#it's not a question of morality tho

[fortheloveofexy]

"andrew would be a rogue in dnd" "no he'd be a barbarian" "actually I think he'd be a fighter-" wrong, wrong. all of us, including me, were wrong.

he'd be a paladin. nobody else takes an oath more seriously than him.

[qiu-yan]

in order to say "wei wuxian is morally good," you must first define what it means to be morally good

though this is by no means exclusive to them, one logical fallacy i sometimes see wei wuxian stans make in their arguments is that they begin their analysis of wei wuxian as a character with the statement "wei wuxian is morally good."

so their argument becomes:

wei wuxian is morally good.

a morally good person would do XYZ.

therefore, wei wuxian would do XYZ.

alternatively, when they're objecting to someone else's argument about wei wuxian, their counterargument becomes:

this argument says that wei wuxian would do ABC.

a morally good person would not do ABC.

wei wuxian is morally good.

therefore, wei wuxian would not do ABC; the other person's argument is wrong.

while this is in fact a valid argument structure to use for other kinds of traits (ie. "brave," "doesn't think of the consequences," even something like "afraid of dogs"), this format of argument in fact cannot be used for a descriptor as vague as "morally good"--because, unlike the other traits, "morally good" is not precisely defined enough for the above argument structure to work.

"morally good" is not a character trait in the same way that "wants to defend the weak," "is angered by innocent people being harmed," and "does not fear consequences" are character traits, because what is considered "moral" can vary significantly from person to person. what a utilitarian considers to be moral, for example, diverges significantly from what a deontologist considers to be moral. if i were to say "wei wuxian is a morally good person," i have frankly said less about wei wuxian's personality and more about what i myself believe to be ethical.

thus, the reason why the above argument pretty much never works in the wild is that the depolyers in question rarely actually define what they mean by "morally good."

consider the case in which two different wei wuxian stans write on their blogs "wei wuxian is a good person." however, the first person follows a moral philosophy that centers courage in the face of certain failure, while the second person follows a moral philosophy that centers reason and pragmatism. thus, what the first person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who courageously chooses the correct path even when he is doomed to fail," while what the second person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is a reasonable and pragmatic person." these are no longer the same statement.

or consider the case in which the first stan follows a moral philosophy that centers agent-neutral harm reduction, while the second stan follows a moral philosophy that centers agent-relative reciprocity. in this case, what the first person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who helps others regardless of whether they've helped him before," while what the second person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who always repays kindnesses done unto him." again, these are no longer the same statement.

in general, if one wishes to argue that "blorbo is morally good," one must first specify what exactly they mean by "morally good," because not everyone follows the same definition of "morally good." many blorbo stans, however, don't actually do this. instead, they write their arguments as if their own definition of morality is already universal law; a reader can thus only reverse-engineer what the op believes to be morally good from their post. and this leads to no shortage of disagreements: two different blorbo enjoyers might find themselves in an argument over what they believe to be their blorbo's characterization, when in reality they are actually disagreeing over what it means to be ethical at all.

on the topic of disagreement, another fact that must be acknowledged is that wei wuxian himself is also a character with his own specific thoughts and feelings. wei wuxian is not an abstract paragon of righteousness whose definition of morality just so happens to perfectly match the reader's definition of morality; wei wuxian is a specific fictional character with his own specific thoughts as to what is right and what is wrong. and every reader has to accept that what wei wuxian considers to be right can in fact be gleaned from the text--and that what wei wuxian considers to be right will not always match what the reader considers to be right. wei wuxian might, in fact, disagree with you.

thus, if you want to make any sort of statement regarding wei wuxian's moral character (whether that be "he is morally good" or "he is morally bad") you in fact have to consider not just one, but four different questions:

what do you consider to be morally good? what moral framework and/or school of moral philosophy do you use to determine what is ethical?

how well do wei wuxian's actions adhere to what you personally consider to be morally good?

what does wei wuxian consider to be morally good? what moral framework and/or school of moral philosophy does he use to determine what is ethical?

how well do wei wuxian's actions adhere to what he himself considers to be morally good?

all of these are different questions! they cannot be conflated with each other.

to write a good analysis, you must accept that [what you consider to be morally good] will not always match [what wei wuxian considers to be morally good]. when such disagreements arise, rather than distort wei wuxian's character to match what you personally believe to be morally good, perhaps consider just allowing wei wuxian to disagree with you instead. even if he's doing something you honestly can't defend, maybe wei wuxian is still striving to live as best he can according to his own ideals, and it just so happens that his ideals do not match your ideals. you really should not distort wei wuxian's motives or beliefs just to make him more palatable to you, simply because you have wedded yourself to the idea that "wei wuxian must be morally good by my own standards."

closing thoughts: this isn't really exclusive to wei wuxian stans. i've seen all sorts of character stans in all sorts of fandoms make this same logical fallacy. i certainly think that some of the jiang cheng analyses i see from fellow jiang cheng stans are born less from an objective analysis of his character and moreso from the op's desire for his actions to align with their moral compass. but, out of all the characters in MDZS, it seems like people commit this logical fallacy when discussing wei wuxian specifically far more often than they do with any other character, save perhaps lan wangji.

