#morality and your obligations to other people

[jukashi]

"What, you think Sonic's a cop?" is a pretty good succinct way to sum up the question of Sonic's morality and responsibility, I think. See, Sonic has always been kind of an asshole. This is a guy who, way back when, only made friends with Tails because Tails figured out how to kinda keep up with him. I know it wasn't intentional, but since most media even now goes with it, it kinda says something that Sonic didn't have any friends before that, either, and most of his friends in the games can also Go reasonably Fast.

So, right down, deep at the core of his character, Sonic Likes His Freedom. I think that's the thing that, if you changed it, he wouldn't be Sonic. All his values are extensions of that - he helps people because he likes them to have their freedom, too. Like, he literally breaks animals free from robots when he defeats them? That's a distinct element of Sonic's games specifically, that's a statement, right there. Eggman represents absolute subjugation under one man's will and whims, an as such he and Sonic are like, ontologically enemies, narratively.

So, Sonic's morality and motivations are based mostly on being a freedom maximizer. The consequence of this is that he doesn't take responsibility for jack shit. He saves you from being killed or subjugated but then that's it, buddy, you're on your own. He's not a leader, he's not making any commitments. Do you think he has some duty to you? An obligation? Sounds like not-freedom to me, pal. You think Sonic wants to become the police?

You think Sonic's a cop?

So, when they want to give Sonic some conflict that actually makes him feel conflicted, and it's not some smaller scale thing like two friends falling out or something like that, then it's pretty much got to be about freedom vs. freedom. By sparing his enemies, Sonic is making a bet - risking long-term chance of great loss of freedom, if the threat returns and succeeds next time, or ensuring minimal risk but definitely reducing someone's freedom right now? Do you take the idealistic hopeful route or the cynical sensible one?

Do you take the higher, faster, riskier route through the level, or the lower, slower, certain one? What do you think?

But the idealistic, hopeful route is also the self-centered one. He wants to take the gamble that he can get the theoretical best option. That risk is being taken with other people's lives.

This isn't a terribly new idea. How many idealistic hero characters go "no I refuse the dilemma I will take the long shot to save everyone!"? But it's not so common to actually interrogate its drawbacks properly, inside a story that's overall generally aligned with that sentiment, so I appreciate it. I think part of the reason they can do that, with Sonic, is because he's been established as kind of an asshole. Other idealistic heroes, drawing attention to that would kind of break things down - if they really took it in, then most idealistic characters would actually have to go with the sensible option or come off as assholes. With Sonic, he already is one, so they can put it in front of him, really rotate it in everyone's view, and still have the reasonable possibility that Sonic can just say 'yeah well I'm still gonna do it my own way'.

That or it's just that Sonic is a long-running media franchise, and someone would have had to run into this idea for story material sooner or later.

There's definitely been more Sonic stuff in recent years that's shown him from an outside perspective, and consistently the conclusion seems to be "hey. this guy's kind of an asshole"

like. bro just doesn't care

sonic there are tears in her eyes you can't be acting like this

[chaifootsteps]

i should've mentioned it when we were talking about tuca and bertie and them doing things right, but the arc bertie goes through with her SA and reclaiming it thru taboo fantasies is very similar to what ive been through, right down to a therapist opening me up to this new side of sexuality, and while it all happened to me years prior to the arc happening in the show, it broke me out of my anti shipper mentality that gave me this sense of justice and rigid rightness in what i was doing.

just thought now would be a good time to bring it up too because of the allegations against you and how what happened to max is basically the same thing that's happened to me. it's such an uncomfortable feeling to know someone who brought you into this world sees you like that, and having a fictional character similar to that person to self insert with in writing has helped far more then feeling disgusted with myself ever did or has, because i can stop anytime i want, or just get to a point where i move on completely from being able to gain anything from this personally. (which im leaning towards for now,) it's like bertie's therapist said, "because this time, you're in control."

