#is a spectrum...just like morality

[avellanaslesbianas]

Renewed classic

[lostsyren]

why do you think Sofia (OBX) didn't go to college?

I think it was financial reasons, that’s the most likely explanation. Perhaps she had to provide another form of income for her family, which we see in s4. She’s an older sibling of four, so maybe her parents needed the extra cash. She could’ve put off college for a year and now she’s stuck in her job or something? Anyone else have any theories/headcannons?

Also just want to talk about Rafe’s classism here– he rolls his eyes, he’s unsympathetic to her. Rafe had college handed to him on a plate, which he messed up (since he’s literally 19 in s1 so he’s most likely a drop out). And instead of working hard and honestly for his money (like Sofia does), he took the easy and immoral path, spurred by his greed. And it’s his greed that leads him into this mess. His greed incited him to put a hit on his father (scared of losing the gold from the cross, Tannyhill, etc…)

He writes off Sofia’s “wrong move” because he can’t relate, whereas Sofia endeavours to help/understand his situation, despite him barely giving her anything to work with.

[grimst4rs]

i think that we often do forget that the black brothers were not inherently good people; they were more or less morally grey, more or less leaning towards the good/bad side. it's hard to fully unlearn beliefs of your family (and i think that many people resonate with this statement, whether we are talking about fictional characters or real, fully-fledged people), and i think that morally grey characters are far more interesting than people who are inherently good or evil.

sirius black

many people (including myself) would say that sirius is leaning more towards the lighter end of the spectrum, given the fact that he actively tried to unlearn his family's beliefs, he ran away from home at the age of sixteen and decided to move in with people who were recognized in the wizarding society as good people, he joined the order as soon as he finished hogwarts, and, even after the unfortunate ending of the first war, he decided to join the order again and stay inside a house that was never a home for him, to ensure the safety of himself, the order, and harry, too. his last act was the attack at the ministry where he found himself, despite the fact that he was supposed to stay inside grimmauld place, and where he died.

however, we cannot deny that sirius, too, had slip-ups. one of them was the prank (to review what happened, essentially, he told snape how to get past the whomping willow, therefore revealing remus' secret to him). in this situation, sirius shows recklessness and a lack of thought towards the consequences that his actions could have towards not only himself, but severus snape and remus, too. his behavior showed a lack of altruism, and a lack of consideration for the people around him, being willing to put them in danger for whatever may have been the reason.

another one would be swm (snape's worst memory), where james is a part of the action too, but the tormenting of snape was unjustified (j&s started the fight, and snape responded) and ended badly. now, i am in no way a defender of severus snape's, but both j&s and him were acting based on either boredom (the aforementioned) and a need for revenge caused by the actions that had happened against him (the latter).

in canon, we are also shown that he does not exactly think the words he says, and the effect they have on people. (“You're less like your father than I thought.” — GoF). i think that sirius had no right to say this to harry, who was just trying to make sure that sirius would be safe. what we need to remember is that, by the time of the action of GoF took place, sirius was still on the run, and the ministry was still looking for him; it would have been dangerous for both him and harry (and whoever might have joined them) to go out of hiding and go meet up somewhere near hogwarts (hogsmeade). harry's response to sirius' request was logical, and sirius' response was reckless and not well-thought.

regulus black

we do not have enough information on regulus to fully state on which side of the spectrum he finds himself on. however, he was known to have held the same beliefs that his parents did and to be an open voldemort supporter (The Slytherin colours of emerald and silver were everywhere, draping the bed, the walls and the windows. The Black Family crest was painstakingly painted over the bed, along with its motto Toujours Pur. Beneath this was a collection of yellow newspaper cuttings (of voldemort), all stuck together to make a ragged collage.)

therefore, to some extent, we can safely assume that he held the same beliefs as him (and, implicitly, his parents). the voldemort collage might have been on the wall for either research purposes or an act of devotion (this interesting perspective has been added by @/werewolfenthusiast) we cannot be sure; however, i am inclined to think that it might have been a mixture of both.

furthermore, i think the fact that regulus only started actively betraying and going against voldemort only after voldemort's actions had direct consequences on him and the ones he loved — kreacher, and this is shown in two acts; (wording taken off the hp wiki)

After becoming a Death Eater, Regulus began to consider abandoning Lord Voldemort, partly because his master mistreated and intended to kill the Black family's loyal house-elf Kreacher whilst setting up the security measures for one of his Horcruxes.

