young, white- but the most consistent descriptor I've seen is "skinny." Hell, it's even a body type on Grindr; the size below "average."

So it kind of functions as a code word in the gay community: anyone can say that they're only interested in twinks and they don't have to look shallow by saying they only like skinny guys. It's such an accepted attitude that no one really bats an eye when they hear it.

I'm not even going to get into how it's become part of the larger issue of people turning "top" and "bottom" into gender roles 2.0, but that is closely related, because people with any internalized homophobia can look at a skinny, feminine man and turn off their fag alarms by viewing him as a woman or not a "real" man, and it makes twinks more acceptable to society at large.

No, ignoring all of that, one of the biggest issues is that gay men are taught by society that they are only attractive while they are skinny. Just having the label "twink" reminds a boy that people are looking at his body and judging it. There were countless times when I was growing up that people would tell me, "You're such a twink," or argue about whether or not I qualified as a twink because I had body hair. People around you, unpromted, judge your body and give you a label based on it, and that label has a large influence on whether or not you're seen as objectively attractive. I know many other gay people who say they wish they were a twink so they could be more attractive to guys.

So think, you have all these kids growing up being told whether or not they qualify as a twink, and then we have the gay community as a whole where it's completely acceptable to say you're only attracted to twinks. I think its because of all of this pressure to be a twink (in other words, to have a below average weight) that many of the gay people that I interact with struggle with a negative body image or eating disorders.

I mean, people talk about "twink death" like it's an actual event that makes a gay man much less attractive, and no one thinks that, maybe, it's harmful to tell a guy that the very day he stops being young and thin and pretty, he will stop being attractive and celebrated?

I'm not qualified to speak on fatphobia in physical queer spaces because I don't have the ability to frequent them where I live, but I can't imagine that these aren't issues at social gatherings as well. I also can't speak on my own experiences with weight discrimination because so far in my life I have had a naturally thin body, but I have experienced a lot of outside pressure to be thin that have caused me to pick up unhealthy eating habits to reduce my weight in fear that I could become fat later on. Thankfully that is something that I've mostly been able to work past. I'm not an expert, but idk, I just wanted to rant on my silly tumblr blog.

Obviously it's impossible for a word to be inherently bad. I'm not trying to imply that saying "twink" is a magic word with evil powers. Obviously the real issues at play here are fatphobia and harmful beauty standards and body shaming. But in my opinion, the popular use of the word twink has made it much easier and acceptable to express fatphobia, etc, in the gay community by turning "skinny person" into a "type of guy that you should try to be so you can be attractive."

[tinyfantasminha]

I don't want to keep clogging my blog with vent posts but uh... I guess this is a more general concern/observation

But it's getting real hard to stay motivated in fandom spaces when there's little compensation, and annoying occurrences are more frequent than good ones.

Mainly there's been less engagement/people showing interest in creators and their art (such as sending asks, making comments and reblogging with tags) and MORE parasocial interactions. This goes for both artists and writers.

Over this year I've noticed a vast disinterest within my public in general. Asks about ocs, my art, or just nice simple comments of ''I love your art'' has been getting more and more scarce. My follower number is bigger than 2-3 years ago sure and I get more likes on my posts but they are feeling more like just numbers and statistics than actual people who supposedly like my stuff.

And while people being parasocial with creators has always been a thing, I feel like it's gotten way worse... in general? People sending personal pictures out of the blue in hopes of being validated, unwanted psychological advice or assumptions about the creator without any established connection first ( <- these happened to me in the same week.) ventdump, just insensitive/lacking of common sense comments in general, unreasonable demands (mostly with writers)... I wondered at first if it was just me, but a handful of mutuals/acquaintances who are artists and writers seems to be going through it as well.

It's annoying. It's tough. It's getting exhausting. Creators pour so much of themselves into their work—countless hours, effort, and passion, all to share something meaningful or entertaining with others (and for FREE) The LEAST anyone can do is show respect, even if opinions differ. When a writer posts a fanfic, don't just say ''omg post next chapter!'', when an artist posts a drawing of their favorite character, don't just say ''omg draw (character) next!'' as if they're faceless content machines that are expected to churn out more '''content''' for you without acknowledgment, encouragement, or appreciation.