i just wish antis could at least be more open to the idea that maybe, just maybe, shaming victims for coping this way isn't helpful, and that the lack of nuance implies shaming these uncontrollable fantasies (because you can't control your thoughts and like bertie's therapist said, "brains are weird!", although ive also heard the fear and arousal part of your brain is closely related which explains so many kinks to me tbh,) is the only form of healing and getting better, which it never will be. this kind of thing, of re-exploring your trauma thru fiction like this, definitely doesn't help certain people and that needs to be respected, but for anyone it does, they shouldn't just be written off as "normalizing their abuse", because im aware enough to keep this to myself, and to other people like me.

come talk to me about me "romanticizing" horrible things in fiction when you remember vivs shows have millions of views, and THATS why her writing like a fanfic author is bad - not because she inherently is one at heart. a large audience of adults should engage with these heavy topics, (and deserve to have them be written well, even if the stans swear they don't because nuh uh it's Da Best cuz mama viv made it,) not literal children. regardless of this unfortunate demographic that's naturally been formed and then unnaturally encouraged by the creator to line her pockets with their parents money, i think people have a moral obligation to tell a well written story about dark taboo subjects when they have such a large scale of production and connections like this, with some gray area in between, because theres some pieces of media that aren't as big as vivs creations or as small as fanfic writers (compared to other indie creations like video games or shows,) either, like mouthwash, or that one horror game with a sibling incest ending. that's what i mean when i said you aren't gonna make anyone want to fuck a lizard, but that vivs story's spread sentiment that would give 1970s victim blaming, "well, what was she wearing?" arguments a run for their money in how gross they are. i don't think max is gonna make anyone want to fuck their own dad either.

i hope this all makes sense! i think this is the most vulnerable ive ever been in your ask box. thank you for being someone who makes me feel strong enough to talk about this.

No, no, it makes perfect sense! Thanks for sharing your story, Anon...that was an incredibly vulnerable thing to talk about, and it couldn't have been easy.

I don't know if it's due to social media or what, but people have gotten really, really terrible at the concept of "I do my thing that works for me over here, you do your thing that works for you over there, and even though we don't understand each other, we mind our business about it." Like you said, it becomes a different conversation the more widespread and professional your piece of media is -- the same way that feeding 1,000 people a day is different than cooking for yourself -- but when we're talking about you and me and Max and all the randos on AO3? An appropriately tagged piece of work that makes a sharp distinction between fiction and reality is harmless.

What isn't harmless is telling someone that their intensely personal coping method is wrong and shameful and that they're a dangerous, evil person because it makes you uncomfortable, and that they're either a bad survivor or lying about being one.

Here's the scene from Tuca & Bertie, because it's so well done and always relevant.

[maniacalshen]

I beat Syberia - The World Before the other night. It's a beautiful game with a soundtrack that roots you in the world and draws you up and down with each emotional trough and crest of the story.

But some of the strongest emotions it created in me were directed at Olivia. Spoilers:

I want to talk about the phone call with Olivia in the middle of the game. Kate, conflicted and guilty and hurting, offered an olive branch to her old best friend by finally calling home. And Olivia took this opportunity…to berate her relentlessly. At best, this is a counterproductive thing to do with ANY prodigal friend or family member, whether their issue is drugs or a cult or chasing woolly mammoths across the Eurasian steppe. And we can't blame the bad reaction solely on Kate cold-calling late at night, because Olivia continued with this same shitty tone when Kate called again later.

Years earlier, Olivia helped ensure Kate felt unmoored from her ties to New York by stealing Kate's fiancé. It's admirable that Olivia cared for Kate's mother when she was ill, but Kate had no idea that was happening. She was incommunicado. Which was her prerogative, as an adult who didn't have a fiancé or dependents to be accountable to.

Olivia knew that Kate didn't find out about her own mother's illness or death for months after it was too late, because Nick Cantin informed her when he finally got that letter into the ILLEGAL SALT MINE where Kate was being WORKED TO DEATH by a mafia. Where her only friend (lover?) DIED.

