#it doesn't matter!!!! how you look is a morally neutral thing!!!!!!! most people are not '''''hot''''' actually!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[musical-chick-13]

:) :) :) :) :)

[crumb-crumblet-s-crumbington]

yooooo!!! you’re my favorite ethan winters artist i just wanna say that first and foremost, thank you for the wholesome content of my comfort character and father figure 🥹🫶

i’m really curious bc i feel like i see a lot of people against mithan (not me personally, i’m p neutral on them!) but i’m curious to know all your thoughts on them! thoughts on their canon relationship, their fanon portrayal, the backlash against them/mia accusations, and your headcanons? i’m just really interested!!! hopefully that’s not weird :”)

have a good day!! sparkle on!!! ✨💖

i heart mithan... i think that they can be so cute...

i personally hc them t4t and i like to think that the dated in highschool before they both had fully transitioned

mia likes to bake and ethan likes to scrap book and he always likes to take pictures of mias cakes/ baked goods and has a album for them 😭

i am a multishipper so i draw a lot of ethan ships so my girl is left out sometimes and im sorry mia 😔

i actually really like their relationship, its a really complex dynamic that i like to talk about with my friends

i think the issue is that when talking about mithan or mia in general, theres just SO MUCH misinformation that its honestly a pain the butt to talk about

people still think that she was responsible for the creation of eveline, people still think that she experimented on eveline, people still use examples of her attacking ethan as if she did it on her own will instead of being mind controlled

in reality she was just someone who oversaw the transportation of evie. im not excusing her or anything because obviously she knew what she was doing, but people really try to accuse her of doing something she didnt and it bothers me alot lol

the problem with the fandom is that people either try to water her down to girlboss who did nothing wrong and fail to acknowledge the complexity/ moral grayness of her character and the other side is misogynists 😭😭😭😭

its hard to talk about her without people either going "stop trying to villainize her and make her look bad!" or people ACTUALLY villainizing her and acting like heisenberg would have treated him better 😭😭

mithan is such a sad relationship because they loved each other so much and that ended up being the reason their relationship fell apart (sort of... its not like the broke up... ethan kinda just straight up died)

i get a lot a trouble for saying this, but mia is a selfish person.

its not a bad thing! well i mean it is but it doesnt make her some evil witch who is somehow worse than the guy how made a werewolf american ninja warrior. its just a major character flaw she has! which is good! mia being a flawed person who makes mistakes and morally gray decisions make her a more interesting person!

she is selfish in the way that she wants to keep her family with her no matter the cost. even if it means lying to ethan about her job so that he wont think different of her. here is a interrogation from the re7 DLC, which is easy to miss!

she isnt necessarily trying to apologize for the things she has done, she is more of a, "u wont need to forgive me in the first place if we just forget it all and move on"

she doesn't try to redeem herself for what she has done, she tries to move on and return to the normal life that she wants so bad. which is fine! everyone copes a different way and she has to right to move on from her trauma. the problem that lies in this is that she has a shared trauma with ethan who still has no idea what went on in dulvey and still effects him till the present (he is mold! this is a important thing to know! most people would want to know if they were a walking corpse)

she played a direct part in what happened in dulvey, and im not referring to the email, she did not send that. she never wanted ethan to come in the first place. she tried her best to send a video to him, begging him to forget about her because she wanted to protect him, BUT it didnt send.

he got involved because she was involved. its honestly a series of really really unfortunate events.

THOUGH! she did know what she was getting into. im tired of seeing the narrative that mia was innocent and didnt know what was going on or was simply a bystander. she knew what she was doing, she knew eveline was a bioweapon, she knew eveline was a child. she used a MACHINE GUN! she knows how to use weapons and was obviously trained for it.

she tried her best to keep everybody out of the mess, ex: warning the bakers not to take them in, warning ethan not to find her, sacrificing herself for ethan in the later half of re7

but again, those are the consequences of HER actions

her consequences just happen to get really big and end up hitting ethan on the head like a metal sheet 😭

their relationship is really so interesting, it makes me really sad to think about sometimes 😭they both went through something that nobody else would ever understand, in the end they really only have each other. they get moved to an entire different country and the dulvey incident gets covered up with a "gas leak"

its really tragic because their marriage definitely had some flaws and bumps. and i know im repeating myself but its because people always take this in the worst way possible but just because i say their relationship was rocky doesnt mean im saying they dont love each other!!! thats the entire basis of mias character!! saying she doesnt love ethan would destroy her entire character!

you can see in the re8 DLC how fondly ethan talks about mia! he loves her so much, though im not sure if his comments in the DLC are him narrating current (post re8) or his thoughts before everything went down and he died (pre re8)

everything mia did was because she LOVED ethan. she would never do anything to intentionally hurt him, she is not a cruel person. she hides the truth of her job from ethan pre re7 because she loves him and doesnt want her job to drive them apart. she CONTINUES to refuse to tell ethan the truth post re7 because she wants to move on a live a happy normal life with him and knows something like her being directly associated with the connections would probably cause (more) problems. she refuses to tell ethan that he is mold because again, hard to live a happy marriage with your husband after you tell him hes a bioweapon.

obviously i dont think it was right that she did this, thats what makes her selfish! she did it for herself! she did it for her family! she thought it would work out, she thought that they could move on and be happy together.

the issue is that ethan didnt want to forget. he wanted to know what happened, he wanted to know the part mia played, he wanted answers! which is reasonable! he knows to some extent that mia was partially responsible for his involvement and he was always suspcious that mia was lying to him about her job which is implied when mia says "you were right, i did lie to you"

she doesnt learn, she doesnt stop lying, her lies get bigger and worse and it sucks yeah but it makes her so interesting!!! she keeps doing stupid things under the idea that this is whats best for her and her family, that if she hides this everything will work out and it will be for the better but its not!

just because telling your husband hes dead and a bioweapon is a hard subject to bring up doesnt mean you DONT bring it up. people shouldnt use that as a reason to excuse mia 😭, its a very bad excuse and honestly highlights how horrible their communication skills were. you cant just not tell your husband that he is actually infected with the mold and not tell him for the tree years between post re7 and pre re8.

im not saying these things to put mia down, or try and villanize her. these are all just actual things her character does! she isnt evil, but she isnt a knight in shining armor either. we need to be able to have talks about complex characters without crying everytime someone points out a flaw. characters have flaws! and mia just happens to have a lot of them!

im not mad at her, i dont dislike her because i think this way of her. shes a fictional character! you can like characters that are morally gray, or villains that drink blood and make corpse soldiers. they are fictional! pointing out the flaws of a character does not mean i dont like them.

i wouldnt call her "the real villain of re8" but i wouldnt treat her like a damsel in distress either. she is a competent person, she knows what shes doing, she has her reasons for doing them. she made bad descions with good intentions behind them! they can coexist and we should let them!

i like mithan! its a complex relationship because they both love each other so much but hurt each other in the process

talking about them is just a pain in the butt because talking about mia is a pain in the butt lol

i really hate how she keeps getting sidelined, its super frustrating to see mia get put in a cage in every game 😭

its even more frustrating that mia straight up just disappears???? in the shadows of rose DLC... like she just stops taking care of rose and theres nothing said about it. no reason or explanation. i dont think mia would ever ditch rosemary because she didnt care about her, but we probably will never know because capcom sucks at writing and they probably forgot the mia ever even existed.

all in all, i think the fandom is really just full of misinformation which make people either think mia is some horrible evil person, or its full of people who think that saying mia messed up is the equivalent of comparing her to wesker lol.

i really love mia, shes a incredibly fun and complex character, its just hard to enjoy her sometimes with the people in the fandom haha.

also ive got no idea what u meant by "the backlash against them/mia accusations" so sorry if i didnt answer that!

thank u for the ask! sorry for the long response!

[fairyhaos]

what "morally [x]" are seventeen?

notes: like morally ambiguous, morally grey, morally good, etc. this is quite possibly the weirdest brainrot ive had but this was soo fun to write :>

disclaimer: this is just for fun and im not trying to analyse their "real self". this is kinda ab their game personas yk !!

masterlist

seungcheol

morally flexible. for him it's less about following his morals and more about winning. morals are just human conceptions, and anyway, people can and do change their morals all the time!! but on the other hand, success and victory lasts forever

jeonghan

morally curious. he recognises what things are morally correct, understands why it's moral to do something, and then sits there for a moment and thinks about whether he wants to do that or if he wants to ignore morals completely. sometimes it's fun to do the wrong thing.

joshua

morally ambiguous. like a grey sky that looks like it'll rain any second, no one knows which way joshua will turn bc he's just so unpredictable. it's not even a matter of being bored. sometimes he does the wrong thing Just Because He Can

junhui

morally clairvoyant (maybe). no one quite understands why he's sticking so fiercely to this one principle, but as the game progresses, it soon becomes clear that it's actually the right thing to do. it's like he knew what to do all along. or he's just lucky.

hoshi

morally chaotic. he's like if morally grey was more colourful and more vivid. he's neither good, nor bad, nor that secret third thing—he's actually the fourth option. the one with flamingo feathers and sequins that hide a truly crazy mind with the most unhinged morals ever

wonwoo

morally neutral. he's just too tired for this, man. also it's funny to look at the side of the morally ambiguous people and watch the weird things they do, even if he doesn't want to be a part of it. he likes observing the side of the angels and the side of the devils.

woozi

morally grey. woozi is peak morally grey bc he does things which can be seen as good and he also does things which can be seen as immoral. but at the end of the day, he's neither truly good nor truly bad. he's just woozi.