One day, Voldemort asked Regulus for the use of his house-elf, Kreacher and Regulus eagerly accepted as he wanted to please his master. Voldemort used Kreacher to test the defences around his locket Horcrux, leaving him to die afterwards. Kreacher was able to escape using house-elf magic and told Regulus of what had happened. Regulus worked out that the locket was a Horcrux and was the reason behind Voldemort's immortality. This was the deciding factor in Regulus's defection.

therefore, regulus has been shown to feel remorse and to start to realize the lenghts lord voldemort would go through only when his family (implicitly, his house-elf) were targeted. however, by researching horcruxes and trying to destroy one of them, regulus (un)willingly helped the wizarding world towards voldemort's fall.

all in all, the black brothers are two complex characters who, to some extent, held their family's beliefs and values. whether they had actively tried to unlearn them (sirius) or their betrayal was slow and silent (regulus), and neither of them can be fit in the category of inherently good or bad people.

[bestworstcase]

WOR: aura is really funny bc not only does salem do the illustration equivalent of name-dropping the demiurge (MA’AM WHY IS YOUR IMAGE OF THE HUMAN SOUL A BLACKSMITH. MA’AM–) but the whole thing is just a dig at ozpin’s preoccupation with magic.

like

oz: i sacrificed my magic to create the maidens whom i now devote the vast majority of my efforts toward keeping track of so that salem can’t have them. to keep track of the maidens i granted two of my acolytes shapeshifting magic under dubious circumstances. i make it a regular practice to recruit rare special destined magical warriors with silver eyes whenever i can find them. all of this is to protect the magical relics i the gods entrusted into my care. i’m only a man, not even a very good one. 😔

salem: aura is a manifestation of the soul, a life force flowing through every living being on remnant, and with training and focus it can be projected outward as a semblance, infinitely greater and more profound than anything JUST A MAN over there could ever be…

i have to believe she coined the term, because she’s also the one who turned remnant into a defiant point of pride, and can you imagine the miscommunication this caused when they were married. salem says semblance and means “when someone draws upon their own soul to manifest the true essential form of their self into the world” and ozma says semblance and means “the last dying embers of real magic (sad!)” and i don’t think either of them has any idea that they are not. defining the word the same way

[osaumu]

LIGHT / DARK TRIAD TEST.

you lean 57% more toward the dark triad than the light triad.

you are 86.07% darker than the average person.

tagging: @tormenther, @doppogin, @rottedfigs, @ategod, @leventar \ @chuyua, @adamanteine + @memuntos (and anyone else who wants to do it) !

[moondyad]

idk what i was expecting when going into The Acolyte. i didn't really look into promotional material, just waited to watch the show blind, like i do with most media. Mae and Osha were very compelling characters to me. i loved watching a "twins are not the same person" story where as they grow up, even people with the same DNA can choose different paths. which kind of became ironic with the reveal at the end of the season haha. i'm actually so intrigued by Mae and Osha being the exact same person. i desperately want to know how that happened and why Mother Aniseya created/summoned them. that part of the story makes sense and is great to follow along with for me.

