#irredeemable war criminal

[om0000]

mfs will make one of the most interesting n nuanced characters uve ever spun in ur brain just to stuff them into a kids media n make them look like this:

[hikaaa-bi]

seriously though, can we stop associating redemption with forgiveness? redemption isn't about being forgiven, it's about trying to do better and be better, even if you're not forgiven.

sometimes you make mistakes that people can't forgive and that's okay. the important thing is to remind yourself that you're on the right path, and you're going to be a better person regardless of whether they want to forgive you or not. that's their decision and they're entitled to it.

sometimes people forgive you and sometimes they don't. but you shouldn't stop working towards being better just because someone refused to forgive you. because you shouldn't be trying to fix your mistakes solely because you want that person to forgive you, you should be fixing them because it's the right thing to do.

[dumpster-fire-sapphic-failgirl]

The fact that Caitlyn and Jinx are able to work together to save Vander gives me hope that Jinx isn’t going to go over the edge with Isha and Vander’s presumed deaths

Jinx had her era of wild flailing that dovetailed with her Silco/Crime boss era. She became the villain she thought she was supposed to be and it never stopped hurting. She had her Vander era, where she hid from the Piltover/Zaun conflict to take care of a family. And she wasn’t able to protect them from the rest of the world.

Silco dreamed of a united and free Zaun. Vander dreamed of a united and free Zaun. Isha dreamed of a united and free Zaun. Ekko dreams of a united and free Zaun.

Jinx might not be a great leader. But she can be a great symbol. And a great weapon. Sevika, like always, will probably end up handling the details. But Jinx can unite Zaun

And the easiest path to freedom is to work with Piltover against a common enemy. The greatest symbol of Piltover in Jinx mind, the topsider that stole her sister, the leader of the strike team that wouldn’t stop hunting her, the leader of Piltover… worked with her. To save her dad. Against the Noxians coming to take him.

Admittedly, the other big symbol of Piltover, the man of progress himself, is responsible for Vander’s glowy meltdown. But! Jinx didn’t see that. And, it wasn’t Jayce that kept her and her family from trying to calm Vander, to help him. It would have been bad without the Noxians, but they might have had a chance. Isha, certainly, would have been safer.

I hope that Jinx joins in the battle against Ambessa, with the condition that Piltover recognize the nation of Zaun.

I also hope she lives through the battle. (she probably won’t, but still) Dying for a cause is easy. Living for one is much, much harder

[aeoris4lovers]

posted from the depths of bazzoxan

[musical-chick-13]

Does anybody else, like. When people talk about "Oh those stupid guys who are too pathetic and awful and off-putting to get a girlfriend" and, because you are a queer woman who has had difficulty in trying to date other women, you assume that they are also talking about. You.

[pigeonluvrr96]

your honor…

your honor, you’re absolutely correct, my client did do that. she absolutely did all of that. can i defend her, you may ask? no i cannot, nor do i have any desire or inclination to. if i’m being completely honest with you, i hope she gets worse. i hope she continues spiraling further and further -

[mitski-slope]

i am Frankly so sicj n tired kf the 'azula thought ursa hated her bc shje was the only one 2 tell her no' take ! ut has been established timr n time again thst ursa played favourites !! u may not like 2 believe that she in fact has flaws n waks not oerfect the entirety of her life but u n i both know she had a favourite child n everyone (including azula) could tell !! yes she was obviously being abused n she Tried her best kn an awful situation but she waks not the perfect mother n it os so so poitnless to try n makr her one !!

[reality-detective]

Trump Speaks in Orange Garbage Vest...

"For the past 9 years, Kamala and her party have called us racists, bigots, fascists, deplorable, irredeemables, and they call me Hitler... They've taken your money, they've thrown open our borders to criminals... They've sent our blood and treasure to fight in stupid foreign wars... This Tuesday is your chance to stand up and declare you are not going to take it anymore."

[insufferableprotagonistpoll]

Propaganda why Tony Stark is insufferable:

>Makes weapons

>Billionaire

>Made multiple AI Surveillance Robots

>Gaslight a child into fighting a super soldier in a foreign country for him

>His fans are annoying

Portrayed as a hero because? He chose to no longer mass produce war weapons and bombs after suffering the consequences. Huge hypocrite. Doesn't care about anyone but himself. Will backstab people if they believe in human rights when it's inconvenient to him. Seen as a hero while he's the personification of privileged people saying they're not privileged

There’s the usual “he’s a war criminal who only felt bad about it when he realized his weapons were killing white Americans as well as Arab people” reason, and also he’s just super annoying. You had to be there for the original Avengers shitty dialogue a la “we have a Hulk” that had Tumblr in a vicious chokehold. Also he was supposed to FINALLY go away after destroying all his suits in Iron Man 3 but he just… didn’t! Which is bullshit.