''I want to support creators but I don't know what to say and I feel intimidated by their talent so I just lurk silently :((('' I swear to you, no creator (at least not the majority) is making up an intimidating persona to discourage you from interacting with them. They WANT your comments. A single ''I love your art/writing/videos'' or even something as silly as ''I want to eat your art'' is enough to keep a creator sighing dreamily for WEEKS. It doesn't have to be deep! It's heartfelt and that's what it matters!! (Just remember to keep it relevant and thoughtful... It takes just a bit of common sense NOT to comment things like ''this looks like (another character)'' or ''this but with (another unrelated ship/character/show)''. No one wants to hear comparisons or unrelated ideas when they’ve poured their soul into something.)

In fact, the ''I like your art but I think you're intimidating'' feels more hurtful than flattering. It makes me feel like I'm doing something wrong, acting wrong. 💀

If you love that fanfic that changed your brain psyche forever and want to gush about it, go tell the writer. If you loved so much a piece of art that you saved it a million times in your phone and can't stop thinking about it, go tell the artist. Push away the ''they probably won't care about my comment/it won't make a difference'' thoughts. DO IT NOW. You won't know when they might go inactive forever or deactivate. You can't know if that is the last piece they will ever post. Make sure you show appreciation to creators NOW, while they are still here. While they're still not being replaced by AI.

[joysisland]

I know konig is socially awkward but just because he can't keep a conversation going it doesn't mean he can't be an asshole. long blurb about mean!konig x f!personal assistant!reader part 2?

Hear me out, we're talking about a MAN who's taller than 6 feet, whose job is his whole life and has never known anything other than that. He's cocky, and let's be honest he's probably experiencing a mid life crisis (he can't fathom how he lived long enough to see 40) plus he's a colonel so he probably thinks his word is law in all aspects. He's sooo mean. mean and disgustingly hot.

He's been in the military since he graduated from highschool so all things considered I think he's really proud of how far he's come, being a colonel and all, but in a way which makes it clear as day that he bases his value on his job. He's working on it.

I think he's mean especially with rookies or generally soldiers with a lower rank than him. Like there's a solid difference in the almost patronising way he treats a private, talking to them like they're kids who still have to learn about the world, dismissing them as soon as he can because he simply thinks their opinions aren't valuable, AND the way he treats other colonels or the captain, with whom he definitely has had conversations about how rookies are absolutely useless and annoying, before immediately switching to bragging about the outcome of a recent mission like they personally did the dirty work.

Of course love hasn't really been his top priority. His job keeps him away from home for months at a time and he simply couldn't care less about putting some effort into a relationship. Not that he couldn't get a girl, cus he's handsome, but his social anxiety and his emotional support hood don't exactly help him.

Once for a split second he had a change of heart, thinking about settling down for good, finally being good to someone special, cherish them, but... the woman didn't even know who he was, and apparently delivering flowers to a girls doorstep everyday for 6 months is nowadays considered stalking. He now has a restraining order. Nothing like it was in the good ol' days.

So ultimately he decided on it: no missus. But that didn't mean harmless fun hookups were off the table. So he did just that, until a new lieutenant was introduced to him by another colonel. He really couldn't care less about hearing whatever it was that the other man was saying, he had better things to do, reports to file, people to call, but the colonel went on describing her amazing results. Something something excellent leadership, something something astonishing precision and time management... he fell asleep by the third "you'll never believe how great-!" but once he looked up from his paperwork to see her face as she introduced herself he swore he'd seen her somewhere before...

he simply nodded as he shook her hand, her name already forgotten.

"where have we already met eachother?"

"the bar right across from base sir"

Oh.

He carried on like nothing happened - after all it happened before she was his direct subordinate. She was a good lay at that, the woman was fierce to say the least and it scratched an itch he didn't know existed and didn't want to investigate further. Just when he was thinking about that he was snapped out of his daydream.

"so I'll leave her to ya, König, being your assistant will do her good"

HUH? excuse him?

That already annoyed König out of his mind, and the sight of her almost hopeful face really put the last nail in her coffin. She'd be gone by next week. He crossed his arms and leaned back on his office chair and instantly got reminded of the budget that kept his chair creaking every time he had the audacity to even slightly shift - and yet money was eagerly spent on hiring this lieutenant he didn't even need.

He sighed and gave her a condescending look "look. I don't need an assistant to keep track of my schedule or to organise my papers. A coffee in the morning will be enough, half a packet of sugar."