minghao

morally secure. he knows what his morals are, and he sticks to them, no matter what. everyone else can do what they like, just so long as they don't try to make him do anything that goes against his own morals. literally the embodiment of "you can kill someone, it's okay, just don't tell me where you hid the body"

mingyu

morally targeted. it doesn't matter what his morals are bc they always end up getting questioned into oblivion bc his hyungs like (affectionately) bullying him like that. are his morals good? are they bad? it doesn't even matter. they're getting targeted no matter what

dokyeom

morally good. he could not be immoral if he tried. even if yoon jeonghan is turning the world on its head during a game of mafia, there's still a part of him that feels like something isn't quite right. his mind may not know what's happening but his heart is still on the side of the angels

seungkwan

morally vocal. veryy noisy when it comes to voicing his morals and his opinions on how things should be done. purely because he gets theeee most upset when jihan play tricks during games bc there!!!! are!!!! rules!!!!!!! and his hyungs aren't following them >:(((

vernon

morally rigid. vernon is just a Really Good Guy, and i feel like that's often overlooked bc his opinions r sometimes really really crazy. doesn't mean he isn't good, though, and he's sticking to what he believes in literally no matter what happens. the world could tell him he Has to do something else and my man will be like "thanks but no thanks ✌"

chan

morally exhausted. he doesn't know what the most moral thing is anymore and honestly he's too tired to figure out what it is. everything is too noisy and too confusing bc up is down and left is right and what good is now bad, and he's just looking forward to going home and leaving the chaos of his friends behind

request guidelines

reactions tags: @weird-bookworm @minhui896 @slytherinshua @haowrld @belladaises @newgirlygirl @moonlitskiiies @mirxzii @wonranghaeee @yonabutnotyuna @crackedpumpkin @wqnwoos @kthstrawberryshortcake-main @kawennote09 @a-wandering-stay @icyminghao @valenhui @sweet-like-caramel @odxrilove @kyeomyun @chansburgah @pepperonijem @jeonride @kellesvt @kikohao @astrozuya @eightlightstar @onlyyjeonghan @aaniag @starshuas @all-american-fangirl @f1uffyjun @sea-moon-star @nonononranghaee @isabellah29 @mcu-incorrect @hrts4hanniehae @suraandsugar @pan-de-seungcheol @dokyeomkyeom @melodicrabbit @bananabubble

[pomefioredove]

angelum

summary: morally insecure reader type of post: fic characters: rollo additional info: romantic, reader is gender neutral, reader is yuu, yuu is at nbc now, hurt/comfort, a little fluffy, extremely self indulgent, rollo is ptsd coded as per usual

Perhaps he didn't know you as well as he thought.

But then again, perhaps he didn't want to.

Rollo had become accustomed to the comfortable home you had made yourself within his mind, warm and comforting and far, far away from the dark crevices he worked so hard to stave off.

It mirrored reality, in a sense; he saw it as his duty to keep you safe and away from all the evils of the world, the magic and sin and those who would lead you astray... some days, he felt that he could shrug the rest of his life off his shoulders and solely devote himself to your keeping. Others, he was bothered by nasty thoughts of doubt, those that told him he was only doing to you now what he couldn't have done all those years ago.

Rollo kept himself occupied enough to avoid thinking about it too much.

He did not see a reason to tell you of his mission, of course. You- pure, perfect, untainted by the sins of this world- wouldn't understand. No one would. But you never questioned it, either. Most days, you were simply happy to be treated well (the implications of which he did not want to dwell on; Rollo had made himself a promise not to pry too much about your experience at Night Raven College).

Always so grateful. So kind. Too kind, sometimes, that it caught him off guard. Rollo had not had a friend since...

...Never mind, that.

So perfect. So pure. Everything he could ever aspire to be, but never would, all captured in one person. An angel sent for him, and him alone.

But just as there were things you wouldn't understand about him, there was a sea of mysteries about you.

He can't imagine how you could cause yourself such grief.

Delicately holding your face between his hands, palms gently pressed to each wet, salty cheek, as if you were made of porcelain. He wipes away your tears with his thumbs, not bothering to pull away to retrieve his handkerchief. He can't even think of that right now. Seeing you in such pain is tearing him into halves.

"I'm a bad person,"

"No," he says, almost immediately. His voice sounds more desperate than he would have liked. He can't help it.

"I am,"

He had already spent thousands of nights wishing for some miracle that could heal unseen wounds, but that desire had become stronger than ever now. He would have gladly torn his heart out of his chest and given it to you if it would help.

He hates it. He hates that you make him feel this way. He hates himself for caring so deeply.

Yet, he still can't hate you.

Never you.

"You're not," he insists. "Tell me what's happened. I will make it better."

You don't respond, and it kills him. However you managed to get such an awful idea about yourself, he can't say. Perhaps it came from Night Raven College. Perhaps it's even older than that.

It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter, because it is not true.

It's not true.

It's not true.

After all, if you are a bad person, then what does that make him?

You avoid his eyes. "You can't," there's long pause to take a shaky breath. "You can't make it better. I've tried... I've been trying... it doesn't go away. It's like... I've been shattered into a million pieces, and I can't be put back together again."

Rollo winces, though he doesn't show it on his face.

There are these things you do, these brief moments, soft exchanges of words, certain looks on your face, that remind him all too much of himself.

He pities you. He pities himself.

"Stop it," is all he can think to say. "Do not say such things about yourself. You are not broken. You are not evil. Do you think I would dirty myself by associating with such people?"

You're quiet for a long moment. He does not like the silence, so he keeps talking.

"I cannot address what you won't tell me, thought you should know that no matter what you were told at Night Raven College or elsewhere, here, you are valued. You are wanted. You are the most..."

Rollo hesitates for a moment, taking but a second to compose himself and rephrase whatever it was he was about to say.

"...the most exceptional student I have ever met. Your humility is honorable, but I will not allow you to drown in it. Let yourself feel this, recover, but know that here, at Noble Bell, you are nothing less than an angel."

Failing to find anything else to say, another long silence is cast over the room, though this one significantly less tense than the last. The only noise between the two of you is of crackling fire, though it sounds miles away when he looks at you like this.

Eventually, you speak. "...Thank you,"

"My pleasure," he mumbles, finally releasing the hold he's had on your face for the past several minutes and leaning back to get a better look at you. "...Let me help."

He sits a little closer, bringing your head to rest on his shoulder as he's done a thousand times before within the private confines of his room. Though, this time feels...

The purple and gold of his handkerchief cloud your vision as he gently dabs at your tears until he's satisfied, which he marks with a soft hum.

"Don't get up yet," he says after, allowing you to lean against his body for much longer than he has before. "The fire is still warm."

[maxdibert]

Hey I want to ask you something. I read your blog a lot and have seen information you give about people in certain disadvantaged positions (morally/socio-economically). I am not someone who blindly supports Snape. I simply understand him as a flawed human who tried his best at some atonement. But sheltered as I am, I sometimes wonder is people can truly change? And if someone's atonement is enough?

Snape tried to save everyone, most importantly, but he emotionally scarred him. He attacked a child who had no context about any triggers plaguing Snape. JK Rowling has said on record Snape loathed him, Harry, till he died. But why? How did his immense guilt, which made him save everyone, not be at least neutral with a small child? How is it possible for a human being to be self aware about his grand mistake but then not self aware enough to bring any meaningful day to day change? Spitting on the ground when Gryffindor wins....a 30 year old man. Did only Lily matter and so the mistake he made with her was the only thing he felt guilt for? Not the mistakes he made with others. Isn't that why people say he was obsessed?

Second, Lily is dead. No amount of his "atonement" (which she will never know) will bring her back. So is there any use to atonement or is it just people trying to fix the knot in their throats when they do something bad. Because of Snape's mistake, Lily dies. She will never see Harry grow, never have a career, never have another child, never grow old. So what exactly Snape was trying to do? And for what? For Lily? She is dead and he doesn't seem to care for anyone else. So sure, he saved her child, saved the world....but what's the point. They both probably lay in separate graves, and by the time Severus even began saving Harry, Lily's flesh may already started to fall off her bones in her coffin. So what is the point?

Sorry if its too much; I am 23 and this growing and maturing stage is making me hella confused about everything.

People can change, but they must have the opportunity to change, along with the resources and support to do so. This is something Severus never has. He doesn't decide to change; he feels guilty about how his actions negatively affected someone he cares about, and at first, all he wants to do is try to prevent that mistake from turning into a tragedy. The tragedy happens anyway, and he feels that he owes it to himself and to Lily to somehow avenge everything that has happened in order to make up for the damage. It's not rational, of course Lily isn’t going to come back, but all revenge stories begin when the harm is already done and irrevocable. So, really, it's just a way for him to deal with his own feelings of guilt, his anger, and his sorrow. But still, he doesn't have the space to heal his emotional and psychological wounds. He sells his soul to Dumbledore, who conveniently uses him because he knows Severus is capable of anything to gain the validation of the moral authority (that old man) so that he can feel like he is on the right path. After selling his soul, he stops having his own life. He doesn't have a future plan beyond being useful to Dumbledore and his plans, it’s like a self-imposed sentence. He becomes a teacher, even though he doesn't like it or like children, in the same school where he spent the worst years of his life, where he suffered systematic violence, where adults ignored him and now he has to treat them as "colleagues," where he made his biggest mistakes. You can’t heal in the place of the trauma. He goes back there, and ten years later, a kid shows up who, every time he opens his mouth, reminds him of the person who tortured him nonstop. It's not rational. Severus could rationalize his antipathy toward Harry if he had received psychological help or had been given the tools to heal. He could dislike the kid or simply ignore him because he doesn’t like looking at his face, but not go beyond that. But it’s impossible because, psychologically and emotionally, he is trapped in his teenage years, which are where all his major traumas lie, and Harry’s face sadly makes all of that explode in his head every time they see each other. And since Severus is a deeply dysfunctional adult with terrible emotional control, totally deregulated when something reminds him of his traumatic past, he behaves like an idiot.

He doesn't see Harry as Lily’s son; he sees him as a version of James. And this isn't something exclusive to Severus, Sirius sees him the same way. Sirius also projects his trauma, loss, and guilt onto Harry, but the difference is that Sirius loved James, and Severus hated him. But Sirius is a good example of how Severus isn’t the only one who depersonalizes Harry in favor of James, because he even tries to make him like James, or behave the way James would have. What both of them have in common is that they are adults stuck at a point in their lives that doesn't match their age and are also emotionally unstable. Severus decides to save Harry multiple times because when he really stops to think about it rationally and doesn’t have him in front of him, he knows Harry is Lily's son, and his goal is to keep him alive. But this is something he has to remind himself constantly because his rational side is not the one that acts first; it’s a part he has to force.