Tony is so annoying. When they first meet he straight up bullies Peter into fighting for his personal bullshit, insults and objectifies Aunt May in front of him, spits into his trashcan and is in general being pushy af. He blackmails Peter when he doesn’t wanna come to Germany with him AND HE DOESNT EVEN EXPLAIN WHY HE WANTS HIM TO COME. Uncomfortable vibes lol.

Tony being the one to tell peter “if Captain America wanted to hurt you he would’ve” when Peter was trying to state his case, yet HE’S also the one who put Peter in harms way when he didn’t even want to go with him???

Telling Peter that he should stick to being a “friendly neighborhood Spider-Man” (stealing his thing once again) when that’s what Peter _was_ doing before Tony took him out of his zone and filled his head with grander things to be apart of….bitch? Die. Ohh waaaait (jkjk) but yeah

Super long, sorry lol

Thinking about how in Homecoming when Peter accidentally caused that boat to get split in half because the Vulture’s gun exploded and Tony was acting like as if Peter was completely in the wrong for going there just because he did it without his permission. He was acting like as if Peter was out of line and “disobeyed him”, trying to act like his father. And then I remember how in CACW he’s the one who scouted Peter in the first place just because he saw he might be useful against a personal squabble between him and Captain America despite knowing that he was a kid and he’s just now acknowledging how dangerous it is because Peter “acted on his own”

Completely hijacking Peter’s superhero story and trying to control his every move (Training wheels protocol and baby monitor thing he put in the suit), acting like Peter should’ve known that Tony would send someone in despite the fact that he’d been ignoring him for 2 months since Civil War and not keeping him updated on anything!!

How the hell is peter supposed to know Tony is going to listen to him when he treats him like a kid instead of a superhero when it’s convenient for him? And when Tony loses his temper after Peter says he’s 15 not 14 like “the adult is talking” bitch he could literally flatten you without your suit!!!

I guess in a way he is acting like a father but like the absentee kind. He’s more like a sperm donor father trying to act like he has any rights over Peter’s life smh.

It’s not that reprimanding Peter for the situation is bad, but the way he makes it seem as if Peter is irredeemable as if Tony wasn't a literal weapons dealer lmfao. He could’ve said what was the truth about it without completely invalidating him saying shit like “no thanks to you” after Peter asked if everyone is okay when it’s literally thanks to Peter finding a lead on those guys in the first place that they were even noticed and it’s not like the FBI being there could’ve in no way caused a similar situation.

And then near the end of the movie when he’s getting crushed by the building rubble screaming and crying for someone to help him where the fuck is Tony?? That scene just proved that he never needed Tony’s suit in the first place to be Spider-Man since he had to use 100% his own strength to lift it off of him. I know he would’ve found the motivation even if Tony hadn’t been involved in the first place to give him the suit, take it away from him and have the words “if you’re nothing without the suit you shouldn’t have it“ echo in his head. Why did Tony even take the suit away? Like as if he expects Peter to stop being spoderman without it??? Holy fuck. This is why you don’t make it out of endgame /j /srs.

When Tony took this suit away from Peter he was like “God I sound like my dad“ shouldn’t that be a red flag to him? Wasn’t he literally just saying that he wished his dad was better than he was?? Lmfao

Propaganda why Victor Frankenstein is insufferable:

Victor Frankenstein is so pathetic not even tumblr could love him. The best parts of Frankenstein are the ones where your blessedly saved from being in his whiny, self deprecating, self centered pov. He’s so conceited that when his creation tells him directly “In revenge for killing the wife you were making for me I’m going to kill YOUR wife to see how YOU like it!”, Victor Frankenstein thinks that the creation is going to kill him and *only* him. (A decision And on top of it, he’s a shitty dad. Truly the worst.

this fucker has zero self awareness, which could maybe be fun to read about! except that 3/4 of the book consists of him constantly woe-is-me-ing about his own mistakes and how he shouldn't be responsible for any of his own actions.

He's not irredeemable, but his refusal to take accountability til it's too late is irritating

[asha-mage]

To this day people are still arguing about how their least favorite Three Houses lord is actually a terrible irredeemable war criminal, meanwhile in Awakening my boy Robin is out there pulling off improvised fire bombings like it aint no thing.