Holy shit, Olivia, is that not punishment enough for everything? Kate's mom is already dead and buried; Kate is traumatized by illegal imprisonment and slavery; she was mourning her mom and Katyusha and Oscar; and she's wanted by the law at home. I doubt she even has her passport anymore, so there's no getting home without getting heavily scrutinized by authorities. Why the rush to get her on a plane at that point? Why the rush to pile on the guilt?

I'm not saying that working odd jobs under the table and wandering Europe and Asia on an extremely expired visa is a good life choice. Especially now that Kate is aware that her mother's estate needs to be dealt with. But it truly has nothing to do with Olivia. As the lifelong best friend and the fiancé, she and Dan should be the closest thing Kate has to family at home, but...well. (I'm not saying she and Dan should have waited forever if they truly belonged together, but they didn't exactly try, and even correct actions have consequences.)

Kate's parent falling ill unbeknownst to her was a risk of going incommunicado; the death without seeing her again a consequence of her choices and the choices of her captors. Separately, she owes Olivia for taking care of her mother, but that doesn't justify ripping into Kate on the phone. She didn't even tell Kate that Cantin was still after her, the poor bastard.

After all that, I do think it was terrible for Kate to tell Olivia she was coming home, only to immediately run off to Baltayar. But such is our beloved interpersonal disaster, Kate Walker. I'm sure she'll pay for that, too.

[qiu-yan]

also i just thought of things i wanted to add (sorry to reblog myself 😔)

criticism of jiang cheng wrt wei wuxian specifically usually comes down to critique of the following two choices:

jiang cheng not having yunmeng jiang stand by wei wuxian after wei wuxian broke the wen remnants out of the qiongqi pass labor camp, and instead having wei wuxian be formally expelled from yunmeng jiang.

jiang cheng leading the first siege of the burial mounds, which resulted in the deaths of wei wuxian and the wen remnants.

i do think the second one is jiang cheng's single greatest wrongdoing, so i won't try to defend it here. but, since the original post kind of folds these two criticisms into one chunk of commentary, i will comment on the first category.

first: in the original post, op states that "family supports family" and that family members should have "loyalty to each other;" op then criticizes jiang cheng's choice of (seemingly to me, based on context) not standing by wei wuxian, after the latter insisted on defending the wen remnants, as a breach of this familial obligation. however, to me, it seems a bit strange to claim that only jiang cheng is guilty of failing to be loyal to his family - when, as pallas says, having wei wuxian leave the yunmeng jiang sect was originally wei wuxian's idea, specifically because wei wuxian was unwilling to give up on the wen remnants. to recap, jiang cheng says "if you insist on protecting them, then i cannot protect you" - an accurate description of the limits of jiang cheng's political power at the moment - and in response, wei wuxian says "then cast me aside." wei wuxian himself said that he'd rather leave the jiang sect than give up on the wen remnants.

to put it more abstractly: suppose that A and B are family and are part of the same social unit, which needs work from both of them in order to rebuild from a recent disaster. one day, A says that they want to embark on a certain course of heroism in order to adhere to their moral principles. when B points out to A that A will not be able to do this without putting the entire family unit in danger, A insists on adhering to this moral venture and leaving the family unit to do so, even though B would rather A give up on the heroism and return to the family unit instead. and then, when A says they will leave, B accepts A's departure instead of trying to force A to stay.

in this case, who first violated the obligation for family to stay loyal to family? is it not disingenuous to say that only B violated this obligation, given that it was A who insisted on adhering to this course of action at all costs, even if it entailed leaving the family? we can very well argue that B failed their familial obligations by not insisting A stay in the family and pursue their moral venture at the same time (putting the entire family and social unit in danger and violating A's own wishes in the process), but has A not also failed their familial obligations by putting their moral venture above remaining tied to the family? in saying "i will do this no matter what, and if i cannot do this as part of your family, then i will leave your family," has A not put a different calling above their obligation to be loyal to family?

