#moralist realist

[realihub]

Reference images made by Realicide's artist

[aceof-stars]

One thing I love about Miles Edgeworth is how realistic and practical he is, more than he is moralistic. As much as Miles cares about justice and doing what he thinks is right, he’s not fueled by belief the same way, for example, Phoenix is. And this is one of the things I feel like gets ignored or brushed aside when Miles's character is softened too much.

Both pre and post redemption, Miles puts a lot of emphasis on reality and the bottom line of what people can do in a situation.

In Turnabout Goodbyes, the first thing Edgeworth says in response to Phoenix asking him why he became a prosecutor instead of a defense attorney is: "… I couldn't let myself deny reality like you."

He also doesn't truly believe that every defendant he prosecutes is guilty, contrary to popular belief. In Turnabout Sisters, he says this: ""Innocent"…? How can we know that? The guilty will always lie, to avoid being found out. There's no way to tell who is guilty and who is innocent! All that I can hope to do is get every defendant declared "guilty"! So I make that my policy." Miles is disillusioned with finding the truth and trusting people that he settles for doing all he can hope to do.

And when you think about it, his motivation of finding the truth is an extension of his realism. After all, the truth is quite literally the most objective, realistic thing ever. In 1-3, after helping Phoenix convict Dee Vasquez, he says: "Will Powers was innocent. That he should be found so is only natural… not a miracle." The truth as a motivation is probably a grounding force for him.

When Miles comes back in Farewell My Turnabout, he calls out Phoenix's flawed motivations for becoming a defense attorney by offering realism: "We aren't some sort of heroes. We're only human, you and I. You want to "save someone"? That's something easier said than done, wouldn't you say? You are a defense lawyer. You can't run away from that. You can only fight. That's all you can do." Miles isn't saying Phoenix can't "save someone". Miles is saying that Phoenix shouldn't be so focused on saving someone that he forgets that his job as a defense attorney is only to fight for them.

Side note, I love the way Miles comforts people, he isn't exactly "nice" but he's incredibly kind. His blunt honesty digs at the heart of the matter, and he gives them an extra push because he respects them enough.

And then there's, possibly, my favorite Miles Edgeworth line: "It doesn't matter how many underhanded tricks a person uses… The truth will always find a way to make itself known. The only thing we can do is to fight with the knowledge we hold and everything we have. Erasing the paradoxes one by one… It's never easy… We claw and scratch for every inch. But we will always eventually reach that one single truth. This I promise you." This directly parallels the line he says in 1-2, and it makes me emotional every time I think about it.

The fact that Miles Edgeworth never lost his unwavering realism, in both quotes he acknowledges how untrustworthy people can be, but gained a new purpose.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Personality Traits

Raymond Cattell's Trait Theory

Warmth

LOW level of warmth: More likely to be Reserved – detached, critical, aloof, stiff

HIGH level of warmth: More likely to be Outgoing – warmhearted, easy-going, participating

Intellect

LOW: Less Intelligent – concrete-thinking

HIGH: More Intelligent – abstract-thinking, bright

Emotional Stability

LOW: Affected By Feelings – emotionally less stable, easily upset, changeable

HIGH: Emotionally Stable – mature, faces reality, calm

Aggressiveness

LOW: Humble – mild, easily led, docile, accommodating

HIGH: Assertive – aggressive, stubborn, competitive

Liveliness

LOW: Sober – taciturn, serious

HIGH: Happy-Go-Lucky – enthusiastic

Dutifulness

LOW: Expedient – disregards rules

HIGH: Conscientious – persistent, moralistic, staid

Social Assertiveness

LOW: Shy – timid, threat-sensitive

HIGH: Venturesome – uninhibited, socially bold

Sensitivity

LOW: Tough-Minded – self-reliant, realistic

HIGH: Tender-Minded – sensitive, clinging, overprotected

Paranoia

LOW: Trusting – accepting conditions

HIGH: Suspicious – hard to fool

Abstractness

LOW: Practical – “down-to-earth” concerns

HIGH: Imaginative – bohemian, absent-minded

Introversion

LOW: Forthright – unpretentious, genuine but socially clumsy

HIGH: Astute – polished, socially aware

Anxiety

LOW: Self-Assured – placid, secure, complacent, serene

HIGH: Apprehensive – self-reproaching, insecure, worrying, troubled

Open Mindedness

LOW: Conservative – respecting traditional ideas

HIGH: Experimenting – liberal, free-thinking

Independence

LOW: Group-Dependent – a “joiner” and sound follower

HIGH: Self-Sufficient – resourceful, prefers own decisions

Perfectionism

LOW: Undisciplined Self-Conflict – lax, follows own urges, careless of social rules

HIGH: Controlled – exacting will power, socially precise, compulsive

Tension

LOW: Relaxed – tranquil, unfrustrated, composed

HIGH: Tense – frustrated, driven, overwrought

Boiling Down the Traits

In order to scientifically establish a formal framework for understanding personality, Cattell used a statistical technique known as factor analysis.