'That meanie Edelgard set fire to Gronder!' this, and 'That jerk Dimitri taunted Randolph before killing him!' that. Well my special guy Robin consigned tens of thousands of Valmess soldiers to a watery hopeless grave without even the chance to fight back and his husband and daughter are very proud of him.

[eggthedyke]

Thinking about Deep Space Nine s4ep4 Indiscretion and how it makes you confront Dukats humanity (ironic word to use I know).

But where as before he was always the cartoonish irredeemable villain with no good in his soul this episode makes you see him as someone with the capacity to love, to feel pain, to laugh, to laugh at himself, to relate to Kira, to share common experiences with her, even with something as simple as the ration bars they both used to eat.

But in the end it doesn’t make him a good person. It just makes him a person.

The point isn’t “everyone has good in them deep down”

It’s that all of these people, even the most depraved, even the worst of the war criminal and dictator are still people. And it’s Worse because they’re people.

He isn’t a one demential being. But he still Did all those things, he still enslaved, tortured and killed all those people and despite claiming to love one of them, he has no remorse for it. He still intend to kill his own daughter, but at the same time, he cannot stand the idea of her living a life where she is tormented for her patrilineage. The daughter he’d had the forethought to send away from Bajor and Cardassia so that once the occupation ended they could still live full lives. The daughter who is still less important then his political career. The daughter who he says he will love, weep and mourn even after he takes her to an early grave. The daughter he loves too much to hurt. The daughter he takes home, damn the consequences.

And the fact we know he isn’t an unfeeling being, that he has the capacity for remorse but simply doesn’t feel it in relation to his actions to the Bajorans, makes him that much more of a monster.

But we cannot separate out the monstrous anymore, they feel just the same as us, love the same as us, talk and laugh the same as us. There is no clear line between us and them, no promise that we won’t become, are not, just as monstrous.

[asthedeathoflight]

Yk I keep circling the issue of like how Armand gets talked about in the fandom because he does do some bad shit but at the end of the day nobody has to put a fucking disclaimer on their Lestat posts do they so I'm pretty confident in saying its just fucking racism. Every time anyone mentions Armand in the broader context of the whole show they have to do an aside about how hes an irredeemable monster who we are only discussing in the context of fiction but everyones favorite mediocre white guy doesnt need a disclaimer because everyone just magically understands that this is the choose your favorite war criminal show when the war criminal is blonde.

[visenyaism]

thoughts on sansa vs dany discourse

everyone fighting over which morally good teenage girl is an irredeemable war criminal and which morally good teenage girl is the one true girlboss-queen of westeros is distracting me from my mission to convince everyone that jaime lannister did nothing wrong

[rynnthefangirl]

Targ antis that are also team green stans be like:

“I HATE the Targaryens, they are nothing but evil colonizers using their lizard nukes to rain fire on innocents, they are ALL irredeemable and ALL deserve to all die for the sins of their ancestors”

“The exceptions of course are War Criminal #1, War Criminal #2, and War Criminal #3, whose pure noble Hightower blood washes out of the evil bad Targ blood and makes all the mass murder and tyranny they committed actually not their fault.”

[icrawledoutfromtheabyss]

My interpretation of Artificer

(Spoilers for Artificer endings- both ascension and the other. Also general Artificer spoilers.) My interpretation of Artificer- feel free to disagree, this is just my opinion, and I have no problem with opposing personality headcanons.

Artificer isn't a manipulator. Artificer isn't naturally bloodthirsty. Artificer isn't naturally a killer. And Artificer never forgot what she became a killer for. I have a little sister. When I was still in elementary/beginning middle school, I was extremely defensive of her as a baby. If someone insulted her in the slightest, even as a joke, I held a grudge for at least a month- and I am a very forgiving person. I got angry at them, turned a cold shoulder, etc. I've matured now and wouldn't react the same way now if someone poked a rude comment about her, but I would die for her and protect her as strongly if there was real danger. I believe Artificer feels the same about her pups. I think I understand her- only a thousandth of a fraction of understanding; I can't fully grasp a pain I've never felt before. But I can grasp a small portion of it. She would die for her pups. But she didn't die for them. She couldn't. She couldn't save them. And if she couldn't die for them, she would kill for them. She wasn't happy when she killed the scavengers. Satisfied? Maybe. But maybe not even that. Maybe she wasn't even thinking about how extreme her actions were, or, more likely, simply didn't care. All she could feel was rage. All that was in her mind was not even a single worded thought, perhaps not even the memory of her pups dying- only the echo of a memory that was blurred by the image of sheer rage. But regardless of if she was directly thinking of her pups or not, she certainly never forgot who she was killing for. Even if she didn't see their eyes every time she stabbed a scavenger, she could feel them in the tension of her muscles. Even if she didn't call "I'm doing this for my children" as she burned a toll down, her wordless scream cried it. Even if she didn't hear her children's laughter in the back of her ears, she could hear it deep in her heart. If she got them back, maybe she would continue her blood feud. But if she had to choose between her feud and her children, she would lay every pearl in the land at the claws of her enemies to get everything back.