At the lack of a quick response he added "if I were you I'd get out of this "job" real quick. I don't need you."

Just as she recovered from his foul mouth and opened her mouth to speak up, rather annoyed, he interrupted her again "you can go now." and then he resumed reading his papers.

....

"oh com'on könig, just give her a chance!" said the annoying, assistantless colonel with a shit eating grin.

It had already been 3 days, and König could bet his right kidney that he placed her with him on purpose, just to get under his skin, the prick. But instead of crashing out and slapping off the grin from his face he followed his therapist's words, taking a deep breath, which came out as a deep sigh, as he waited by the coffee machine, remaking the shit one he had this morning. "She should start by making my coffee properly." he rambled on, definitely stressed. way too stressed for his salary.

"she could start by giving you tips on strategies that keep your team in one piece."

That was a low blow - the past week Königs team had nearly made it out of a building as it disintegrated because of a communication error. emphasis on communication. An error he'd spot almost too late. He should've known better but still...

They should just give him a bonus every month for the emotional damage of mobbing by the way he was feeling his right hand close in a fist. "and you could start by shutting the fuck up"

That ended it, for now.

que for the infamous assistant to join the conversation.

"colonel König, I have -" she stopped in her tracks as she noted the tension. then resumed, more strong willed, that cheerful look not yet gone from her face "I have already revised and organized the reports you gave me and I was thinking about the-"

"not the right moment lieutenant." he cut her off. "I will hear your nonsense later."

Oh no he didn't. "Look, I'm tired of looking after your fucking meaningless reports you old shite! If you just listened-" she started, a condescending look away from really snapping at him.

"are you quitting right now?" he said, dangerously calm and collected.

"I wish I could" she scoffed.

"I'll help you out then, you're fired. Don't say I never land a hand to the younglings."

This motherfucker ...

[tornioduva]

Dungeon meshi and body proportions

Ok, i'm feeling the rush i got from binging the manga this last week is starting to fade away, i'll be back to being a normal person soon i think. at least, that is before i find a new something for me to dive into uhuh.

Before that happens, i want to praise Ryoko Kui for one last think. The design of the characters!

For years i've expressed (maybe not so much online) my hate towards the "anime style", this homogenization of traits and beauty standards to an artificial degree, and the mass spread and consumption of it. yes, trends exist for a reason, this is not the first nor the last art current to be popular and i'm not the first detractor of one in history. I do think there is something uniquely harmful in this one though, and that is why i'm able to find the energy to be such a pretentious dipshit about it. That is a discussion for another day though.

All this to say that going through Dungeon Meshi and seiing these characters, plus (and in a way because of it) all the additional sketches of the daydream hour bonus sections, was such a breath of fresh air! (at least for what concerns japanese exported stories)

All i could say and praise in regard to character designs in general is perfectly expressed in this video, which i recommend you to watch if you want to hear my opinions (and the video author's too, uhuh):

I want to leave you though with at least one specific praise for me: Falin.

i've seen countless time people (online) just not understanding how people's body work, how much differences there can be and how proportions do distribute and affect the body. in anime I see a lot of short and tall people (mostly women girls) that share the same proportions despite their actual height, and that often leads to think "yeah, she is short" and than she's tall when around someone, or (most often) the contrary. same lenght of limbs, same head to body proportions, and little details like this.

Falin you can tell at a glance she is a tall woman before she's around anyone, even when she is standing near her brother who is taller than her.

Kui did her homework in studying bodies and variations, and, whether consciously or not, she differentiated her in body in subtle but fundamental ways: her head being slightly smaller than her body, the neck being fairly long, and her having somewhat broader shoulders.

I accept that there might be an element of suggestion at play here, considering also how she is dressed most of the time, but I really do think there is a direct effort at differentiation here.

This is the first time in a long time (in a series like this at least) where i've seen a woman carrying herself around others and the space around here kind of like a person like me, tall, would; at first i didn't think much of it, but then i saw her near other characters and....i don't know, i felt a warm, joyful feeling, seeing that i was right in recognizing that trait and being right.

I was especially happy in seeing her next to marcille. not so much for the height difference, but for how different they were in proportions and mannerism. A lesser manga i fear would have used marcille's body type and way of moving and interacting as the default for most other girls, but here she was uniquely herself!