I’ve always thought that Severus never forgave himself for being indirectly responsible for the death of the person who had been his attachment figure throughout his life. Deep down, Severus is one of those guys who, if you give them a little affection or acceptance, will follow you to the ends of the earth. He shows this with Dumbledore and even, why not, with the Malfoys. He’s the abused stray dog that, if you give him a bit of food and a home, will sink his teeth into anyone who comes near you to threaten you. The thing with Lily is his unfinished business, regardless of whether the past changes or not, but he feels it that way. I also think that as the years go by, it’s not all about Lily anymore, but he really develops a sense of responsibility toward the magical world. He truly wants to help and genuinely wants to defeat Voldemort, not just because of what happened with Lily, but because he believes that Voldemort needs to fall for genuine reasons. He shows this when, despite knowing that Dumbledore's plan involves sacrificing Harry, instead of refusing and telling him to go to hell, he agrees to move forward. If it were just to protect Lily’s son, he would have stepped away from the plan, but he continues because he genuinely wants to do the right thing, and the right thing is saving as many people as possible, even if it requires sacrifices.

[suzukiblu]

Ko-fi thank-you sentences for 🦄 behind the cut; obligatory sugar baby Kon.

Good. Let me send you the address, Tim says, and does. Might as well take care of that now, he figures. Kon sends him back a bunch of candy and heart emojis. Tim suffers for a moment and tries to figure out if he can emotionally handle sending any back. 

He tries a lollipop, immediately regrets it and replaces it with a wrapped candy, then regrets that too and tries the neutrality of a normal heart, but that doesn't seem like he's trying hard enough, and he deletes that too and then stares blankly at his empty text box with no idea what to put in it. 

u really liked the glitter? Kon asks, which nearly puts Tim back on the floor to crawl under his bed and hide from his own phone. like its not 2 much?

Not even slightly, Tim says. It looks good on you. 

so like u'd like it if i did it again sometime? Kon asks after a noticeable pause. 

Never mind. Tim does in fact need to crawl in under his bed. 

He'll text back after he gets re-settled, he promises himself, then shoves aside his remaining dirty laundry, slides in sideways, and suffers into his carpet. 

Yes, he texts back blind, hoping autocorrect will save him from any particularly fucked-up typos. 

Kon's text alert sounds after another noticeable pause. Tim steels himself, then peeks at the screen. 

k, it says, and nothing else. Tim wonders . . . it wasn't necessarily flirty, the way Kon asked that. So does that mean . . . 

It really does look good on you, he tries very, very cautiously, hoping he's not, like–making it weird. But Kon showed up in eyeliner and nail polish for their first “official” date and just showed him a new eyeliner he specifically asked someone he knew for help with, and he seemed to like the crop top and the short-shorts, so . . . like, does that mean he's interested in dressing a bit less, well . . . like how Tim would've expected him to want to dress, let's say?

He's really never seen him in civvies before this, so . . . who knows, really? 

all of it? Kon asks after yet another noticeable pause. Tim buries his face in the carpet so he can process the reminder of the lip gloss's existence. Jesus. 

Definitely all of it, he agrees. 

Kon doesn't text back right away. Tim considers following up, and also considers just signing over his entire trust fund to him no strings attached and wandering off to become a hermit so he can, like, survive this experience. 

It probably wouldn't work. He'd end up spending all his time worrying about Kon ending up staying in a lab and thinking it's fine to be there instead of, like . . . meditating, or whatever it is hermits actually do. 

It really does seem like Kon just–doesn't think it matters if he's in a lab, and Tim can't tell if that's because he actually doesn't care, or if it's because he thinks no one else cares. Superman clearly doesn't. Cadmus definitely doesn't. 

And he'd told Robin about it like he hadn't expected him to care either. 

That's really a thought Tim would've preferred to have occur to him while he wasn't actively talking to Kon, though at least they're not face-to-face right now. It's a little easier to not have to worry about his expression while having that sour lemon of a realization. 

Considering Kon's best endorsement of working for Cadmus when he'd been trying to sell it to him had been “could be worse”, though . . . 

Tim actually hates everything in the world, yeah. Aside from a few obvious exceptions of people who he has to either convince to turn supervillain with him or emotionally sidekick-support until such a time as he can turn supervillain, obviously. Just all of it. Whole world. The world just sucks. 

Well, there's a reason he's got supervillain plans, and that reason is definitely not that society is fine and good and morally okay as it is. 

The most moral thing to do in a situation like this is become a supervillain, as far as Tim's concerned.

[wisteria-lodge]

bird primary + burnt snake secondary

 tl;dr: Fairly sure I'm Lion primary (maybe burned Badger since I sort of envy the idea of close communities, or hedonistic Snake, not sure where that line is)

(the way that divide works out is that basically, Burnt Badgers look like Snakes. They have the Snake's small community, but wish they could cast their net wider. Hedonistic Snakes tend to be more solo, and much more focused on /stuff/. Also, both options make pretty good short-term coping mechanisms.)

but unsure whether my secondary is Bird, Snake/burned Snake, or burned Lion.

I love researching and reverse-engineering and my immediate response to situations is to Google advice, but reactively, not proactively. I am allergic to planning, and prepwork feels stifling and unnatural.

Ooooh, have we got a single-player Environment Snake? (I also think of these as MacGyver Snakes.) Basically just pulling at the things around you in order to solve the problem at hand.

I studied math in college then did a coding bootcamp, and I always felt adrift because both only taught memorizing solutions to individual problems/proofs, not how to solve unfamiliar ones -- i.e., really learning. 

However, I neither consider myself flexible nor want to be, and singleplayer Snake is wayyyyyyyyyyyy more comfortable than stuff involving other people. (Complicating factor: not neurotypical.)

I think I can say, pretty confidently, that this system works just fine if you're not neurotypical. :) There's no reason you have to use the multi-player version if you don't want. The most dramatic single/multi player divide is probably Bookkeeper Badger vs Courtier Badger, and there are lots of people who prefer being just one or the other.

I do the "faces" thing reflexively, in the moment, but it doesn't feel like "shifting" or "becoming" anything: just me, lying.

That's Snake. "Becoming" is more of a word that a Courtier Badger would use, they kinda do have to believe it, or it doesn't work. Snake secondaries are a lot more aware of what they're doing, in the moment.

It's interesting that you are just straight-up using the word lie though. In my experience, Snakes are more likely to conceptualize that particular problem-solving strategy as "say it in a way they'll listen to," or something like that. You might just be super direct (and/or like hanging out in Neutral) buuuut... the negativity of "lie" can sometimes point to a Burnt secondary. No sign of that yet, but I'll keep an eye out for it.

I don't have a moral problem with lying; it's often even right since a) telling the truth often hurts people, and b) people do prefer it: most people want to hear what they want to hear, and if that happens to be the truth that's great.

Hmmm. This is sounding like primary stuff. And it's quite reasoned out, which makes me interested in hearing why you went for Lion primary instead of Bird.

But deep down, I guess I resent it. I wish that when I say what I mean it would convince people rather than create problems. I try to ration that to only things that REALLY matter to me, but tbh many things do. I hate arguing.

What I'm hearing here is the Bird primary fantasy of "If I was only able to explain it exactly right, in precisely the right words, then everyone would agree with me." And as you say earlier, it doesn't actually work like that. It sounds like you're feeling a bit cynical in regards to other people a the moment, and I can't exactly blame you.

I would love to be an inspirational secondary but I am bad at inspiring people.

There is definitely some burnt secondary talk going on here.

Family: I'm not close to my father -- he’s a terrible person, serial cheater, racist, etc. I'm closer to my mother, and don't think she's a bad person, but both parents were hypercritical and have horrible tempers, so my childhood felt horrible to live through since I was always getting yelled at or having corporal punishment used for doing something wrong.

Definitely seeing where the burned secondary energy is coming from, if so many of your formative experiences involved being told that the way you were doing things was wrong. I also see why you might have at least a fascination with the confident, firey, speak-your-truth-and-damn-the-consequences Lion secondary.

(On paper this could be called abusive, and anyone else being subjected to this makes me furious, but I'm not fully comfortable with the label for my situation, even though I know that's inconsistent.) 

I understand, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate your carefully articulated position, and it's slanting me in the direction of Bird primary. Even though this is obviously a topic you are very emotional about, all those emotions are arranged within the framework of thought. You're aware of and okay the fact that you feel all kinds of different ways about what happened.

Any secondary model came from my mom, but I don't know about primary. She always says my sister and I are "the most important things in her life." (One of the reasons I don’t want kids is that I don’t think I could ever believe or promise them that.) She ostensibly also hates my father and their divorce was vicious, but she kept working for him until he retired, goes on trips with him to see my sister or me, and pressured me for years to un-estrange him because “after all, he’s family” until I gave in and now pretend to have a relationship just enough to placate them. I don't have any ethical problems doing this, it's just irritating.

That is very, very unusual family dynamic. Have to get my head around that. Your mom may have some very intense Badger going on, especially with the the whole "after all, he's family" thing. That could fit go with a nasty divorce, especially if she thought his presence was a threat to you and your sister. On the other hand, she might just be able to compartmentalize to an insane degree, which would probably point to Bird secondary.

I don't understand this aspect of my mom; I observe it happening, but I don't understand it. It feels kind of sad, in an existential way. 

Honestly, I agree.

(Another way my dad sucks is that he played favorites with my sister and I, me being the favorite.

Being the Golden Child sucks just as much as being the Problem Child.

The shitty resulting dynamic is I only "care about" his approval to avoid him creating drama that ripples to everyone around him -- he's gotten better but he has literally started shit when I didn't end emails with "love" -- but my sister actually cares about his approval, and it hurts her.)

Secondary-wise, my mom would always harp on me to "pay attention to the people and things around you," and whenever I tell her about solving problems in Snakeish ways she's like "way to go, [me]!" But she also is meticulously planned and scheduled and organized, and hates surprises and not knowing exactly what will happen. She's the kind of person who gets frustrated in April when I haven’t told her my Thanksgiving itinerary, which, like... I don't want to think that far ahead.

She could be either Prep-work secondary, Bird or Badger. If she's a Bird, "pay attention to the people and things around you," points to a a Rapid-Fire Bird (which can look *very* Snakey.) Or it could be a way of describing Courtier Badger. Being that scheduled is more often a Bird thing... but I could also imagine a Badger manifesting like that, especially if she is so concerned with specifically planning holidays.

Low-stakes/high-stakes problem that felt good: This is a high-stakes problem containing a low-stakes problem. I'm rolling them together because they illustrate both aspects of my problem solving.