my one gripe remains the same. i still can't quite take Qimir seriously. it stems from my understanding of Star Wars. Sith are never portrayed as morally grey in Star Wars. that's a specific request from George Lucas. the Sith were always evil and selfish while the Jedi were always good and selfless. Lucas always despised "grey Jedi" in the legends canon and didn't consider them true to the major canon. interjecting before someone gets mad, i love morally grey characters! i love people taking Lucas's characters and amplifying their grey qualities! however, as i understood it, no Star Wars media would ever show Sith or Jedi as morally grey (unless they were in the process of changing sides or something) due to it conflicting with the core values of those groups and Lucas's vision for them. so, when the goofball side character was revealed to be the big bad Sith i was ??? because it was to my understanding that Sith don't act like comic relief characters or show mercy. apparently this reveal only blindsided me, because i saw a lot of people who claimed to have picked up on it after his first or second scene. blinded by my understanding of the lore, I wrote Qimir off and was waiting for someone darker, more sinister to show their hand. i don't mind this series being the first to show morally grey Jedi and Sith. i love that Sol was so blinded by his righteousness that he could only see a path forward in which he removed one or both girls from their family and way of life. that's crazy! Sol was either on a path to becoming a Sith or staying light enough that he might have lead a splinter group from the Jedi Order, and either option would have been fascinating to watch. i feel like we haven't learned enough about Qimir yet to have his reveal felt earned. Sol's devastating past actions were earned! we got to know him how he is now and the absolute love he holds for Osha despite it being his biggest weakness. all we know is Qimir now. so i guess that's why the goof to Sith feels so sudden and the morally grey actions don't feel earned. i think Osha joining him was super fast-paced and didn't really feel earned either. i feel like he didn't challenge her beliefs enough. Mae did a better job at that than Qimir did. why didn't she just run off with Mae and not choose either side? she got a sick scene where she bled a kyber crystal and the blade turned red, but that alone doesn't make you a Sith. especially since this seems to be the morally grey Sith/Jedi series. what i need from the second season, if there is one, is way more of a focus on Qimir. i need his morality to have felt earned, just like how Osha's and Sol's were.

also insane how Vernestra just swept everything under the rug. another morally grey Jedi to add to the collection.

[clockworkcheetah]

anti[character] posts are already insufferable especially when the person decides to fucking tag it, but when its that kinda post combined with 'this character bad. but this character good' are even more annoying because its a double whammy of the worst character takes youve ever seen

[kxllerblond]

🧍

NPC MEME / accepting.

Kerian is more of a background-background NPC. He has very minimal correspondence with Clark, even less in person. The two typically exchange information and have a 'scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' arrangement. Kerian will usually deal with the cratures Clark doesn't want to and Clark will supply him with supplies, funds, or immunity to do so.

Clark really prefers to use hunters as tools but he would consider Kerian someone he sees as an actual individual and contact and not just some disposable body to fix his problems with the other supernatural.

Keri is from a pretty old hunting family with a specific and arguably peaceful approach. They aren't fully pacifists but believe in exhausting all other options before turning to the usual hunter approach. They're peacemakers that often get underestimated because of their approach. 40, Libra. He/they. Super chill and happy dude, smiles like the goddamn sun itself. If he wasn't super into motorcycle leather chic, you wouldn't be able to tell he's in such a fucked up occupational field.

[thatlittledandere]

Attended a semi-optional short webinar on generative AI at work and was legitimately quivering in rage when they outright recommended using AU to write fanfiction. Because stories with open ends might be distressing for some autistic people apparently. So you can ask an AI to finish the story for you. I wanted to break something

[futurefarmersamerica]

to me the odd part about moralizing the ruination talk is how the frustration is aimed at the feedees and gainers when it's usually the feeders perpetuating the actual toxic behaviors...

agreed! some people do talk about that but it's often so misdirected

[ultrakillingmyself]

Yk what I’m actually really happy that I made jrpwi alphonze bigender and frequently uses feminine titles and pronouns despite keeping her generally masculine

[fromtheseventhhell]

I feel like a problem with many alicent stans is that they have issue accepting that they can love her as a character while also accepting her flaws and issues. Like loving Catelyn while also agnowledging her abusive attitude towards Jon, or loving Cersei while agnowledging she's an immoral person.

I don't particularly care for her or Rhaenyra but Alicent stans in particular seem to have trouble making pro alicent content that also acknowledges her shortcomings without outright just defending them.

This is definitely a problem with them, and it seems to be an issue with how people in the asoiaf/hotd fandom want to engage with the material. People have turned liking a character into a moral superiority contest and that's how we get "disliking [x] character is misogynistic" takes. That's why they scramble to erase any flaw from their fave and justify their actions. It's so ridiculous because liking a character is literally just about being interested in how they're written, that's it. It's not a bad thing for a character to have flaws because that means they're well-written and complex. If you're doing everything in your power to erase and justify those flaws then chances are you don't actually like them. On the flip side, that means sometimes people aren't going to like characters and that doesn't mean anything.