Now, i could've used more extreme exemples to show how this author rocks in body types representations (while aknowledging there could've been even more diversification still), given there are far larger, taller and stranger women, but to me, nailing the little, most subtle details in such a chirurgical manner shows a greater level of mastery and comprehension. As such, Falin left me with a deeper fascination than most other characters.

Sorry for this wall of text, but i needed to let my happy thoughts go, so that i could be free again uhuh.

Feel free to tell me that i'm wrong, or that i should just accept anime media as is. i'm just really happy Dungeon meshi exists as is and i want Ryoko Kui to keep refining her craft, and drawing beautiful women and dwarves.

Plus, this was very much a stream of consciousness, i didn't go into technical details about what i think conveyed what i described, but if someone is interested, or does not get what i'm saying (while expressing it in a curious and gentle way, i won't respond to spiteful assholes), i'll be happy to make a follow up post in which i try to dissect this! For example, i didn't reread the whole manga to find examples of her, i just went to the wiki uhuh. in a follow up post maybe i'll try to go through chapters and pick more specific examples of her.

Anyway, have a good day!

[ooooo-mcyt]

what is your opinion on people who are always like "omg it's us, but it's desertduo" as in they're happy thing think their relationship is like desertrduo

cause when I see that, I laugh, because desertduo in my eyes is doomed to fail. one of the single most important things in a relationship is communication

which is the thing they do not have, and are worst at.

communication.

i think this is a thing I have noticed in shinyduo as well. they both are bad at communicating.

To me I think the biggest problem between Scar and Grian will always be their differing ways of showing affection and their struggles to understand/communicate with each other about this difference.

Grian struggles with verbally showing he cares, so he'll often express his love through actions. Grian will make other people his responsibility and will work and work and work tirelessly for those people. The problem with this, though, is twofold.

The first problem is that Grian can come across as overbearing, giving people the impression he's nagging or undervaluing them because he doesn't verbalize his concern or affection. Grian can take care of Scar all day, but when all Scar hears are complaints, he'll feel like Grian doesn't care. Grian struggles with verbally affirming his care for other people, but sometimes it's needed, and it damages his relationships that he often can't do that.

The second problem is that Grian builds underlying resentment for the fact that people rarely seem to appreciate how much he does for them. He isn't completely wrong to feel this way, because, frankly, I do wish people would pay more attention to his caretaking behavior. But Grian actively sabotages himself as well by never communicating that he feels unappreciated in a productive way.

Plus, because of his self imposed caretaker role, Grian will often make unilateral decisions for a team without minding his partners input, which leads to a further lack of trust from both sides of the relationship.

Scar, on the other hand, usually expresses his affection and care upfront. He's friendly, approachable, he won't hesitate to tell people he loves them, or say what someone means to him. Scar is good at making people feel good and affirming his affection for them.

That being said, his affection can come across as "shallow" at times. Scar is often very bad at picking up on, let alone fulfilling, the needs of his partner. While Grian absolutely needs to work on communicating what he wants from Scar, that doesn't take away from the fact that Scar very much should be putting an effort into making sure Grian feels like the labor in their relationship is equal when they team, because generally it's not.

Scar is a very verbal person, he's upfront with his own feelings most of the time, so he also expects to be told when his partner needs something, not just emotionally, but also with tasks that need to get done). Which is understandable, but frankly, genuinely shouldn't be Grian's responsibility half as often as it is.

Scar isn't off the hook for selfish decision making either, because he will often struggle to see other people's viewpoints or understand that not everyone feels the same way he does about certain things, which can lead to him talking over or ignoring his partners wishes when he thinks he knows what's best for them.

Desert Duo have a lot of problems with how they express affection and communicate their needs.

However. Do I think they're inherently doomed? No.

Firstly, I think it largely depends on the setting. The gaps in their understanding of each other or how to be good partners to one another are widened by the life or death high stakes fast pace of the Life Series, but are bridged much more easily within the slow comfy safety of Hermitcraft. It's easy to look at their worst moments and say, there, that's why they can't work- but people don't have to be defined by their worst moments, and everyone's flaws look so much bigger when held under the lens of a death game. I think it's just as important to look at how Scar and Grian are when they're in a healthy setting as it is to look at them when they're in the most high stakes setting you can put two people into.

Plus, it's worth noting that a positive peaceful place like Hermitcraft isn't the only place they can work.