Higher stakes: That coding bootcamp required being on Zoom 8 hours every day. But I had 3 roommates (part of why I did it was to not have 3 roommates), and they didn't want me there that much. I can't go to coffee shops because either they're loud, or I will make them loud by talking for 8 hours, thus becoming the problem. Coworking spaces are expensive af. I even consider renting a storage unit but I don't think they have power and wifi. The idea I settle on is sneaking onto a nearby college campus: preferably the CS building, to blend in. I scour the college subreddit for posts about what buildings let students in without ID, then scout them out (this is March, the thing doesn't start until May, I'm just high on must-solve-now energy). After ~15 minutes (lol) of walking through campus I decide I've had enough, seems doable. The day of, I leave early in case I have to give up and go home, but that turned out to be completely pointless because tailgating in is shockingly easy. Like it's scary how easy it is. One day a security officer stopped me but even he eventually let me in after I acted increasingly frazzled and panicked -- not ENTIRELY an act but I definitely was playing it up.

I like this story. And I feel good about saying that it is QUITE snakey: what do I have immediately around me, and how can I use it to get what I want in this moment? Even little details like - you're not bothering to come up with a cover story or borrow/forge someone's ID. If you're caught you'll talk your way out of it. You did a little research, then scoped the place out, then were good to go.

Lower stakes: I usually did classes from an empty auditorium (students weren't supposed to be there but no one checked, and also I'm not a student right?). The whiteboard's eraser stand was a few inches away from the wall, and one day I drop my phone in the gap. Shit. The gap's way too high to reach down. I can't ask anyone for help because I'm already 2 layers deep of being somewhere I'm not supposed to be. The stand screws to the wall, but I don't have a screwdriver because who just carries a screwdriver around? (For whatever reason, going to a hardware store didn't occur to me.) I stare at the thing until I realize: I am literally in the ENGINEERING building. I search various offices, ask people for a screwdriver, but no luck. Then I see a board listing the departments. One floor has a "makerspace," and somehow, its door is wide open (the student lounge is locked down but the room with deadly power tools isn't, ???) I grab 5 sizes of screwdriver, then also grab duct tape and a ruler to fish my phone out in case the screwdrivers don't work, which turned out to be a good idea because they didn't

Sounds to me to me like you just MacGyvered a solution :D

One thing I am picking up on is your subtle critique of the existing rules/systems. Getting in via tailgateing is easier than it should be, talking your way past the guard was too easy. The door with the powertools really should be locked, etc. It's making me (again) think Bird primary for you. You've very tuned into the way things run, and how well designed (or not) that is. There's also just a little bit of Birdy rules-lawyer in "Students aren't allowed in this room, but I'm not a student (because I snuck in.)"

Hard decision-making process…. I don’t know. I don’t experience many decisions as hard. I often know what I want to do right away; the difficult part is doing it.

In the language of this system, that's a Burnt secondary.

Or I know what I should do, am obligated to do, have no choice but to do, etc., though sometimes it feels miserable or wrong, like resignation.

Unfortunately that is what it feels like to have a Burnt secondary - you just use whatever problem-solving strategy you can at random, since they all feel like a chore and it doesn't really matter.

I can feel proud of making certain "right" choices in an abstract self-congratulatory way, but I never like it or really feel good about it. I either act on something immediately or put it off until the decision makes itself, a drop-dead deadline approaches, I get bored/impulsive enough to do it on the spot, or I suddenly swerve my life toward something I like better.

You're definitely an Improvisational secondary. Which is really fine, even though I know it doesn't feel that way all the time when you come from a family of intense Prep-work people. Just keep an eye on that 'wait until the deadline' impulse. It's very, very common for neurodivergent people to use that last-minute stress adrenaline to kind of hack their brain, and it's not sustainable.

I'd wanted to change careers for years but the actual decision to do the bootcamp was an impulse based on ~3 hours' research the day I encountered it.

That can absolutely work though. You *are* working on the problem and mulling it over in your head long term, even if you are (in the words of another snake secondary) "waiting for the opportune moment."

This is all healthy and well-adjusted, and it definitely has never caused any predictable problems! (Did get a job though.)

Hey, if it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

My fantasy: To be successful and well-known in my field; to create the kind of art I want to create and have it be respected/influential. To live the life I want, with the aesthetic I want, and the opportunities from others and follow-through from me to achieve that. The details vary based on the field but that's the general template. 

I'd say that's a very human fantasy, without too many details that slant me one way or the other, in terms of this system. There's definitely a focus on the community around you and how you relate to it/integrate into it. And that makes me think Bird (the external primary) is more likely than Lion (the internal primary.)

Characters: I relate to characters who are flawed in the same ways I am -- they feel like cautionary tales -- or sometimes via empathizing in a way the story doesn’t (Carlotta from Phantom got done DIRTY).

It's interesting that you respond to characters who the narrative framing doesn't support, because the narrative framing doesn't support them. I guess that does fit with your interest in constructed systems, and if they're useful/functional or not. Which points to Bird.

On that big pop culture character test I always get Hannah from Girls and Gaius Baltar from Battlestar Galactica: harsh, but not wrong.

(I always get Inara from Firefly and Céline from Before Sunrise.)

It's been a second since I've seen Girls or Battlestar Galactica, but I do think that both of those characters are Bird Snakes, which is honestly impressive since Bird Snakes are easily the least common fictional archetype.

Baltar is clever, adaptive, reactive, he pulls from around him. He also bluffs and will *act* like he's an expert when he really isn't. A lot of his internal conflict revolves around extremely Bird primary rationalization - is this situation really his fault? and if it is, what is he morally/rationally supposed to do about it (if anything?) "Voice of *a* generation" Hannah also has this way of getting caught in her own feedback loops when trying to figure herself out. One of my favorite moments is the bit where she loses her purse on the way back from the wedding, and then rides the train all the way to Coney Island, sits on the beach and eats the slice of wedding cake while watching the sun rise. I think that's beautiful, and a very Snake secondary response.

I also gravitate toward a specific archetype: Blanche from A Streetcar Named Desire, Madame Bovary, Violetta from La Traviata. People who desire an impossible thing deeply and unshakably, temporarily achieve it, and are taken down dramatically.

Now that, I'm thinking is a story structure that you like. And/or you're drawn to these tragic great ladies, living most of the way in a fantasy world. It's a good, cathartic archetype.

What makes me feel powerful: I don’t really resonate with that framing. The closest is that feeling like I have no options is the same for me as feeling powerless.

Okay, "not feeling powerless," I'll take it. And we're back to that Burnt secondary again. I'm hoping you'll leave your Snake a little more room to breathe and play, because it seems like you're a pretty capable person. You manage to do the things you want to get done, and you have an excellent awareness of what are good and bad situations, both for you and just in general.

Thank you to anonymous for such an excellent submission. If you'd like a Sorting of your very own, commissions are open on my ko-fi. :D

If you'd like to read more about the system I'm using, my explanation is right here.

[boopshoops]

💆 and 🏘 for yuu if thats alright?

OK- so a lot of yall asked for the same emojis SO i'm gonna format Yuu's all in one post then do another for Jocia+Ezra-

UHHH DJJDJD THIS IS MY FIRST TIME ANSWERING QUESTIONS IN CHARACTER so lets say the default text is me/narrator then orange is Yuu

@ceruleancattail @the-trinket-witch @rabioa @scint1llat3

💆how do you relax?

"Well, let's get right into it then, shall we?" Yuu clasped her hands together, a sly smile spreading onto her lips, "Relaxation... well I guess listening to music would be my go to. Genre doesn't matter to me mostly," The woman tapped her chin, lightly humming as she thought, "Though I suppose my definition of 'relaxing' isn't exactly universal... I often enjoy getting up and around and even dancing a bit, maybe having a quick chat as well... it helps me center myself. Too many thoughts in this big brain of mine sometimes!~ A way to focus is most definitely what relaxation is to me. Some people find it chaotic, but I don't care about some people. It's fun to me. Besides, it's not like I never sit down and rest."

🏘️where's your happy place?

"Huh... some of these questions are rather deep, aren't they?" Yuu cleared her throat, doing her best to keep a neutral expression, "Much like a lot of people, my happy place isn't an actual PLACE. It is more like a state. All that being said, I'm... not quite sure. Not to say that I'm not happy, of course! There are hard times and good times, but I suppose I'm still trying my best to find such a 'place' for me in this new world. Let's call this one a work in progress, yes? I'll get there eventually, not to worry. I have my plans, of course~"

✏️What are your hobbies?

"Oh! This is a fun one. I'm a musician. I have been taking band and theater courses my whole life," Yuu lifted her head triumphantly, gladly taking the opportunity to brag, "Singing, acting, playing instruments... I managed to get into a pretty prestigious performing arts school back home, and what more could one ask for than to spend their life doing what they love?" Her peppiness suddenly dropped, resulting in a roll of her eyes, "Not that it's useful now that I'm stuck here though. Damn Crowley."

🥣what's your favorite food?

"Bungeoppang!" The prefect chirped, leaning forward in her (imaginary) seat for this (imaginary) interview, "Or, ah- taiyaki, or bread with a sweet red bean filling. I was trying to learn more about my ancestry, and came across this pastry thanks to my father. Originally I didn't think I was the biggest fan of sweets, but, wow~ Only then, after I fell in love with it, did I learn it wasn't even a traditional dish from my father's home... figures. Nonetheless! You'll have to try some!"

"Ah, Here's a fun fact for you, I learned the language a long time ago along with trying to learn more about my family's history, but no one here seems to recognize it, which... makes sense, I guess. It was a bummer at first, but then I learned I can simply say whatever I want without them understanding me. What a breath of fresh air~"

The woman momentarily giggled, "...배고파요"

🙂where do your morals lie?

"Hmph. What a complete 180 of a question..." Her lips pursed into a pout. She offered up a quick glare, but it didn't last very long at all, "I'm just trying my best to exist and let others exist at the moment!" She beamed with the flip of a switch, her suspiciously innocent smile nearly blinding. She kept this one brief. Barely an answer.

🥰do you think you're attractive?

"Yes," The woman answered... almost too quickly, "I like how I look. I spend a lot of time on myself, so it's only natural to get a bit of an ego boost from that, yes? Confidence is a healthy thing! I spent a lot of time carefully crafting my sense of style, it makes me feel... like me." Yuu momentarily fluttered her lashes, accompanied by laughter through a rhythmic tease, "Come onnnn~ you get it, right? You know I'm just a sweetheart? Completely innocent and well-meaning? Aren't I just like a princess? Of COURSE I'm attractive."