in choosing to not stand with wei wuxian after the latter insisted on protecting the wen remnants at all costs, jiang cheng put his duty to his people above his familial obligation to wei wuxian. and, in choosing to leave yunmeng jiang in order to protect the wen, rather than giving up on the wen to return to yunmeng jiang, wei wuxian put his moral obligation to the wen remnants above both his familial obligations to jiang cheng and his duties to the sect that raised him. both parties had some other obligation that they put above their familial bond with each other. it is incorrect to say that only one of the two abandoned their brotherhood.

two: jiang yanli. op says that jiang yanli "would have and even did [s]tand by Wei Wuxian even in her last moments." it is certainly true that jiang yanli dies shielding wei wuxian from harm, even though wei wuxian very much did kill her husband (not sure what "supposedly" is doing there, given that he very much did do the deed). however, as pallas says, it is also true that jiang yanli dies with highly mixed feelings. the text directly states that she is unable to say that she forgave him, yet also unable to say the opposite - therefore, to paint jiang yanli's feelings towards wei wuxian in her last moments as unilaterally loyal and supportive is a massive oversimplification. and, given that this female character's entire arc is already written more to enhance the male protagonist's story than for her own sake, the fact that her reasonably complex feelings are getting even further flattened for the sake of this male protagonist definitely makes me raise my eyebrows.

there is another point to consider, though, if one wishes to discuss jiang yanli in the context of "familial loyalty to wei wuxian." i won't get into how wei wuxian himself horrifically failed his own familial obligations towards jiang yanli, his shijie, by manslaughtering her beloved husband, as pallas has discussed that topic above already. instead, i think what we should discuss is how jiang yanli felt about wei wuxian's expulsion from yunmeng jiang.

jiang yanli knows about wei wuxian's expulsion from the yunmeng jiang sect. this is obviously true. it is most likely that jiang cheng conveyed a full and accurate description of events to her as soon as he returned from the burial mounds; however, even if he did not do so, she still would have seen the actual expulsion three days later.

jiang yanli cares deeply for both jiang cheng and wei wuxian, and considers them both to be her family.

not once in the text does jiang yanli ever say or even imply anything along the lines of "yunmeng jiang should not have expelled wei wuxian."

not once in the text does there ever seem to be any major friction between jiang cheng and jiang yanli on the topic of wei wuxian's expulsion from yunmeng jiang.

honestly, the fact that jiang yanli simply never offers any opinions about wei wuxian's expulsion is highly unusual, and is probably best explained doylistically by the fact that MXTX simply does not care that much about her female characters. from a watsonian point of view, however, the fact that jiang yanli never says anything opposing wei wuxian's expulsion, or even hints that she might disagree with that course of action, indicates to me that jiang yanli also thought that wei wuxian being expelled from yunmeng jiang was the best possible course of action.

why? because, if she did oppose this course of action, then - given jiang yanli's importance to this part of the plot - the story would have said so. and yet, the story does not. and the only other explanation for the text of MDZS not including any instance of jiang yanli opposing wei wuxian's expulsion - that her opposition happened entirely off-screen and we just Never Saw It, yet we're somehow meant to infer said opposition from her anyways - is so stupid that, were it really were the case, it would make MXTX a really bad writer.

therefore, jiang yanli really is not as diametrically opposed to jiang cheng as a lot of the discourse (not necessarily op's post) suggests. the two jiang siblings are not polar opposites; you can't unilaterally say that one of them is "the good one" (because she was nice to wei wuxian) and the other one is "the bad one" (because he was mean to wei wuxian). everything suggests that both jiang cheng and jiang yanli thought that wei wuxian being expelled from yunmeng jiang because he would not give up on the wen remnants was the best possible course of action.

thu, if jiang cheng is guilty because he did not have yunmeng jiang support wei wuxian and the wen remnants, then jiang yanli is also guilty. perhaps not guilty to the same degree, given that only one of them is the sect leader, but it still means that she condoned a course of action the accuser considers "incorrect." so, if the accuser is to blame jiang cheng, then they should logically also blame jiang yanli.

or you could blame neither of them. after all, in choosing to protect the wen remnants at all costs, even though doing so entails severing his ties to the jiang siblings and alienating the sect that jiang yanli is to marry into, wei wuxian is also failing his familial obligations to jiang yanli.

not the last of his failures towards jiang yanli either, as the rest of canon shows.