Sure, Scar and Grian absolutely had issues in Third Life, but I think it means something that they both made it to the end. That they got their fair fight. That they did it in their home. Giggling. Apologizing. It wasn't perfect, but it was theirs- and their "doom" didn't come from themselves, it came from an outside force. An outside force made them destroy themselves, and they did it in the kindest way they could, loving each other all the way down.

That isn't to minimize their issues, because they both have issues. They both hurt each other, and sometimes neither of them know how to stitch it back together. But they try, right? Sometimes their relationship is like stitching up a quilt. And it comes out kinda uneven and slightly off-color, but it's still nice enough to look at, and warm enough to keep them cozy at night, and they both like it so so much.

Scar and Grian get each other, they counteract each others worst insecurities and fears, they gravitate toward each other, they make each other laugh, they just plain like each other. That may not sound like much sometimes, but it's often enough for them, and I think that's important. I think their relationship is good for them more often than it's bad for them. Even if they don't always know how to reach each other.

[thehigherseekerastro]

I said it once, and I'll say it twice (I actually said it multiple times)...

Be careful what your read on this site or hear on TikTok.

None of those "angry astrologers" is doing you any service.

Be CAREFUL WITH YOUR ENERGY. Careful what — WHO — you allow into your mind.

Those "Harsh astrology opinions", "Roasting astrology placements", "Honest astrology opinions", "Calling out astrology placements" etc

and all variations of astrology posts that just spew hateful things about people, that generalize things, that accuse people of being things with certainty based on an astrology placement and, specially, that offend, curse, insult people based on astrology placements ARE NOT DONE OUT OF GOOD CHARACTER OR INTENT.

Anybody worth half their weight, anybody who takes astrology seriously, would not reduce anyone to something so small, because they understand that a birth chart is huge and full of tiny little details that paint very individual pictures.

People who perpetuate stereotypes, and generalize things WITHOUT LOOKING AT YOUR BIRTH CHART, shouldn't be telling you who you are (or other people) in an "honest" way!

"Honest" according to WHO?

Saying that insulting others is being "honest" implies that the person thinks kindness is a lie. RED FLAG!!!! Means they don't believe good things — specially about themselves — and they want you feeling that way too.

Notice how the astrologers on here who actually make good, informative, substantial content are never the hateful ones; are never the angry "honest" "harsh" ones. The ones who make good material are usually either on the neutral side, or very gentle and kind.

And that is not out of fakeness. It's because those people actually understand that what you say to others matters and affects their energy. And also they understand that once you know the extension of a birth chart, you can't be reducing people to "Libras are fake", "Sagittarius are arrogant", "Pisces are manipulative."

I'm sorry, who died and made them the zodiac police?

A fake Libra CAN exist, but that's a very specific, unique person. I can't go online and type out that Libras are fake, and make every single Libra who comes across my post wonder why and how they are fake, if they aren't.

People who don't know you don't get to talk about you as if they did.

Long story short...

When you see those posts, just scroll past them.

Don't give them your time or your energy.

And don't let them enter your mind either.

Realize that the person writing those hasn't even learned to truly love themselves, so they won't be able to provide you with anything nourishing.

And 12/10 times those people use those "innocent" and "honest" posts to spill out their own personal hatred and grievances with the people who they are criticizing. So I bet you a Sagittarius hurt the person making a "harsh" posts about how all Sagittarius suck. I bet you a Virgo hurt somebody making a "calling out" post in which they lay it into Virgo placements.

It's just bitterness.

Have a good, safe, blessed day, and don't put onto others what you wouldn't want put on yourself. ❤️

[pseudophan]

Your 100% correct fart answer makes me think about what it would be like if they had only met today