😍are you a romantic?

"....Hm," The woman paused, thinking deeply about the question in a moment of silence, "It depends on what your definition of 'romantic' is in this case, but I'd say I'm rather neutral. It's been awhile since I've been in a relationship myself, so I can't really say for sure..." Yuu tilted her head, crossing one leg over the other as she leaned back in her seat. Striking a pose to simply ponder.

"I'm not a hopeless romantic, but I highly value romantic gestures. Does that make sense? I particularly value physical touch along with gift receiving as far as love language goes. At least, that's how it used to be with my ex-girlfriend. I don't think that has changed too much. So, hey! If you're interested, feel free to just hand over your credit card as a gift, I'll get back to you," The woman finished with a joke, attempting to turn the mood away from being sour.

"ALSO HELLO YUU SHI YOU ARE GORGEOUS HELLO LIKE ARE YOU AN ANGLE FROM HEAVEN??? CAUSE YOU'RE A-CUTE"

The prefect blinked, leaving an uncomfortable amount of awkward silence as she read the words on the page of (imaginary) interview questions.

She held back a snort, doing her best to hide a guilty grin along with her horrible sense of humor, "Wh-Who wrote this? Who wrote these questions?" She giggled to herself, setting down the page in finality, "Sevens, that's awful... I love it. I'm well aware, but thank you. I needed the laugh today."

"Will that be all?"

Ask game!

[blurredblu]

My opinion on IDW being canon to Sonic

I watched a video by GamesCage on the topic, who I've been watching a long while on YT before subscribing to him recently on Twitch, and it reminded me of my own thoughts on the matter as well!

But first some preemptive notes because I am entering Sonic discoursespace:

This is just some guy's opinion about a little blue dude! That's it! If you hate it or me personally because of it, I refer you to this image:

I won't ever go into using insulting or uncivil language. But because this is an opinion essay and I got opinions up the wazoo, I'm also not trying to word things in some neutral, disinterested way to appeal to all audiences here

That being said, game-story-wise, we don't fuck with meta-era shit here. I Do Not See It

I'm all for chats and discussions about the topic, agreement or disagreement alike in response to this essay—things just ought to stay civil and respectful. Think of WWSD (What Would Sonic Do?) and the image above

Sonic's morality and what IDW misunderstands of it

Though I respect what the IDW team does (I fondly remember following Evan Stanley's Ghosts of the Future on Deviantart back in the day), I don't prefer their characterisation of Sonic, and that alone is enough to have me a little chagrined as to IDW's integration into the games' canon. I think it's because, ultimately, it detracts from what makes Sonic's character—specifically his morality—unique and appealing to me. Though he isn't nearly as anti-hero in nature as characters like Shadow, Sonic still has moral tendencies that are atypical for characters that occupy the hero role as he's been avowed to have in the games, e.g. being labelled Team Hero with Tails and Knuckles multiple times

To give some sense of signposting, here are the headings of this essay:

Sonic distinctive moral thinking - The games' simple, reactive Sonic - IDW's merciful, principles-first Sonic: on freedom and oppression - Sonic's self-centred in a way, though, right? The mascot problem - "What's your idea then, genius?" – the reader reading this - Why keep things static - Examples of peak Sonic Conclusion

Sonic's distinctive moral thinking

To contextualise my judgement of Sonic as distinctive in his moral thinking, I think there is a tendency in Western media to give heroic characters very merciful streaks. Think Superman or Batman—codes of never killing or always offering mercy, often with backstory or informed moral reasoning behind it. While these streaks are understandable, they appear often and thus don't ring as special or particularly unique to me. Sonic has always been interesting to me because he explicitly does not entertain such clear moral principles. His attitudes embodied in his SA2 theme "It Doesn't Matter," Sonic Unleashed, or the Storybook Series (Black Knight being my favourite), show that he just does what he thinks is right and shows no qualms using considerable force (lethal in the case of Black Knight) if he has to against those he thinks are doing wrong—even against people who he would be friends with, like Merlina. He does not barter or reason; he takes action, moves before he thinks, and follows his heart

The games' simple, reactive Sonic

From my interpretation of Sonic regarding mercy, examples from the games show how he isn't interested in rehabilitating or looking for threats to neutralise like some Miguel O'Hedgehog. These tendencies become most apparent when his friends are involved. A standout example is when Amy protects E-102 Gamma from Sonic, convincing Sonic that he isn't like the other badniks. Another, more indirect example is Gemerl, where Sonic fights and subdues him from causing more harm but Tails is the one who reprograms and rehabilitates Gemerl, who lives happily with Cream and Vanilla with his more peaceful disposition. Sonic doesn't go out of his way to help Gemerl post-defeat, but he doesn't doubt or attack him further after his integration either

At heart, I find Sonic to be a reactive, not proactive, hero. He won't go out of his way to check if the day needs saving—he's not a dutiful guardian doing patrol like Knuckles or a principled fighter for an organisation like Shadow—but if Sonic sees someone in need, he won't just pass them by. And I find Sonic's moral judgements to be simple, instinctual, and self-centred in the most literal sense. They come from his bias towards his friends' judgement and what he believes to be right, regardless of how others may judge his actions. I've only mentioned some examples, but they highlight to me that Sonic is neither healer nor hunter. His main priority isn't rehabilitating or reasoning with his foes—he will do what he feels he needs to do, even if that means destroying something or someone for good. But, as Amy for E-102 and Tails and Cream for Gemerl show, he won't go out of his way to make sure threats are dealt with through violence if his friends vouch for them.

IDW's merciful, principles-first Sonic: on freedom and oppression

In IDW, the topic of him showing so much mercy and espousing freedom as an ideal he thinks everyone, even his enemies, deserves makes him much more merciful and deliberate in his mercy than I like him to be. I want to discuss this by briefly expanding on oppression and freedom, a topic that comes up in Surge and Sonic's fight and Surge angrily questions why Sonic wouldn't just end her. Sonic essentially answers it's because he values freedom for all, including his enemies', because he can exercise his freedom to stop them. It's representative of why I think some fans take issue with Sonic's characterisation because it warps how much Sonic might believably value freedom versus oppression on two flops: on philosophical concepts and characterisation.

IDW's concept flop, to me, shows a fundamental misunderstanding on the nature of oppression and freedom, assuming some inherent ranking of freedom above oppression. The two are different things: freedom is a kind of instrument, a means of doing things, a concept that has no content in and of itself. In other words, you have the freedom to do X; having freedom is only meaningful insofar as it enables to do what you want. Oppression, however, is not an instrument in the same way; it makes far less sense to say 'you have the oppression to do X' or 'you are oppressed to do X' like you could for 'freedom' and 'free'. Freedom, precisely because it is an instrument, enables far more flexibility—both good, evil, and neutral acts can arise from it. Oppression is a state of being with an inherently negative core, predicated on suffering and the oppressed being harmed.

Quick and messy take from me on this: freedom for all and oppression for some is worse(!) than freedom for some and oppression for none. But here's something that has a source, leading to the characterisation flop: according to Sonic Adventure's DX Director's Cut manual, the only thing Sonic hates is oppression (for, presumably, anyone). Honestly, you don't even need a game manual to tell you that. I think IDW writers make the mistake of assuming the inverse to be true of Sonic as well: that the thing he loves most is freedom (for, presumably, anyone).

Oppression being the only thing Sonic hates does not mean freedom is the only thing Sonic loves.

It may be notoriously slippery to insist on consistency in the Sonic franchise (or maybe franchises, plural), but this philosophical gloss on freedom and oppression starts to explain why IDW's characterisation strikes me as inherently contradictory to Sonic's preexisting values. Namely, it shows how IDW commits a false equivalence between the two and assigns it to Sonic. Sure, Sonic likes freedom, but that's different to showing mercy and second chances. IDW ends up conflating the two. As a result, IDW has Sonic care more about the principle of freedom than about the feelings and suffering he knows he or his loved ones have gone through. Put another way, it makes little to no sense why Sonic would prioritise freedom for all, even his enemies, when he has been shown to much more consistently put the most weight on what his friends feel and what he himself thinks. IDW does little to no detectable work establishing why Sonic would have such priorities either

Also, not a real argument—just taking things to the extreme in a throwaway thought—but could you imagine Sonic in the beginning of Unleashed actually considering Eggman's pleas saying he's changed and telling Eggman he...values his freedom? Like. c'mon

Sonic's self-centred in a way, though, right?

How about that self-centred angle, though? Sonic's way of thinking is highly independent—he will do what he thinks is right, first and foremost. It would be easy to claim that IDW's characterisation is just a mindset Sonic just holds in the comics, and that alone passes muster; his brand of ethical egoism admittedly does a lot as writerly cover to justify nigh anything about him. Looks like a hedgehog, smells like a hedgehog; chances are it's our hedgehog, right?

I disagree. One: if IDW is considered canon and yet is just so different to what's appealing about Sonic in the games, then the decision to make IDW Sonic canon, to be frank, kinda sucks. That ain't my Sonic—that's some Marvelised-DC version of him trying to moralise that I don't find compelling, distinctive, or endearing.

Two: even if you try to adopt the angle that upholding freedom for all would just be what Sonic believes to be right, it would still be the same as saying Sonic cares more about philosophical ideals than what he sees right in front of him. He's famously poked fun at Knuckles for being gullible before—why is Sonic himself showing that same gullibility and benefit of the doubt towards hostile enemies or those who have notably wrought so much damage to the lives of those he loves?

The trouble is that IDW builds no meaningful narrative foundations on top of which to stake this claim on Sonic's mindset when the games exist. Like, I don't even privilege the games just because they've been around first and for longer (even though, hey, that is true)—he's just cooler in them. Sonic is no philosopher; he's repeatedly shown it's genuinely not that deep when it comes to his moral thinking in the games. All it is is that he has a good heart. As a result, it comes off as a considerable mischaracterisation to show his enemies mercy mostly in the name of freedom or hope for their change (i.e. lofty ideals) compared to something actionable he can do (i.e. kick their ass and break their tech so they don't hurt anyone he cares about again).