He started out with a list of 4,500 adjectives that could describe people (taken from the English dictionary).

He then completed a laborious process of grouping these adjectives into 171 ‘clusters’, which were used in a series of studies where people rated others on the traits.

Over a period of several years, Cattell and his team of psychologists then used this data to boil down the set of traits to just 16.

These 16 traits were the smallest number of factors believed to meaningfully describe observable behaviour.

Sources: 1 2 ⚜ More: On Psychology ⚜ Writing Notes & References

[twinknote]

i just stumbled upon this video and it feels life changing enough that i'm not only going to try it out myself, but i'm also going to share a written summary here!

PROBLEM: routines are especially difficult for anyone who has fluctuating energy and motivation levels from day to day (this often includes people with ADHD, autism, mental illness, and disabilities)

SOLUTION: having three options for a routine according to your energy and motivation levels makes it easier to be consistent, even if you're not doing the exact same thing every day

THE METHOD:

(the video and this post uses a morning routine as an example, but this technique can be used for any kind of routine)

list all the things you would ideally like to accomplish on a perfect day. this is the list she includes in the video:

(imo this is a lot of things! your list might look different and that's ok!)

this is your IDEAL ROUTINE. personally, i'm going to call mine the two spoon routine because 1. 'ideal' sounds a bit moralistic to me and 2. she specifically says that this is NOT the routine you'll be doing the most often. this is the routine you'll do when you wake up feeling the most energized and motivated.

next, you're going to make a second version of this routine. think of how you feel on an average day and get rid of the things that you don't generally have the energy or motivation to do. this is her list:

this is your MOST-LIKELY ROUTINE. i'm going to call this my one spoon routine. this is the routine you'll probably do the most often. it's for days when you're not incredibly energetic or motivated, but you feel relatively decent.

next, you're going to make one last version of this routine. think of how you feel on a bad day and get rid of the things that you don't generally have the energy or motivation to do. this is her list:

this is your MINIMUM ROUTINE. i'm going to call this my no spoon routine. this is what you'll do when you wake up with no energy or motivation. she also says in the video that if your minimum routine is simply having a bowl of cereal to fuel yourself, that's perfectly okay and so much better than not getting out of bed for hours and/or leaving the house without eating.

remember to be realistic about what you'll have the ability to accomplish for each of these! you can always add more things in the future, but starting off with too intimidating/strenuous of a routine will prevent you from being successful.

[lilith-vodkaaunt-of-demons]

I just finished watching Encanto for the umpteenth time, and I have to say, I'm really disappointed that it feels like every time someone talks about understanding or feeling empathy towards Abuela Madrigal that the conversation inevitably turns to people accusing the poster of abuse apologia. I understand why Abuela Madrigal behaved the way she did, that does not mean I condone it. I can feel empathy for a person and understand their behavior while simultaneously condemn them for said behavior.

And I feel like this ties in to this trend of "Media that portrays a negative behavior at all is just as bad as media that glorifies that behavior." Which itself ties into a trend of Anti-Intellectualism, because ultimately what the message becomes is "Anything or anyone who doesn't demonize or villify this Bad Thing to cartoonish proportions is Condoning it, because portraying Bad Thing in a realistic way leads to Understanding it, and once people Understand it, I'm no long allowed to treat people who have done or are that bad thing like they aren't people anymore."

Addiction, for example. As people come to understand that Addiction isn't a moralistic failure, but an actual chronic disease that can even be genetic, it's becoming less acceptable to treat people who suffer from Addiction as non-people anymore. And you can SEE people fight against it because they WANT a target they don't have to treat with the basic respect people deserve to be treated with. With the way some people act about Clean Needle Initiatives, or Narcan, or Fentynal Testing Strips, you can tell that what they really want is to continue to be able to treat someone like they're below them. But as people come to understand why people do the things they do, it becomes harder and harder to do that.

Which is to say, I empathize with Abuela Madrigal. I understand why she acted the way she did, but I don't condone it.