As for Alicent, it's very obvious that she believes in the patriarchy and that's what her motivations stem from. Her fans have just deluded themselves into thinking that she's the "feminist option" and nothing but a perpetually helpless victim with no agency. They're so angry cause those comments are coming directly from the author and the actress they (claim to) love. To be fair, the showrunners try and depict Alicent as such BUT since they're pulling from the source material she can't consistently be that. Even within their adaption, Alicent has flaws and has made questionable decisions. There's a way to defend her from hate without completely sanitizing her character, but her supposed stans also hate that she has flaws. George just likes writing his characters as grey and complex which is a good thing from a story-telling perspective. I wish people would acknowledge that and free themselves of the need to justify the actions of their favorite characters.

[cyclist-of-guilt]

if I'm making YT essay channel the biggest hornets nests I would swing at are:

"Slavic (genre)" doesn't exist you fucking westerners

Avatar isn't pinnacle of media you perpetual children

Bleach sucks in pretty much the same way as rwby and bbc Sherlock

[polyamoryprincess]

Idk shit about Oppenheimer and there’s apparently some back and forth between people who think Oppenheimer is some flavor of propaganda/erasure and people who think they’re being unnecessarily obtuse or missing the point, and like idk one of the sides is using this as an opportunity to point out all the damage that the US still brushes over in relation to the atomic bomb and the the lead up to it and the other is convinced that biopics are actually based in reality and have any merit lmao

[rhaenin-time]

My big issue is how dismissive and often plain disingenuous the stance the point of asoiaf is that feudalism is BAD and it's equivalents across fiction and even non-fiction often are. Because it's often used to dismiss the notion that anyone has the moral high ground, which unfortunately means too many people seem comfortable in giving themselves license to indulge in their implicit biases under the guise of "objectivity."

The reason I find it disingenuous is these people will often claim, "The whole point is that feudalism is bad," and then in the same breath express various sentiments that amount to, "Oh no, the more I look at it, the more I see the parallels between how the power structures of Slavers Bay and Westeros are both dependent upon exploitation, and how "slavery" actually comes in many different forms by many different names. I worry that when Dany gets to Westeros, there's a decent chance she might look around and decide that feudalism is bad. And that would be very bad of her to do."

love and light to everyone but if i see one more post that’s like “the point of asoiaf is that feudalism is BAD” i’m going to rip out my hair and start eating dirt and worms. like yes, it is bad. yes, monarchies are bad. yes so true it’s annoying when people ignore all of that and focus on who they think deserves the throne more. but that’s not the point—that is the premise? it’s the beginning of the exploration and deconstruction. functionally this system is rigid (specifically in terms of gender and class) and horrifically violent: so what it’s really like to live in it? to try to be a hero, a knight, to be a lady in a world where your body belongs to your family, your lord, your order? is it possible to be a good person in a hierarchal world like this, with such vast power imbalances woven throughout it and every relationship and interaction that you have informed by that? how do you navigate that imbalance in order to have meaningful relationships—can you every truly do it? and who decides what is good? how do you know if it’s truly right or it just felt right because it’s what you wanted to do? what about the people who have no name, no family, no order: what happens to them? don’t they matter? what if in a lifetime of looking the other way or actively causing others harm, you do a few things—maybe one thing—that’s objectively good: does it mean anything? does it matter, even if no one ever knows? what if the best thing you ever did broke every vow you made, every law that governs your society? how do you live with that dissonance?

what’s it like to be a ruler, to be a king or queen—is it possible to be a good one in such an unequal system? to wield power justly? who decides what is just? who decides who should rule? at which point does the amount of power someone can have cross the line into too much? is it when you stop trying to figure out how to use it correctly and worry only about how to keep it? if holding onto it costs you everything, your family and all your relationships, is it still worth it? what if having that much power available is necessary to the survival of your people, maybe even your world, but when it’s misused the carnage left behind is beyond articulation—is it still worth it? are the lives it saves worth the lives it took? how do you measure that? who carries the weight of that choice and how? how do you live with it? how do you go on living in a world that can be harsh and cruel and unfair, a world where your good intentions and your personhood seem to matter very little in the face of someone else’s greed or when compared to the yoke of your duty? and the questions never stop and the answers when and if they come are rarely easy, but the point is that you keep asking and keep trying because that’s what it means to be alive lol

[mx-paint]

Some of y'all need to learn what the fuck boundaries are because it is *no way* good for you to be genuinely frothing at the mouth that a teenager in your latest fandom doesn't ship your ship and simply blocking you over it