The mascot problem

GamesCage mentions a worthwhile point which he calls the mascot problem. Sonic, as a mascot for Sega, has certain narrative lines he cannot cross or change for good. Like with Mario, there is a clear status quo to maintain; for one, Eggman cannot ever truly be vanquished. However, unlike Mario (with the one exception of Super Mario Galaxy), Sonic routinely has narratives that he and his friends undergo. There has to be this delicate balance that Sonic Team, IDW, and anyone writing for Sonic must contend with as a result. You have to write stories—events and plot where characters grow and change and are affected—but maintain the status quo where many fundamental things cannot change

In other words: how do you explain that Sonic never gets rid of Eggman or his other enemies because he, as a company mascot, cannot ever do so?

IDW does this one way by assigning Sonic an inadvertent little philosopher's cap, which I've already opined is a mischaracterisation. It also just generates another kind of untenable narrative problem that's even harder to reconcile: how do you justify that Sonic, hero with a heart of gold, just lets his enemies keep on going for freedom's sake? Arguably, all that does is dress up the mascot problem but with worse consequences—it makes Sonic less likable. It casts him as someone who essentially ends up condoning his enemies' actions, which has already led readers to question his judgement and whether they would even want to root for a character like that when you have an alternative and contradicting blueprint that the games have already provided for him. Like, my boy embodies direct action and IDW turns it into direct-ish-but-hey-do-what-you-want-who-am-I-to-judge action. Dress it up however you want; it's a nerf on who he is

"What's your idea then, genius?" – the reader reading this

In my eyes, what could work for the mascot problem is falling back on the static nature of the characters that have already been long established. The basic formula is there: Eggman is tricksy, proactive, and two steps ahead, but Sonic is always good-hearted enough, reactive enough, and fast enough to catch up by the end.

Elaborating on that formula, you have enough of Sonic's existing characteristics to justify why bad things keep happening despite his presence. He's not like Iron Man, who takes it upon himself to leverage his resources and power to look out for the world when no one's really asked him to. Again, Sonic is a reactive hero; he's not a ruthless hunter and he likes his peace and quiet as well as his adventure. He'll do what he can to fight what's right in front of him but may miss the bigger picture or potential traps by going in too fast. That happened in the beginning of Sonic Unleashed and it made sense. Even in Black Knight, you had him try to whale on King Arthur armed with just a decreasing number of chilli dogs. In an extended or episodic storytelling format, this allows other characters to shine—Tails's powers of analysis, Amy's ability to connect with others emotionally, Knuckles' sense of duty—by contributing to plans and helping Sonic because he has persistent, character-defining flaws. Highlighting his non-proactive and chill nature allows for arcs with more breathing room, too, where the characters aren't going up against some world-ending force or they all hang out. On that front, I'd say IDW has done well giving other characters that spotlight

Briefly touching upon Eggman's characterisation and how that might address the mascot problem, his tried-and-true tendencies should be relied upon, too. He is incredibly intelligent but also a massive narcissist—it makes sense that he has his own sense of short-sightedness where he prioritises and secures his own well-being above all else and underestimates the importance or wrath of godly and natural entities he frequently exploits and disrespects. Because of how strong and distinctive Eggman's brand of narcissism and villainy is, it is honestly fitting that he will never change; that alone explains how often he will cause trouble and will never fully succeed. And that also justifies why Sonic will always be the one to fight him. Both have their imperfections and flaws and that has them in a deadlock.

Why keep things static?

Now, this might bring up the question of static-ness. It might seem like an odd solution to mascot problem to just lean into it. Surely, there has to be greater justification or some potential for change for things to stay interesting, appealing, and compelling for Sonic and his stories.

In response, here's my hot take: ya don't need any of that.

Here's a longer version of my hot take: in any given narrative, Sonic is at his best when he does not grow or change. Sonic is already peak. Others may flounder and oscillate, but he remains steadfast with his heart of gold. He is a pillar of strength. He is static. Think of him in the Sonic Adventure games, characters and humans' reactions to him in Sonic X, the knights of the round table's reactions to him in Black Knight, Chip himself remarking that Sonic has such a good heart that not even the powers of a fucking dark primordial god infecting and transforming him can change who he is on the inside in Unleashed. When unstoppable forces come about, lo and behold, he is the immovable object they meet!

Sonic always stays on the move—that's how you can justify all the amazing, different, wild stories he'll go through, because he is an adventurer at heart. You don't need to humanise a character and subject them to point-A-to-point-B arcs to make them enduring, beloved characters. Just because that's a common format for characters and stories and comics to take nowadays doesn't mean that it's a good fit for Sonic. He's never been one to do something just because everyone else is doing it anyway. I, no joke, think Sonic should be treated like a mythical folklore figure, never-changing and transforming the lives of those he meets before breezing on by—and what figures are more enduring in our consciousness than those of mythology?

And, to refer to IDW, there isn't any need to wax philosophical on top of that. Like I've repeatedly said so far, Sonic is no philosopher (and saying this as someone who did philosophy for undergrad, thank fuck for that). Leave the philosophising and podcast soundbites and video essays to the fans—in fact, I'd even wager the simplicity of Sonic's premise and character, or, hell, even the dissatisfaction that can come from that, is why his fandom even thrives (but that's definitely a separate topic).

Examples of peak Sonic

I forget which interview this was, but Sonic's characterisation was inspired off of Bill Clinton (aged like milk I know; this was before his scandal with Lewinsky), from the idea that actions speak louder than words for him. Obviously, Sonic does get in his quips with his friends and enemies alike, but he's not supposed to be Marvel superhero about it and isn't actually a massive braggart. Even the first episode of Sonic X shows his confidence and demeanour so well—he doesn't need to moralise or talk your ear off for you to know he'll fuck you up. And that's just so much cooler than what IDW accomplishes with their version of Sonic

Like, consider my beloved Murder of StH, which the IDW team had a considerable hand in! Sonic—while recognising that the train is more advanced than other badniks, exhibiting personhood and consciousness—still has the sole objective of destroying the train. Everyone shines and, granted, the format has it so that Sonic doesn't really appear till the end, but he's characterised pitch-perfectly there, instilling so much hope and forward momentum not only in his gameplay but in the heart of the player. Honestly, his late contribution arguably echoes Sonic X, where he often disappears or does his own thing, too

Even in a game or storytelling format where he should be front and centre, you could even explore some big themes with Sonic precisely because of his mental and emotional fortitude! The Storybook Series are so stellar in this regard—you got Sonic helping out Shahra, domestic abuse victim, on dealing with sadness, and him helping Merlina with existentialism and death of all the fucking things. And he doesn't flap his lips about it; he shows it through his actions. He's the protagonist but not in a traditional sense—he's the support and passing through and being unfathomably fuckin cool about it. Any lessons he ends up teaching you is not because he's out to teach you—it's because he's just living his own way and, wouldn't you know it, you just happened to be around for the ride

Conclusion

I'm not excited about IDW Sonic being considered canon because he comes off as an overeager philosopher's take on him when game Sonic is fuckin goated with the sauce. Though the story ideas and arcs in IDW seem cool, Sonic is the heart of the series, and if he's off, then the whole thing ends up a little wonky for my tastes.

To be clear, I don't have issues with different iterations of Sonic as some blanket rule—if the writers do the work to establish why and in what ways Sonic in a particular story is different, then that's just plain fun. Movie Sonic, Sonic Prime, and Sonic Boom are all examples of that. But, above all, the kind of Sonic I adore (and there are in fact many kinds) is the one who you meet and your life is irrevocably changed for the better as he hangs out for a while but never for long. In pivotal moments in the comics, IDW Sonic misses the mark on that for me

Though Sonic Team are making clear moves to integrate all the iterations of Sonic as canon regardless. I do wonder if that, as a move in itself, is the meta-narrative equivalent of Sonic Team changing game-mechanic tacks every game after '06 and Unleashed—a well-intentioned but misguided way to try to appease everyone which I've always thought is the most anti-Sonic thing you can do, but that's just the mascot problem in corporate as opposed to story form.

I was fine with Sonic Twitter just saying 'Everything is canon' as a non-starter – I'll just see how they do what they're intending to do and if I don't like it, then I always got an AO3 account handy

[fierceawakening]

So somehow I ended up with a post from one of the rationalist types I'd eventually blocked and man... it's interesting to look back at what they have to say after having curated it away for a while.

Because at the time I was arguing with them, I felt like it was really important to figure out the flaw in their logic and prove it, and now I just feel like... it's such a profoundly different way of thinking from my own that... it's not that I'm saying "stay in your echo chamber, it's not worth it to consider other ways of seeing things," but it is that... "that's an interesting way of seeing things in the abstract, but it's too foreign to me for me to use it to make any policy recommendations. I wouldn't know where to even begin."

The issue at hand was guns, and the person was basically saying that in order to have an opinion on gun control you'd need to demonstrate basic understanding of the mechanics of how guns work, including specifics about the AR-15 if that's the gun you deem most in need of regulating.

Basically, the argument was "I wouldn't be a good person to opine on infrastructure policy if I'd never studied how bridges work. The people deciding policy about guns should be the people with the intense special interest in them."

The OP attributed why this isn't the case, why so many people who are vocal about wanting gun control are clueless on how guns work, to a strange moralization of disgust. They shouldn't be grossed out by the gun. They should study and examine and think about the gun, in a dispassionate way.

And this is where they lost me.

At the time I was arguing with it, "does empathy matter for morality" was the animating discussion I was having with these people. And they were saying that no, it doesn't, it's all emotiony and reckless and all that weird lizard brain junk makes people fearful and reactive, not good.

Where the thing they're glossing as "weird disgust at a machine" Is, very often, "horrible memories of someone using that machine to induce the worst trauma of my entire life."

Yes, they care about the machine. But they don't care about it in a nerdy kind of, "is this the best machine for the goal of killing my best buddy in homeroom?" kind of way. They care about it in "when the person pointed that at my best buddy in homeroom THEY DIED" kind of way.

It's not... right... to just gloss over that as disgust, I don't think. It misses that what people are reacting to aren't just DISGUSTING acts (though they are that), but profoundly and fundamentally IMMORAL ones.

Is an AR-15 immoral? Not any more than a cross is that someone has set on fire.

But if someone has set a cross on fire, it's LIKELY that they mean for their action to be interpreted in a particular way that IS immoral.

Which is what people think you're doing when you wear your rifle someplace random. "I know that this has been and will continue to be used to slaughter the innocent. I'm wearing it precisely because that makes me look badass."

Is that what those protesters actually mean? Not necessarily (though I think the Three Percenter types probably do, sorry not sorry.) But it's reasonable for people to see it that way.