And personally, I think the movie did a great job subtle queuing up why she behaved that way. That every issue that the individual family members brought up that they were worried about was something Abuela also worried about. She had the same pressure to fix everything that Louisa did, the same pressure to be perfect like Isabella, the same responsibilities to make sure all the towns people were taken care of as Julieta, and the same requirements of keeping her emotions under control like Pepa. All of her kids and Grandkids were mirrors into what Abuela was also having to deal with all by herself, so yes, I understand why she acted that way, and I do empathize with her, but I also understand that her reactions to all of that were still wrong.

Even Mirabel, arguably most of all, was a reflection of Abuela. Mirabel was a reflection of Abuela's internalized feelings of Unworthiness. That she didn't deserve the miracle that she'd been given, and so when she saw someone who was not given a miracle, she dumped those feelings of unworthiness onto Mirabel. Mirabel was never going to be good enough because Abuela didn't think of herself as good enough, and she took it out on Mirabel.

I could actually break down how all the powers of the Madrigal Family find their roots in Control, which is the root of Abuela's inferiority complex, but I'll save that for another time if anyone is interested.

[maxdibert]

Hi! I’d love to know your thoughts on Jily. How do you see their relationship, especially if they had survived the war? Were they really the ideal, deeply romantic couple people imagine?

I read somewhere that James was such a romantic and would have had an incredibly loving relationship with Lily, partly because he supposedly engraved her initials into his Snitch or something like that (it’s been a while since I’ve read the books, so I can’t remember all the details).

Hi! That’s a great question, and I have a pretty nontraditional take on James and Lily as a couple. Personally, I’m not a fan of either character. James strikes me as a spoiled, classist kid who seems to “grow up” without really addressing his past behavior, and Lily ends up marrying someone who bullied others—even while hiding his ongoing behavior from her.

In my view, they’re likely to have stayed together not because of a deep, transformative romance, but because they each represented something valuable to the other. For James, marrying Lily (a Muggle-born) could’ve served as proof of his “progressive” ideals, though he acted far from progressive when it came to Severus. For Lily, coming from a working-class, Muggle background, James represented a social step up in the wizarding world, almost a confirmation of her worth in magical society. In this way, they sort of complemented each other’s needs, creating a partnership that worked more for their personal validations than as a traditional romance.

I also feel that they shared similar values—or perhaps, similar convenient double standards. Both of them seem somewhat moralistic, but they tend to lack empathy where it’s not useful to their own agendas. I’ve always seen them as somewhat hypocritical, which actually makes them a good match. They might have matured into a more functional relationship with time, but there’s also a part of me that thinks Lily might have been content with a comfortable life as a bourgeois housewife, living off her husband’s income rather than seeking independence.

So, in short, I don’t think they were the “ideal romantic couple” people might imagine. They’re more of a “realistic” couple—compatible but flawed, with a relationship built on mutual validation rather than pure romance.

[my-fancy-hat]

saying this again, the SA itself doesn't piss me off because i'm a moralist that can't take sensitive content in fiction (nothing wrong if it makes you uncomfortable), it's about how pointless this is. victims of sa aren't victims just one time, usually the abuser is someone close to your core-relationships and it'll prob happen again, but in csm the message came across already with fumiko and yoru in the alley, without counting himeno and makima in part 1. This thing has been happening for a long time without any progress. asa lost her capacity of thinking and doesn't show any important emotional impact by this past incident when she's a victim too. So again, what's the point if denji is getting harassed here and asa being used as a tool for his character writting tragedy without any mental consequences on her part, because we have to remember when yoru SA her she just cleaned her watery eyes and said she was too hungry for that. Just like denji, I want her to lay down and sob too, I want her to have a breakdown because the things she's been enduring specially the transgression of her body are not "light things" that can be calmed down realistically with just eating and dissociating. "It's realistic writting" yes it is, for denji only. does anyone remember asa in here rn?

[natalunasans]

@neil-gaiman @seananmcguire @dduane sorry but you’re the only famous people i know on here @shiraglassman

"The quickest path to a ceasefire is a unified international call for Hamas to surrender

Rallies by human rights and pro-Palestinian activists around the world have called for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Many of those rallying have only good intentions at heart: they seek no more harm to innocents. They seek to protect the children of Gaza, who have no responsibility for the crimes of members of their parents’ generation. They seek to mitigate the chances of an outbreak of a regional war that could cause further damage to even more innocents across Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt. They seek peace.