[thatswhatsushesaid]

i think fandom spaces would become much more enjoyable across the board if people stopped flipping their pancakes over other fans enjoying characters that they don't like. or, god forbid, like them but in 'the wrong way.'

[larcenywrites]

oh no

[mickeym4ndy]

i’m gonna say it the shameless fandom sometimes has a weird obsession with making fans prove that they disapprove of their fav characters’ quote unquote bad actions as a way to prove their intelligence or something

[captainrufflebanger]

The tail is actually conscious and it wraps itself around Rio’s hand when Agatha’s are busy! Hope this helps :)

Anon I need you to know I spent all day wondering what in the hell this ask was pertaining to before finally remembered I was yelling in tags about Agatha's COAT tail last night😂 have quick sketch before I go make dinner

I've never drawn Agatha before forgive me

[haunted-xander]

MILI DROPPED ANOTHER BANGER WOOHOOOO Anyway it made me think of Nine so. yeah :)

+ as a bonus, the original sketch that I ended up completely scrapping bc the vibe didnt fit

[lara635kookie]

IF TWO EQUALS DON'T REPRODUCE HOW THE HELL ZAYNE AND XAVIER MADE THIS MF???????

[catkin-morgs-kookaburralover]

questioning sexuality is so exhausting

[yohankang]

btw i forgot to tell you but i passed one of my final exams partly because of designated survivor ahjdgjdfjd

[drh3nryj3kyll]

Haha, look at these losers [celebrities], why can't anyone famous be normal these days? When I'm famou- realises I'm a bad person

[qiu-yan]

wow this post got depressing really fast. sorry

if you think about it. if you were just some random no-name cultivator who somehow got invited to the phoenix mountain night-hunt, and you heard something about 1. hanguang-jun of the sterling reputation, 2. wei wuxian the demonic cultivator already flouting social norms, and 3. a forced kiss....which would you believe? that lan wangji forcibly kissed wei wuxian? or that wei wuxian forcibly kissed lan wangji?

depressing thoughts.

[karaspal]

who gave bro the haircut of a 10-year-old boy who is way too invested in football?

[faustiandevil]

//holds u gently as the realization sets in that we have fucked up big time//

@peterlorrefanpage I took my time answering this, because I am melting gomen

Okay, so I don’t post about OCs here really, but I guess as real life animation woman Hannah Barbara left the HB characters to me in her will (real, not clickbait) I can safely claim all Wacky Races characters as my own now. I mean they are kinda OCs now with the Boardwalk AU.

Anyway some background info: In an early concept for Perils of Penelope Pitstop Dick was supposed to be a bodyguard for Penny’s younger brother, Johnny (according to some sources anyway). I mean, yeah, sure he’s qualified for the job (softly shaking head, like no, he’s not, absolutely not), so notorious child-hater Dick Dastardly and matching him in stupid boyfriend Red Max would trust the unpredictable serial killer with the child. I do think Lil’ would be “decent” if he is in a good mood and can use the child as blackmail material. He would still teach that child some bad things, like where to stab someone to avoid the ribs and get straight to the heart, but as soon as that child doesn’t serve a purpose for him anymore… yeah, best to order a tiny coffin.

For the baby I used the Tom and Jerry Chuck Jones design.

[milkweedman]

The colors of the copper on blackberry dye seem to have shifted from maroon to a very rich milk chocolate brown--which I will hardly complain about, since that's a hard brown to get. I do hope I get something more permanently reddish/purplish with alum--that's what I'll try next. I'm just waiting for the 9 pounds of raw fleece to arrive.

Last night I carded a lot of that blackberry dyed fleece and then put it on the blending board with about half of the white (which was the previous distaff dressing) as a little stripe to one side. Idk, just curious how it'll turn out and seemed more interesting to spin that way. Carding first definitely helps with consistency--both colors were willowed first and put on the blending board, but only the brown was carded as well, and it is much easier to keep smooth and least kind of even.

The one improvement of this phone camera over my old one is that it has a timer setting, so I can actually show where my hands normally are (sometimes anyway). Fairly comfortable although my distaff hand is starting to cramp. Might just be one of those days or might be too heavy for me, but the shape at least is good.

You can probably see that the white is still all over the place, but the brown is pretty even, just with lumps still on occasion. Also, the new height of this spindle means it's perfect for lap spinning rather than impossible to lap spin with, so I'm very happy about that.

[bizarrescribblez]

If you think about it my metalocalypse insert is actually kind of Ramona Flowers coded (all I do is dye my hair and have 4 exes 3/4 are cool)