I love JC a lot I really do.

But I think the main reason he gets criticism for the wen situation with the Jin's and not others like NMJ and LXC for not supporting that idea because it's not about the morality.

It's about Wei Wuxian. It's about the family supports family or the loyalty to each other if you would.

Like sure he was a young sect leader with a lot of new responsibilities in the middle of the rest more mature with a good backing but there was also Jiang Yanli who would have and even did Stand by Wei Wuxian even in her last moments, even though she was married into the Jin's, even though WWX has supposedly just killed her husband and the father of her child.

But he failed where he failed okay.

He managed to protect something (the sect) but it cost him the last bit of his family.

He could have done something right, at least told Jin Ling the truth about his mother who died protecting her little brother instead of being his victim.

He had his reasons for what he did but it still doesn't make those actions any more likable.

[canisalbus]

I'm sorry but I just need to tell you I had a dream about ur little guys where they lived on the same street as me and one of them ended up feeling obligated to become my partner in crime bcus I was "too young" and the other got dragged in almost immediately to stealing shit and helping me drive to regular work and also killing people???? they were so dog people despite me being human ???? thanks for letting my dream borrow them can you please take them back

So the things the dogs deemed you too young for:

1. Stealing shit

2. Driving to regular work

3. Killing people

(?)

[kuuhaiyu]

i understand the need to take breaks and pace yourself so you aren't overwhelmed. it's important to take care of yourself so you can keep going in the good fight. i myself usually catch up on news about once a day when i feel equipped for it. that said:

you're just going to ignore palestine for the next three months?

account settings literally already has what youre looking for so if you're set on doing this just use this feature and don't complain to other people about the fact that theyre keeping their eyes on palestine

[uncanny-tranny]

Choosing not to recover is, frankly, a non-action and something neutral. While you can absolutely abuse people, choosing not to recover is not in and of itself an act of abuse, and sometimes it seems like people think that not recovering holds the same weight as abuse. While things like abuse are nuanced and dynamic, recovery is not a respite that prevents abuse from happening.

[unnonexistence]

i started doing climate data transcription on Zooniverse today & it's nice. i feel a certain kinship with these 1950s weather observatory scientists who were trying to use up their stack of preprinted-for-the-1940s observation sheets & had to keep crossing out the "4" in the year field. they were doing it until at least 1952

[snekdood]

i mean i should probably stop saying shit just to be mean

[chipjrwibignaturals]

i have a list of hermits in my Brain that are like. "i really enjoy what ive seen of you in social interactions and im interested but i can Not get my brain to latch to your solo stuff" and it fills me with vague Guilt every day <3

[splodey-goat]

This is all correct but I'm always sick of seeing it so if I may add 2 caveats

1: Your vote for president only counts like like 6 states (and your vote for congresspersons in not significantly more) so on behalf of everyone in every solid red state ever if you condescend to me for writing in a joke vote one more time you deserve to have your kidneys fail.

2: If the democrats lose the easiest lay-up election in history and you waste one molecule of oxygen blaming moral abstainers instead of the apparatus that cares about getting to continue it's genocides more than beating fascists at home then you get no highground to preach from both retroactively and in all arguments in the future. People KNOW what a difference their political leaders make, and they're making that decision anyway, to imply otherwise is to treat the average person as too stupid to make their own ethical and political decisions.

Voting is only a tactic. Not voting and threatening to withhold your vote is also a tactic. To continually press voting as a civic duty and an all-important part of political life is to perpetuate the myth that American "democracy" is set up to actually empower the average person and/or in any way a meaningful driver of change both of which are demonstrably untrue. Take that next step on your journey, you're disillusioned with the government stop being taken in by the means that government perpetuates itself.