Seeing Israel as the stronger party, these well-intentioned activists have come to a simple conclusion: if only Israel stopped its military operations, a ceasefire would emerge. Hostages would eventually be returned. Lives would be saved. The problem is, as the leadership of the US and EU have already concluded, that is not realistic. In past wars with Hamas, Israel has ceased fire and increased economic development for Gaza. Each time, Hamas used the time and money they siphoned off to build weapons of war and aim those at both Israelis and the Palestinians who disagree with their theocratic dictatorship. Which is why the only way for the Left, us progressives, to live up to our morals and keep the high ground is to call for the immediate unconditional surrender of Hamas.

Calling for the unconditional surrender of Hamas would prove that the Left cares about children of all countries, without ascribing to a hierarchy of human life. It avoids the moralistic laziness of publicly funded intellectuals such as Nicholas Kristof, among others, who essentially argue that a person planning to shoot you or your children has the same right to life as his victims. It avoids the abdication of responsibility by progressive leaders who forgive the war crimes of the party dedicated to carrying them out.

Calling for the unconditional surrender of Hamas — as opposed to a ceasefire — is not only the right thing to do, morally, it is also the right thing to do, politically. As Hamas official Khaled Mashal told Saudi journalist Rasha Nabil, Hamas is depending on international pressure to stop Israel from destroying its military infrastructure so that it may live to fight another day.

Those who care deeply about protecting the lives of innocents need to think not just about today, but tomorrow."

...

"Postscript for those engaged in public diplomacy: How can you help the Left do the right thing?

Affirm: Instead of arguing with those who call for a ceasefire, agree with them that we need to end all violence, and call on them to do the right thing by joining in the call for Hamas to unconditionally surrender.

Strengthen: Many on the Left are already calling out Hamas’s atrocities. Strengthen their case by adding to their argument in moralistic terms. Do not seek to shame them for previous statements they may have made. People change.

Amplify: When you see someone calling on Hamas to unconditionally surrender, share that call. Without caveats. We can work out the details for how to achieve peace in the Middle East the day after the war is over. For now, let’s focus on what matters: an immediate ceasefire after the unconditional surrender of Hamas."

[juniesfairies]

The comparisons between Dolores Dei and Kim by having Kim be slightly dolorian is so intentional and driving me crazy like. Kim does not seem religious At All and doesn’t believe anything that isn’t based in reality so at first this really surprised me. Learning dolores was a real person and ruler made this understanding more clear, but what really got to me is how Kim is kind of Harry’s own personal dolores dei. Harry sees him with a halo present in religious iconography, he’s a perfect representative for the moralists and Moralintern in everything he does and stands for, likes the old RCM motto better, a shoe in for liberalism still benefiting from capitol. If Dora is also represented as Dolores, a physical manifestation of codependency, then I also believe that this applies to Kim. Harry sees those important to him, those he relies on. as impossibly tall and imposing, surrounded by light and beauty, while also recognizing they may also have beliefs and practices more befitting to a capitalist and internationalist delusion (thinking realistically unlike communism).

And Harry knows this. Of course about his past love, but I think this also applies to the lieutenant standing right next to him becoming more and more ecclesiastic the more time we spend in this church.

And what if all those Harry loves also had a fondness for figurines. I remember who was first yacking about francogerian knights…

[grimm-the-tiger]

Honest to God, Communalist's turn to the dark side is still one of my favorite moments in any piece of Internet media. They finally made a friend outside of the Anti-Realists, someone who understood them in a way the other Anti-Realists never could, and then one of them shows up, stabs Moralist in the back, and starts laughing about it, like it's some sort of joke. The death of their new friend at the hands of someone they thought was a friend utterly shatters their worldview, and they lose it.

CultCom is probably one of the most unsettling characters in a series where the main cast includes a murderhobo and the embodiment of the Party from 1984, and it's entirely due to how we saw what they were like before all of this went down. It's such a drastic shift, and yet it makes sense in context. Their ideology technically didn't even change, just their view of who deserves to live in their perfect society.

And then there's the fact that you can view the entire sequence from a metaphorical perspective, and it somehow makes it worse. Darwinist represents essentially a breakdown of society, where the strong prey on the weak and powerless, and a return to the "natural" order of things. Moralist represents morality, a largely human construct that is exceptionally fragile and prone to bending, and Communalist represents pure altruism. If you frame it like that, Darwinist killing Moralist comes off as not just him killing one of the few actually decent people in the series, but as human nature triumphing over morality, as it always does and as it always will. And then this corrupts altruism and turns it into tribalism (CultCom); the basic tenets of altruism are still there, helping others and being kind, but now it only applies to us, not them. They do not deserve that help, they do not deserve that kindness, because they are not us, and that makes them dangerous.