man... the thing about trying to picture what dan and phil's relationship would be like if they met 15 years after they did is we really don't have any point of reference. i know i said with great certainty they would wait longer to fart in front of each other than they did back in the day (deeply unserious addition to an otherwise kinda sweet post here i'm sorry), but while i do think that's probably true just based on their age, we have no actual way of even remotely accurately speculating what things would be like if they met in 2025 because a dan and phil who haven't been deeply intertwined with each other for a decade and a half just... isn't dan and phil. they were so young when they met, and said meeting changed and formed their lives in nearly every way imaginable. there is just no way their personalities and general behaviour would be similar enough without all of that for us to picture what their early stages would be like in current day. i'm not saying they would be fundamentally different people obviously, but most of the aspects and quirks of their relationship that we admire, and that's made it last this long, come from years of working on it together, growing and learning alongside one another. ofc they'd probably have picked up some of these (non-specific to them) things along the way from other relationships, but although i don't actually believe in soulmates or anything like that, and i realise this is of course partly just the crazzzzy phannie in me, i do struggle to see either of them achieving anywhere near this level of connection with someone else. ok i've been interrupted like ten times writing this and i fear i lost the plot a long time ago lmao sorry, this probably doesn't make a lot of sense. i just... something something if dan and phil first met today those versions of them would be far enough removed from the ones we know that trying to picture how the relationship would go is near futile.

i suppose this is basically the premise of a fuckton of fics out there, and i think about this any time i read an au where they meet later in life, because authors tend to take very different approaches to their characterisation and you can definitely tell who's taken this into consideration and who hasn't. not that i think it's a bad thing to write dnp exactly as they are today even if their circumstances are different, it's fanfic you can do what you want and sometimes you do just want to read about the people you like exactly how you like them regardless of the story they're in, but i loooove when i can tell certain personality changes in a story are directly influenced by the fact that they weren't in each other's lives up until that point, it's so interesting to me

speaking of fanfic i guess, it's clear with dinok and other things dan has said that he's thought about all of this too, and god i would love to hear more about his opinions on it beyond just his sexuality and career, but i suppose that might be a bit too personal lol

[seekingflowers]

Future Husband Pick a Card (1-3)

I'm sure you all know how it works! Just relax and let your intuition guide you to choose your pile 🌕. Take what resonates and leave the rest. I am very honest and will not sugar coat what I see. Please don't hesitate to tell me what resonated with you! I welcome all to interact 🤝

Hello everyone! Welcome to my tarot blog. This is my first post ever, and a pick a card reading (1, 2, 3- cards) 🥰😍🥀

Pile 1:

Page of Wands

- First and foremost, it COULD indicate he's younger- if not, he may seem younger with his demeanor. More than likely, he may have approached you first. He'll be the first you one hear when you walk into a room.

In the beginning stages, this person will feel like a breath of fresh air. They are lively and outgoing. Always inviting you to join them on outings with friends or see and experience new places.

They are very social and ready to be on the go-go go. If you're not, it doesn't matter. They'll go because they're ready. Decisive and quick. However, it may not always be thought out. This person tends to be optimistic and may seem naive, but do not berate them. Sharp and witty, they stand their ground. They do not like to be held back and smothered. They seek fun and spontaneity, keep them on their toes. At times, you may feel like this man flakes out on you because he is so quick to do other things or entertain himself with others. He may forget things easily, such as planned dates or activities, anniversaries, or make sudden changes.

Their curiosity and openess will show you how to appreciate the moment and accept changes. It's okay to experience new things. If something is wrong, they will confront you, and they will expect the same from you. Be open and honest, and communicate with patience. They're not afraid to voice their opinion and say it how they see it. Friends and family love and adore their presence, which brings warmth and laughs all around.

Please remember, we all change with time, and some things may remain, but nothing lasts forever. Take what resonates and leave the rest.

Pile 2:

King of Wands Reversed.

- He's definitely the one to approach you. Could be someone older or someone in an authority position.

This man may appear aggressive, often displaying signs of frustration or impatience. Can be very controlling and dominant overall. He has natural charisma and a fiery intellect, making it difficult to get a word in with him. Stubborn and hot-headed, he will likely dislike opposing views or opinions. People's views of him are black and white. Few understand him. There could be a problem with respecting those above him or taking consideration from others in general. There are few to maybe none that he cares for, but if he does care, he is fiercely protective over them and will come to their side to defend them. Even blindly.

About action, he's the one to get it done and have a go get it now attitude. Either do it or don't. Prone to impulsiveness and hypocrisy, his actions may bring upon consequences he isn't ready to handle and will break down in a tantrum.

Not afraid to approach others, he is relentless with his pursuits. On the good days, his humor and smiles are a sight to see and hear. Captivating and charming, people are drawn to him or are intimidated by him. His humor isn't everyone's cup of tea. It may be crude.

Highly competitive, spats between him and others are frequent. He hates losing and hates being wrong.

To be with this man, thick skin is needed along with groundedness. With you, he can be very loving, but ill tempered and stubborn.