Which I think is the whole reason I was defending empathy as a part of morality anyway. Whatever the specifics, moral emotion isn't something that's just tacked on to morality I don't think. We're social, so actions carry meaning.

When we do actions that we know frighten or horrify others to make a point, we're not ALWAYS assuming they'll be neutral observers or that they'll have an exposure therapy that wasn't so bad experience seeing us.

Sometimes, we're FUNDAMENTALLY BANKING on the idea that they won't.

And that's a bit mean, hence me (perhaps overly) recommending empathy as a point against doing that.

[mesaprotector]

was reading recently about the "to be lawful or good" trope (follow orders/respect rule of law, or do what's right?), and it occurred to me that western values are so idealistic on the matter that "good" is almost always chosen, and a character who believes the law is the greater good is usually painted as morally dubious and hypocritical. tvtropes points out that in the parallel "to be chaotic or good" dilemmas protagonists almost always choose chaotic. i guess that makes sense from the point of view of fiction as wish fulfillment, and the ideal world for an american is one where they can do whatever they want without consequences.

psycho-pass is a really good example of media where this does not happen. anime in general tends to be more respectful of "lawful" values, sometimes to excess from my own western point of view (too many anime i've seen, workplace abuse is "dealt" with by learning to work harder). but urobuchi at least has a nice concept of what a balance can look like. (spoilers below, of course).

akane tsunemori is the most lawful good character to ever lawful good. she has constant positive intentions, cares for everyone in her society, and does so by enforcing and interpreting the law - and would not have it any other way. there's an amazing quote from her near the end of s1 (i have not seen the later seasons):

"People have always detested evil and sought out a righteous way of living. Their feelings, the accumulation of those peoples feelings are the law. They’re neither the provisions, nor the system. They’re the fragile and irreplaceable feelings that everyone carries in their hearts."

when faced with "to be lawful or good", she never once gives up on the law, no matter what. she has at least two chances to kill a dangerous villain outright and rejects both as being against orders; when the law itself tries to ensnare someone she loves, she finds a way out by following the rules instead of just breaking them like any other hero would.

dungeons and dragons kind of threw the alignment system at players and told them "you, there, interpret this". it's difficult and a lot to ask. from the little experience i have with it, most players only care about good/neutral/evil, and as for law vs. chaos they're just treated like different flavors of ice cream. it's far more compelling to treat them as equally important - a lawful good character and a chaotic good character are as far apart, morally, as a lawful good and a lawful evil one.

psycho-pass s1 doesn't have a chaotic good character. the closest it gets is kagari, who could perhaps be called chaotic neutral (though i have trouble calling any literal cop chaotic, he was essentially forced into the role). but it does have a fantastic example of a chaotic vs. lawful conflict, just on the evil side - makishima vs. sibyl.

i think where i wanted to go with this is that part of maturity is learning that two people, or groups of people, who are fighting, may very well both be righteous, and talking it out is often not a solution. i think most modern politics is like this, but that's just my feeling. there are some fairly evil people around, to be sure, but the vast majority of people are not - and recognizing that those different from you are in some ways righteous, and that you yourself are in some ways capable of evil - is really a critical sort of humility.

i might be a little too thrilled with myself for having realized this so early - i was the only kid in my class who liked "lord of the flies", and i still do like it. tumblr used to really have a thing about hating it back when the audience on this website had an average age of 16. i hope those people who insisted "but i'd never have grown up to do anything bad" have learned better since. but looking at how many older people (including apparently most writers) haven't gotten the memo, i'm not too sure.

[miradelletarot]

You know another irl job that would work for Gale aside professor? Detective. I don't know, something about that really suits him. If you want to share how you would picture it then please share!

Have a good day!

I had to give this some thought honestly, and at first, I was inclined to disagree simply because of his alignment (According to the Gale Dekarios Wiki, the game says he's true neutral).

Just in case, spoilers for Gale's storyline are ahead.

Mira's Maunderings: I DISAGREE with him being true neutral because his in-game interactions point to him being a more neutral good character alignment. Depending on how you play him, however, you could possibly sway him, but he needs A LOT of convincing (Persuasion checks) to do stuff that isn't inherently *good*. If we are talking about God!Gale though, he is most certainly true neutral because he simply doesn't interfere. He merely exists, and as long as one has the drive and ambition to do what they set their hearts out to do, he supports it regardless of whether or not they are good or evil (yet he still does not get involved because that's not what he does or wants to do.)

One could argue that is desperate times, he is willing to do something morally grey, but that's where the neutrality comes in. But that's a whole long ass topic I really don't wanna dive into rn (b/c I'm lazy and tired, and honestly, it's been discussed by others before and far more eloquently than I could ever convey).

So, *IF* we are to throw the canon alignment out the window and go by the assumption that he's neutral good, I think him being a detective would be a solid choice. Why? Because deep down, he's a good person, and just wants to see people happy and safe. Knowing he could play a part in that goal would fill him with satisfaction and even validation. I see the "morally grey" neutrality coming into play when it comes to matters of lawfulness.

Let's say, in a situation where there was a victim who endured a horrific crime (I'm talking some dark shit that i won't outline...use your imaginations,) and the criminal was caught (and it was known beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person was, indeed, the criminal,) Gale would be inclined to 'turn the other cheek' if it meant justice for that person would be served better outside of the legal system. A little tweak of paperwork here and there and make it look like a freak accident or literally anything else. Perhaps enough to raise an eyebrow of suspicion from his colleagues, but not enough for them to care otherwise because at the end of the day, justice was served. (This is only one example, but hopefully you see what I am going for here).

If he were lawful neutral the extent of his lawful nature wouldn't necessarily be good. it could be, but it could also be evil. If he were lawful good, that criminal would be caught and sent to face justice "the correct" way, and be hauled off to jail for the legal system to deal with as the laws of the land intended. Whether or not true justice for the victim(s) actually gets served wouldn't be up to him to decide.

If we look at Gale as true neutral (as is canon,) I really think this could have the capacity to take him down the road of "dirty cop" material. (arguably, so could lawful neutral, but i'm going with his canon stuff rn so go with me on this journey if you would.)

A true neutral detective Gale would likely be someone who is so disenfranchised with his profession, and would probably quit if it didn't afford him some liberties that a badge comes with. Maybe he was good once, and truly believed in the system at large. Over time, just becomes jaded, perhaps overworked, and under appreciated for his efforts. But, he'd have a pension, and stability. It's sensible, albeit a little dangerous at times. Still, it's not a pleasant lifestyle. Perhaps he's alone, just barely above paycheck to paycheck. Maybe he's suffered from permanent compassion fatigue among other things. He becomes more aloof.

I think if an opportunity opened up to him for him to get in on something a bit nefarious, or he accidentally got swept up in a case that now he simply knows too much, he might hate it at first. Hate himself for what he's become, but logically, he knows there's no way out of it that doesn't end his life with a period. (if you know what I mean). Then again, he could decide to take a position of power because he thinks he can do better and get corrupted in the process.

Imho, this is kinda how we end up with God!Gale because he is so done with gods and their ways. How they meddle with people and use them as play things.

His superiors and the local government play bureaucratic games instead of focusing on actually helping people, or making their jobs better. He grows tired of it, just as in-game Gale grows tired of the Gods, and decides to take matters into his own hands thinking he can do better. In the end, he would be no better than them (if not arguably worse).

idk, i went on a huge alignment tangent, and i fear i didn't totally answer your question, but this is what my brain did to me since you sent this, Anon so...suffer with me lmao.

Thanks for this ask though! This was a fun consideration, and of course if anyone has anything to add please share your thoughts! I'd love to hear them!

[bumblingest-bee]

Out of all assassins from titular musical who do you think is the "most sympathetic" and the "most worst"?

oooh that's a really really good question. setting aside personal opinion for the moment (i'll get to it promise!), one thing i find interesting about assassins is that it doesn't necessarily ask us to sympathize with the characters, but just to consider them as they're presented to us and sit with whatever conclusions we draw from that on our own.

that being said the show does present some as more sympathetic than others imo. (there's no such thing as an unbiased narrative, no matter how hard you try!) for example czolgosz is never directly condemned by the balladeer unlike, say, booth (kind of balancing the audience's immediate resistance to a character like booth). it also neutralizes oswald quite a bit by taking away his agency in the actual assassination, which i think is a very intentional way to let the audience relate to him in that final scene.

anyways! so who do i think is the most/least sympathetic in the show? i'd say the "worst" is booth because he's purely ideologically motivated by hatred. aside from whether you think he was mentally ill in real life, as a character he's presented as sane, if a little unhinged. someone like guiteau, who's obviously not in his right mind, can be pitied. but booth? he's calculated and manipulative and even aside from the assassination he spends most of the show being a total asshole. (but he's very very entertaining while doing it lol)

as for my most sympathetic? lynette squeaky fromme. no, seriously.

because the thing about assassins, as i mentioned earlier, is that we as the audience aren't necessarily meant to make moral judgements. we're meant to consider the assassins as people like us.

if i was taking "sympathetic" to mean the most morally justifiable, or if we were talking in terms of real life rather than fiction, i'd say czolgosz (or even one of the assassins who was obviously mentally ill and unable to make moral decisions). but the point of assassins is not to morally justify the characters. it's to see ourselves in the characters. and that's meant to scare us.

i see myself in squeaky. i feel for her! even though she's largely a comic character, she's a poignant one. she's desperately lonely and insecure. at her core, she's still a frightened teenage girl who wants above all things to be loved. that's what i sympathize with. but she's willing to do awful things to get that love. and that's what scares me.

the great thing about assassins is it doesn't force you to sympathize with these people, but it gives you permission to. it can show you the parts of yourself that you don't normally want to look at, and that's a powerful thing to see if you let it.