Fuuuuck, I miss Realicide.

[realihub]

All the introduction slides that Erin made, notably, the fringe compass ideologies never used their slides.

[evilsoup]

The main lessons to be drawn from the aaron bushnell suicide are that the american left is unfortunately too weak to carry out a realistic strategy that could act as an alternative pole of attraction to the mentally ill rather than pointless suicide, and that many on the american left are so intellectually bankrupt that they're unable to be honest about this and so instead resort to some stupid moralistic shit about martyrdom.

[queenvhagar]

The whole point of Fire and Blood is white supremacy. Viserys didn’t want Argon as king because his blood was not pure enough, he was of “Alicent blood”. So why, if they wanted a black and white moralistic show, they are on the side of white supremacy.

An important thing to recognize, that the writers and fans fail to see, is the fact that GRRM wrote the ASOIAF series as a subversion of common fantasy tropes. Good and just royals, chivalrous and honorable knights who protect the innocent, prophecies as a force for good, enlightened and benevolent magic race of beings, fairytale love stories and happily ever agrees, clear black and white stories of good vs evil... all of these things GRRM wrote to subvert in his books. Royals play their game of thrones and are concerned with their own power most of all, knights are not always good people or honorable and in fact are tools of an oppressive system, no race is inherently superior and believing this drives violence and destruction of those very people, people marry for duty and duty is the death of love, and there are no clear cut black and white conflicts in the real world, just complex and nuanced situations where both sides think they're right and do what it takes to reach their goals for their own reasons. This subversion of fantasy tropes and elements in favor of a realistic exploration of what the sociopolitics of those worlds would be is something that defines the ASOIAF series and sets it apart from the rest. The faithful adaptation of these books and maintenance of those subversions and the integrity of the underlying themes of the works is what made the early seasons of Game of Thrones such outstanding and praiseworthy television.

The writers of House of the Dragon do not see the truth of this. Instead, they have co-opted symbols of fantasy and other surface level elements present in the ASOIAF series and used them to construct a story more in-line with traditional fantasy stories. In their hands, the conflict is a black and white morality tale of good vs evil that presents a magical race of people as superior to others and presents prophecy as an uncritical force for good and justification for a devastating war. Sprinkled in are characteristic yet surface level shock value factors - like incest and extreme violence - that were present in Game of Thrones. Ironically, their writing is antithetical to the ASOIAF series and what GRRM set out to write with his stories. This is the fundamental issue with House of the Dragon and the ultimate failure of its adaptation.

Because the writers and fans have bought into an unsubverted fantasy story, they choose to support a race of people who believe themselves superior to all others and the violence they use to keep control of their subjects. The critical view of fantasy as a genre and stories set in medieval feudalism are entirely lost on them, beyond a surface level, modern viewpoint focusing on one isolated element of oppression that existed in those times. Because the story only focuses solely on the dimension of misogyny as a system of oppression and fails to acknowledge its intersection with other systems of oppression present - racism, classism, and ableism, namely, among others - it fails to fully explore the dimensions of power present in this society and therefore its politics feel limited and messages feel shallow. It's the focus on misogyny and setting aside of all other dimensions of oppression that firmly centers this show on a white feminist perspective, to its detriment.

All of this said, to the first part of your ask: I don't think that was really a reason for Viserys' decision to not make Aegon is heir. Even though it certainly is an instance of him othering his children by Alicent and viewing them as separate from Rhaenyra, he supports Rhaenyra as heir because she is his favorite child and the child of his first wife. The context of the line concerns when Alicent proposes a union between Aegon and Rhaenyra and Viserys dismisses the idea because he thinks her sole motivation is that she wants her own bloodline on the throne, which to be fair to Alicent is what anyone would want in her situation. It's not necessarily of him not having "pure" blood per se. If something like that was really an issue to him, he would have wed a Valyrian, and he did have the option to do just that; instead he married Alicent and has multiple children with her.

Aside from Viserys' wishes, Targaryen supremacy is absolutely linked to white supremacy. And so many choose not to see it in lieu of uncritically seeing Targaryens as actually belonging to a magical, exceptional, and superior race of humans. Their buy-in to this fantasy trope is in opposite to the actual intentions and goals of the original author.