He's very likely a traditional man who wants a traditional wife and family with him as head of the household. Although earlier in life, he may have had a desire of the opposite for the short term.

Please note that the future is not set in stone. Take what resonates and leave the rest.

Pile 3:

Ace of Cups

- This man off the bat is an emotionally intuitive man. More likely to be reserved with his words, but expressive with his love and affections. Expressive eyes with intent prying into your soul. He enjoys private moments with you and goes out of his way to get you alone. It may seem unintentional, but it's not. It may be a love at first sight, or rather, when they fall in love- they fall hard.

There could be this feeling of a deep connection between the two of you that feels familiar yet so foreign. However, do not drown with the feeling. Learn to swim with it, or it will create false imaginations of the other person. You open up this person's inner world, and they want to pour into your cup endlessly. Sometimes, feelings can become intense, and a struggle to sort through emotions with each other can be difficult. Therefore, there can be spurts of emotional outbursts. Clear communication is very important with this man.

Being one to love deeply, he can hold a grudge and keep score of what wrong he thinks you've done to him. He might think he loves you more than you love him. This man wants you to be open with your love and reciprocate his feelings with the same intensity. When you are in an emotional frenzy from work or a bad day, he's the one to comfort and feel you. He'd go out of his way to make you feel better. If he can't, he will beat himself up for it. People close to him are few, even if it seems like there is a whole crowd around him. He's the go-to therapist or listener for folks, and it may get to him from time to time, so please allow him some space when needed.

Some days, he may seem hot and cold, but that's just likely because he isn't feeling anything that particular day or hour. Or he is in his head thinking about anything. As all humans do.

Love each other truly and not just love itself. It is easy to get lost in love and forget the person. Take what resonates and leave the rest.

Please remember, take what resonates, and leave the rest. One card does not describe everything about a person, and it is not the end all be all. Nothing is set in stone. People change - we all change.

Once again, please let me know what resonates and tell me what'd you like to see from me. 💫

[genoskissors]

"If you think Danganronpa is homophobic you played all four games with your eyes closed, ears covered, nose plugged, tongue removed, and hands behind your back."

May I genuinely, honest-to-god ask the reasoning behind this? Because I do agree with the op of the tag you replied to in your post. And no, the relationships between Hinata&Komaeda or Toko&Komaru or Kokichi&Shuichi don't count. Is there genuine queer support in these games?

(sorry if this sounds angry, that is Not at all my intent and I don't wanna bash u)

I’m not sure why those pairs “don’t count” when they contribute to my point, but there are other examples I can talk about. Also since you specified the relationships, I’m going to assume I can talk about the characters included individually.

Juzo Sakakura

His feelings for Kyosuke are a secret he wants to keep and are never portrayed as something “wrong” in the story, just wrong in society. He shows a softer side of himself with Kyosuke and is extremely loyal to him. The only time this loyalty faults is in a situation that could threaten their relationship. When Junko blackmails Juzo, it’s fear of losing Kyosuke that makes him give in. Juzo doesn’t even focus in on the sexuality aspect, it’s specifically that he doesn’t want Kyosuke to know about his feelings. He is never portrayed as disgusting or evil because of his sexuality. Juzo has his faults, as does everyone, but his sexuality is not made one of them. It’s societal pressure and his own fear of rejection that is at fault. Junko barely has any proof, and considering he’s suspicious of her, there’s a low chance Kyosuke would even believe her, but just the idea scares Juzo.

Ibuki Mioda

I was going to list the characters in game order, but I felt Ibuki’s section would be best after Juzo’s. Ibuki is happy with herself because she’s accepted her identity. This includes attraction towards girls. This is just another one of her “quirky” traits, but is very positive. People being weirded out by Ibuki comes from her music, weird sayings, and general style, but never her sexuality. This is the distinction between her and Juzo. In Juzo’s place, Ibuki would’ve been able to resist because she’s accepted herself, and that’s positive. I feel the message you are suppose to take from Ibuki is that only in accepting yourself can you be yourself, sexuality included.