Even if she got them back and they betrayed her somehow, or they sided with the scavengers, she would still love them. Her ascension ending doesn't show a pile of dead scavengers- it shows her pups. The former she only chose in canon because she couldn't obtain the latter. And once she sees them, she accepts her fate, even if it's a failed fate. Acceptance. The only way she could be redeemed- something so little, everything. I'm not positive about her before. Was she toughened by surviving in the acidic Garbage Wastes? Was she a strong, masculine, street smart protector? Was she a gentle, feminine mother? Was she kind? Was she stern? Was she a fighter? Was she skittish? Did her smiles always have a dry humor to them, or did they light like the sun? Was she introverted, or happily sociable? I don't know. All I know is what she is now. An irredeemable monster- but only because her pups' death, to her cycle, is irreversible. She would give up the world for them. She would- reluctantly, but she would- give up her revenge for them, if she had to. She would never willing hurt them, emotionally or physically. She only kills for them because she couldn't die for them. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps Artificer was always somewhat evil. Perhaps she's a manipulator, a liar, a criminal. Perhaps she was just looking for an excuse to shed blood. Perhaps she forgot who she was fighting for long ago- perhaps she fights just to fight and kills just to kill. Perhaps she's lost herself so much, so deeply entrenched in war, that she would even hate the scavengers more than she would love her pups. But I don't think she would. Thank you for coming to my TED talk. (One final note: if you disagree with me, I'm totally chill with that! There's Rain World media where she is depicted as something of the last paragraph that I love. This is just my interpretation of her character. I'm also not defending her actions- I just think I understand how she felt while she committed them.)

[babybutchianthe]

the consistent backlash against the possibility of reading john as a perpetrator of sexual assault, as though the gravitas behind that sort of language is offputting in a way the language used to describe him as an imperialist and war criminal isn't, is an excellent example of how actual incidence of sexual assault is exceptionalised and rendered such a taboo subject that those who've been sexuallt abused are barred from sharing their experiences or seeing them portrayed in fiction. the people who rally against reading john's actions as allegorical for grooming and sexual assault can freely recognise his repeated violations of bodily autonomy, agency, and self-determination committed both within the houses and outside, both directly and via proxy, but they refuse to acknowledge that these actions could be equitable because rape is an unimaginable evil that doesn't happen unless the perpetrator is a deviant of some kind. it's a perspective that refuses to grapple with the nature of imperialism and the violence that the reproduction of its social structures is dependent on because it's easier to look at the horror of a system doing what it is designed to do and say that was the exception, not the rule—to say bad things are done by intrinsically bad people rather than people who were born into systems that make bad things commonplace.

something else about this perspective is that it assumes people reading john this way are trying to incite a paradigm shift and outspoken condemnation of him, but it's the opposite: the resistance to the framing of his behaviour as allegorically predatory and exploitative is born out of a perspective that exceptionalises that, while the perspective that identifies that reading is one that understands this is not an individual issue, but instead one born out of the material conditions of john's time, with the focus instead being on examining why john can justify his actions to himself. by refusing to acknowledge this potential dimension of his character that is well rooted in the text those of the former perspective do very much reduce him in the process, out of the belief that ceding that john does exhibit predatory behaviour would mean he is thus rendered irredeemable—because, again, he would then be a deviant and exceptional individual rather than a person raised in our times and in accordance with imperial social structures that he would later reproduce while forming his empire. the only indictment sought by people highlighting the valid reading of john as a perpetrator of sexual assault is one against the world that moulded him into being able to justify that kind of violation. if you think that reading is somehow fundamentally incompatible with john being a nuanced and three dimensional character then you're part of the problem, in that you think the violence necessary to uphold the status quo cannot be sexual in nature or perpetrated by men that are apparent progressives.