[collapsedsquid]

WIth Putin's recent releases I see a fair number of re-discussion about how NATO provoked Russia by expanding close to it. Now leaving the validity of that aside, what they inevitably then do is talk about how evil NATO was or how NATO betrayed Russia for this and this pisses me off. It's a fucking realist argument that NATO expansion provoked Putin, to make a realist argument like that and then go on moralistic about how evil NATO is, it's fuckin annoying.

[aristocrating]

hot take: this fandom has a problem with glamorizing jack and kent's addictions

oh. OH. now THIS.

there is soooo much to be said about how jack's addiction is treated at large, as well as the implication that kent would probably have his own problems with addiction (which is complete fanon, but i think it's realistic to consider that)

i've seen this come in several flavors:

1) glossing over it entirely, where it's just ignored. if you write fanfic and you just adapt out the fact that jack is an addict because it's a sensitive subject for you or you have trouble handling it well, sure. more power to you. work with what you got. i will say that a LOT of people seem to not really grasp the ramifications of how addiction works, but neither does the comic so this one is just to be expected. just like, educate yourself. howEVER, i do think it's a real and important part of jack's character and just conveniently forgetting it or going "oh he's fine now, he just drinks at parties now" is WILD to me. not how it works. ask any person who's ever been personally affected by struggles with addiction. he would be dead. or hospital-bound. it's not fun, it's not cute. do your research.

2) the most insidious take i've seen (waaay too often): oh yes jack or kent has a problem with medication and alcohol, but he's not a REAL addict. yes it's bad but it's not like THOSE people. there will be a whole narrative about people calling him a cokehead because it's wrong, he never did any REAL drugs. he's one of the Good Ones. DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF? DO YOU FUCKING HEAR YOURSELF RIGHT NOW? keep your moralistic puritanical bullshit out of here. "jack would never do that! he would never do drugs!" okay, and what if he did? would you view him as less valuable as a character then? would you automatically dislike him more based on that fact alone? what do you think this implies about the way society treats people with addiction problems? why do you think people asign a hierarchy of moral value to what drugs someone consumes and who counts as a "real" addict? on my desk by monday. jfc.

3) and last but not least, glamorizing drug problems. it's a conglomeration of the previous two points i think, people don't know how to handle the issue of addiction well and also asign moral value to it. personally i think i've seen it come up especially in stories of pimms in juniors or kent's rookie year where he does drugs to cope. and let me just tell you. there is nothing fun or glamorous about it. addiction is taxing for everyone involved. it makes you feel like shit because you lose all sense of control and you also get judged for it from every side. it's a tiring process, it's sloggish and monotonous, you're trapped in cycles of frenzied rushes of substance abuse you can't enjoy, followed by excrutiating boredom that turns into an itch to consume again. it's uncomfortable. it's annoying. it makes you abandon all self-preservation you have because the pain of living becomes more and more unbearable all while your body tricks you into thinking there's only one thing that can alleviate it. and it's so easy to think portraying drugs as glamorous is somehow being supportive, but really you're just being condescending. and ignorant. the only reason i can think of why someone would want to glamorize this is if you're an addict yourself and you're using stories about addiction to cope. in that case, sure. do what you have to to get through it somehow. and everyone else, i implore you once again to think about why people asign moral value to addiction. what is to gain from it? who profits? who is exploited?

i understand struggling to portray addiction well. i understand not wanting to be confronted with it in fandom. i even understand being uncomfortable with it when being confronted with it, because it IS a scary subject. at the same time, i also wish more people understood what addiction is like and why it's important to handle it well in fiction and fandom.

this comic truly took the messiest possible route by introducing a character who explicitly suffered from an overdose and monitors his alcohol intake to... what exactly? what was the point of all that if it was going to be sweeped under the rug? why have a character who opens the door for such a big subject matter only for it to just not be relevant? i'm not saying the author had the intention of glamorizing addiction, but it does leave the unfortunate implication that jack only overdosed for a jab at an angsty plot line, the aesthetics of it, so i'm not surprised parts of the fandom would run with that.

one of the reasons i was drawn to jack's character is because i personally have experiences with alcoholism and addiction and i was surprised to see it come up in such a medium, and i was happy to have an in on the conversation. and it's sooo important to me that treating people with addiction as humans who are deserving of compassion becomes normalized and that the complexities and nuances of addiction are understood. unfort the comic did none of that though, so here we are /shrug

i think you're right and you should say it, 10/10 take, fucking educate yourself peeps

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