Shuichi Saihara

In Kaito’s fourth free time event, Shuichi thinks that only Kaito could help him, only Kaito could tell him what he needed to hear. He then backtracks, thinking he shouldn’t feel that way about another boy. You are not suppose to agree with his last point. The story shows you all of the progress Shuichi has made with the help of Kaito. He doesn’t understand Kaito’s plan in chapter 5, yet believes in him and tries to help. After Kaito reveals himself, Kaito explains how he trusted in Shuichi over everything else. Shuichi’s feelings are only something he is afraid of thinking about, but the story shows that his words about Kaito were true. Kaito is the one he needed to help him. Kaito is the one who could tell him what he needed to hear.

Tenko Chabashira

Tenko is often seen as a “lesbian who hates men” stereotype. I personally don’t have a problem with this because Danganronpa has other female characters who show attraction to women and do not hate men, such as Ibuki. This line is purely my opinion, but I don’t find stereotyping to be as bad if there’s examples of the group that do not fit the stereotype. However, I think it’s important to remember Tenko’s meant to grow. Her feelings towards Himiko become more about Himiko as a person, rather than the idea of her. She shows less (admittedly not a lot less) disdain for boys. She shows concern for boys and had she survived, I think she really could’ve grown close to Shuichi and Kaito. Also, her feelings towards Himiko are not seen as bad, it’s her intensity that is bad. The same situation can be seen with Toko and Byakuya as well as Kazuichi and Sonia. It is not the crush that is bad, it’s how their way of expressing it makes the other person uncomfortable.

Also this isn’t Danganronpa, but it’s creator, Kodaka, has another game with a non-binary character. Another reason I am under the impression Kodaka and Danganronpa itself is pro lgbt.

[kohabielnin]

Valentine Day Headcanons

I know it took me a while to do this, as classes make it a little difficult for me, this is another gift for someone very special to me, the @kaval0 💕

Norton Campbell

• Incredible as it may seem, he remembered the date and was prepared days before as he saw the children arranging things to give gifts to those they like,

• Everyone in the mansion was surprised when he handed you a flower and chocolates,

• Naib stole some chocolates just to tease Norton, as usual,

• His embarrassed look when he handed you the chocolates was really cute,

• Both Melly, Frederick and Alice wondered if he was actually sick,

• In general, no one in the mansion expected Norton to give you chocolates

Ronald of Ness

• He closed the theater so he could have time with just you,

• I always saw this skin as one of Norton's most romantic skins because he's an actor,

• This man is not very good at cooking, so the one who helped him with everything was Lady Truth,

• He compares you all the time to flowers, especially roses,

• For a whole day, you can wear his hat and mask,

• He called Mr. Inference to boast that he had company on Valentine's Day...

Naib Subedar

• You two ate the chocolates together, it was cute according to witnesses,

• He worked hard to make the chocolates and even harder not to eat them 💕

• Norton played little a with Naib, but he didn't care and ignored Norton,

• He was a little shy when it came to handing over the chocolate, as he had never done it before,

• Eli helped him have the courage to go talk to you and Brooke watched so Naib didn't give up halfway,

• Spending Valentine's Day with him was definitely a lot of fun

Morningstar

• He made his servants make a feast just for you,

• He just loves spoiling you, whether it's a holiday or just a regular day,

• There isn't a day that goes by that he doesn't say he loves you out of fear of losing you,

• He made you a crown similar to his as a gift,

• He himself searched the entire kingdom for the most beautiful rose so he could give it to you,

• In general, Morningstar is a sweet, beautiful, perfect and sweetheart

Orpheus

• This man simply wrote the most romantic poem you've ever seen in your life, along with flowers and chocolate,

• Guess who had a pinky in the middle of one of the letters you received? Exactly, Little Girl,

• You two had a great day together,

• He took the day to listen to you talk about the books you like while giving your opinion about them too,

• He is very good with words, so sometimes he would say something or other to embarrass you, like a compliment in French that he learned from Frederick,

• There was no shortage of tea and cookies in the afternoon for you two

Bonus due to our zap/discord ship in which I am Frederick

Frederick Kreiburg

• Ok... you woke up hearing him playing your favorite song on the piano,

• If you ask him about this, you will only hear: "I feel like playing this song", with an indifferent pose as always,

• On the coffee table, there is a plate with some strawberries covered in chocolate and a handmade letter from him,

• He has a slight difficulty being romantic, but his small acts show that he cares a lot about you,

• He won't mind spending the day playing the piano for you if you wish,

• If you don't want him to spend the day playing the piano for you, he won't mind taking you somewhere relaxing with few people