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

cw: mentions of fatphobia, body image issues, gendered beauty standards

hey sex witch! love and appreciate your sex ed posts and the resources you've shared. i noticed that you've answered some asks about becoming more comfortable with expressing sexual attraction, and finding ways to see yourself as desirable -- i was wondering if you had any similar thoughts about becoming more comfortable with other people expressing attraction to you, especially verbally. it's something i'd really like to start enjoying in a casual way (i'm more okay with it within a long-term relationship or a kink dynamic, partly because it's something i can negotiate), but it's pretty consistently something that feels "off" for me and kills my interest. i don't want to react that way! i actively want to enjoy it, especially with people i otherwise like and connect with, and i feel like i might enjoy it a lot someday if the circumstances were right or if i changed my mindset/framing. plus, i know that i really like complimenting people i'm attracted to (if i know that they like it and i know what it means to them), and i'd like that to be a mutual thing.

to be clear, i haven't experienced sexual trauma, i'm nondysphoric (transmasc), and i'd say that i really like my appearance (in a nonsexual/aesthetic sense), so i think i can rule out a few of the common reasons that people feel this way. others have suggested that i might be aspec/demisexual when i've talked about my experiences, but i've gone through that particular questioning process before (and identified as aroace/"not interested" for most of my life), and i feel like it's probably something else.

i think a significant part of the problem is that when people have flirted with me/said that i'm physically attractive, they've usually referenced beauty standards that i'm both very opposed to and which are at odds with my sexuality and what i see as beautiful. i'm a guy who's always been viewed as thin and as having a "conventionally androgynous" (?) body type, and i've generally been attracted to people with body types and/or presentations that are noticeably different from mine -- that includes feminine-presenting people, fat and chubby people, and trans and gnc people who present in ways that combine masculinity and femininity. i've pretty much never been attracted to men who look like me. but when people compliment me on my appearance, they often compliment my body type or size directly or indirectly, and i feel like there's a certain undertone of "i'm labeling you as attractive because you don't look like Those People." i don't want to be around that attitude, and i don't find it flattering or "nice."

i generally wouldn't want to assume that a person who uses these compliments actually has extremely normative views on sex, is fatphobic, etc., and i believe that attraction is morally neutral no matter what your "type" is. it's not like i don't have specific preferences myself, though i probably have some biases that i'm not yet aware of. the whole idea of people being attracted to you because of aspects of your appearance that you didn't choose is...inherently messy, i think. i also know that in most cases, i can just leave, or ask people not to talk about me in these terms. but i still find the whole thing alienating and off-putting, to such an extent that i feel disconnected from most discussions and portrayals of sexuality, especially re: attraction to men. and that's on top of having to deal with the very common assumption that it's a universal experience for women and trans people to hate their bodies and want certain types of validation (but that's kind of a separate issue that i won't get into here).

do you have any thoughts on how to navigate this? i feel like i might be missing something important, but maybe i just need to understand and accept what doesn't work for me.

thanks!

hi anon,

I hate to be so brief when you've presented me with a veritable novella, but listen: you've already answered your own question here.

if I'm reading this right sounds like what you're experiencing isn't an issue of disliking compliments because you lack self esteem, but disliking compliments that are focusing on your body in ways that you don't enjoy. the problem in this scenario really isn't on your end. no matter how well-meaning people might be, you're not under any obligation to make yourself enjoy compliments that make you uneasy, and I'm certainly not going to be the person who tries to tell you how considering I operate my own life almost entirely around the notion that if it sucks, one must hit da bricks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

you already said it yourself: if you don't like the way someone talks to you, especially if they're someone you'd like to continue having a relationship and building rapport with, the best move is to ask them not to talk about you that way. (if they're someone you'll never see again and don't give a shit about, by all means just blow it off.) if they're not cool with that boundary, awesome! you've learned something very important about them and can terminate that potential relationship immediately.

[hyperlexichypatia]

what are your thoughts on the people pushing the idea of things like social anxiety is some form of "narcissim" or individualistic way of thinking?

Fair warning, this might be rambling...

My first thought is that we should just abolish the term "narcissism." It's too tainted. Originally it just meant selfishness or self-centeredness, but now it's completely tied in to the psychiatric meaning, which is just constructed as "ontological bad person disorder."

I have heard (a lot) the idea that being socially anxious is "selfish" because it's thinking that other people are thinking about you, when in reality, no one is thinking about you at all.

I think this is flawed in a few ways.

First of all, people can't help how they feel, so an emotion, like anxiety, is inherently morally neutral.

Second, sometimes "Nobody is actually paying attention to you, and thinking they are is just self-centeredness" is... false. Sometimes people actually are paying attention to you! Especially if you visibly look "different" somehow!

And it's just denying reality to insist that's not true.

Third, even if being anxious about how other people see you is "individualistic" or "thinking about yourself"... so what? You are yourself. You are an individual. What else should you be?

I think most people really don't think critically enough about exactly when, how, why, and under what circumstances "selfishness" is a moral problem.

Selfishness is a moral problem when you're prioritizing yourself at the expense of others. Like, thinking of yourself as better or "more deserving" than others, or not fulfilling your responsibilities toward others, or monopolizing resources needed by others.

Having your own thoughts, feelings, individuality, interiority, or subjective reality isn't inherently "selfish" in a moral sense as long as these things don't harm others.

If you feel anxious, your emotional state isn't inherently harming others -- it isn't inherently "selfish" in a bad way -- unless you choose to make your anxiety someone else's problem or use it to take away someone else's rights. And in that case, the moral problem isn't your emotion, it's your actions.

Feeling social anxiety doesn't inherently harm others, so what does it matter if you're thinking about yourself?

The thing is, the kind of virtue ethics that concludes "thinking about yourself (even if it isn't at anyone else's expense and causes no harm to others) is inherently wrong, because it's the wrong kind of thinking" is every bit as selfish as social anxiety supposedly is! It's still locating the focus on the self, only, in this case, "the self" as something to be policed for Bad Self-Thought.

In sum: You're not somehow doing something wrong by being anxious. If it's wrong to focus on your thoughts and feelings, consider that the people trying to police your thoughts and feelings are also focusing on your thoughts and feelings, but with less justification, because they're not you.

[utilitycaster]

Regarding your tags: do you mind elaborating on the Rumblecusp thing? I caught up to streams during the Aeor arc and didn't really see fandom stuff earlier, so I'm a bit curious what you meant by that? Thanks in advance!

(in reference to this post)

Not at all! Basically, during the Rumblecusp arc, there was a lot of back and forth of who was Ackshually Supportive of Jester And Her Choices, and, with the admission that I myself am not a neutral person in these discussions, they all conveniently aligned with the decisions of the character they most shipped with Jester:

Caleb generally let her do whatever and stayed out of it, which was interpreted by people who shipped him and Jester as him supporting her (because he lets her do whatever), but leaves out the context of Caleb's whole canonical deal of feeling he cannot judge other people or tell them what to do in their own personal matters because he feels he has no moral position to do so; ie, this is not explicit support of Jester but rather how Caleb interacts with basically anything in which he is not directly involved. Do note also: Caleb tries but fails to have Cat's Claw grab Jester when she holds on to Artagan; there is, clearly, a point where he will oppose her choices.

Beau was pretty against Artagan the entire time. Honestly I think Beau punching him was very funny and she did, to her credit, ask permission first, but anyway, this was interpreted as Beau protecting Jester from The Traveler's malice. And, to be clear, he did bring them to Memory Loss Island on purpose, and while he promised Jester he'd have helped her, it's fair to have concerns about that. But Beau - understandably, since she frankly doesn't have good relationships that date back to early childhood the way Jester does - never quite seems to grasp how important Artagan is to her, and that you can be frustrated with him (hell, Jester is) and worried about Jester while still acknowledging that cutting off Artagan entirely will never be on the table. (Given Beau's mechanics, she is unable really to interfere with Jester being pulled up into the sky so I can't judge her on that).

Fjord ends up in the middle. Jester specifically seeks out his opinion, and he essentially says "look, we will support you as long as you're not being forced to change yourself to suit Artagan." He and Beau also agree to intervene with the Traveler as needed. When Jester is being taken, he goes up there with her and tells her to please let go and that the party will catch her. Eventually, Artagan takes the choice away and kicks Jester (and Fjord) off.

Now for what it's worth, I do think talking through these three approaches is interesting! All three characters are, canonically, people who care about Jester and harbor romantic feelings, and all three are approaching this in real and interesting ways consistent with their characterization. The reason why the discussion was eyerollingly stupid to me is not that it existed; it was that first, it really only centered around those three and either ignored or excused non-romantic faves (Caduceus is very suspicious of Artagan and the judgiest man to ever exist (affectionate), but people arguing in favor of Caleb's laissez-faire attitude who liked Caduceus often gave Cad's judgment a pass while calling Fjord and Beau awful. They also largely ignored Yasha and Veth, who both had imo approaches not dissimilar to Fjord's, though more subtly borne out in that they did not explicitly talk to her about it.)

Second, and more obviously, it was all "what does Jester want" until she decided she wanted to kiss someone they didn't want her to, and then suddenly she's a dumb bitch and her choices are bad, so, you know, was it ever about respecting her choices, or was it a constantly shifting goalpost of what supports the ship. (sidebar: if the goalpost is constantly shifting for your ship? does not bode well for the ship, typically.)

Anyway the two points I'm getting at here are:

I think you can love someone unconditionally in that you care about them as a person regardless of what they do, but that doesn't mean you can't judge them or encourage them to make different choices. It's like a twist on the old saying: if your friend jumped off a bridge, would you follow them? Except it's "if your friend was going to jump off a bridge, and it was their choice, would you stop them?" or "If your friend were going to push a ton of innocent people off a bridge, would you stop them?" There is a difference between "I want you to have agency in your life and be happy" and "I'd rather let you destroy yourself or others than push back even a little on your choices". There's something selfish, in being so scared to lose someone before the fact that you risk losing them far more permanently; and something deeper and more selfless in saying "I love you so much that I'd rather you hate me and live, than that you die or commit atrocities." Like, you should be there for them, but you don't need to validate things you believe are harmful just to support them.

The core principle of literary analysis is basically "any interpretation is valid provided it is evidenced by the text." You can watch through the lenses of shipping goggles and enjoy yourself; but often those are not supported by the text. And that's fine! I know I tend to sound condescending towards this and I will admit it's because I see absolutely no appeal in it, but if you want blorbo 1 and blorbo 2 to kiss and want to watch a show that seems to be driving to that end point regardless of canon, then that is your right and I am not going to stop you. However, no one else is under any obligation to find validity, let alone agree with that interpretation. Indeed, just as it's valid for you to watch with shipping goggles, it's valid for other people to vocally disagree (provided they're not harassing you and are doing so in a place you can choose to block out), particularly if it outright conflicts with canon or is hypocritical in the context of your other interpretations.