[genderqueerpositivity]

I think that 2023 is a good time for many of us, and allies in particular, to practice again the dying art of minding our own fucking business when it comes to the identities and lives of other people.

You see someone from one of your classes in a public place with a different gender presentation/expression than they typically have? Mind your own business.

You discover that one of your coworkers is in a same gender relationship, but they aren't out at work? Not your place to share that information in the workplace.

You notice that your neighbor in a red state takes a road trip across state lines with their transgender child every 3-6 months? No you fucking didn't.

You overhear students in your classroom using a different name and different pronouns for one student than you are used to using? If you live in a state hostile to trans rights, pretend that you don't know anything about this and report nothing.

You suspect that an acquaintance of yours might be gay, but they deny it when asked directly? Leave them the fuck alone.

One of your friends refuses to publicly label their sexuality? Good for them, you aren't entitled to that information anyway.

Your sibling comes out to you as questioning, but isn't comfortable sharing that with your parents yet? Keep your fucking mouth shut.

Don't out people; coming out is a personal choice not a moral obligation. Don't demand personal information about other people's sexuality or sex lives. You aren't entitled to information about anyone's gender identity, assigned gender at birth, or transition.

Bring back privacy, allow people to have control over the information that is shared about them publicly; it might save their job, their housing, their parental rights and their child's safety, or even save lives.

[supportgaza]

Help Me Evacuate my Family from Gaza and Reunite with them in Ireland

Note: My main account (@mahmoudkhalafff) was unfortunately brought down.

In the midst of the chaos engulfing the region and the receding in media coverage, you might be misled to think the horrific war in Gaz*a has stopped. However, it breaks my heart to tell you that if anything, it only moves from bad to WORSE. Committing massacres against defenseless civilian families and children has become the ordinary instead of the horrific unordinary.

Unfortunately, the massacres and the mass destruction of our beloved Gaz*a have it into a pile of rubble and rendered the dreams and hopes of people as baseless, far-fetched, meaningless, and unrealistic daydreaming.

I was displaced with my big family five times in Gaz*a and escaped imminent death multiple times before I was evacuated to Ireland five months into the war and I can tell you from my firsthand experience that the situation in Gaz*a is beyond hellish. Can you even bear to imagine that Lifeless corpses of so many children are brought out from under the rubble of their bombed houses almost every day?!

I hate to admit that I never imagined I was this weak. I don’t have the courage or strength to bring the corpses of my future children from under the rubble in Gaza one day. I shudder and blood freezes in my veins when I imagine what could happen to my parents, brothers, sisters and their children while I am in a safe place too far away.

Therefore, I have the moral obligation to do everything in my power to secure a NORMAL, safe, and dignified life for them here. Please know exactly what you are contributing to by boosting my campaign. You are helping a Gaza family reunite in Ireland after their lives and dreams have been viciously crushed by the horrific war. And, sadly, the worst is yet to come!

After consulting the Irish Refugee Council and Doras in Ireland and Palestinian families who managed to reunite in Ireland, I know for certain that THERE IS HOPE!

Please do consider helping me save my family by donating, reblogging, and sharing.

Note: Vetted by:

1. @el-shab-hussein and @nabulsi # 151 on the spreadsheet of Vetted Gaza Fundraisers List]

2. @riding-with-the-wild-hunt Here .

Please consider boosting my campaign and help me reunite with my family in Ireland! <3

@riding-with-the-wild-hunt @ibtisams @vakarians-babe @90-ghost @sayruq @fairuzfan @sar-soor @fallahifag @humanvoicebox

@plomegranate @queerstudiesnatural @commissions4aid-international @nabulsi @stil-lindigo @soon-palestine @communistchilchuck @ghost-and-a-half @kyra45-helping-others @kyra45 @feluka @appsa @schoolhater @irhabiya @transmutationisms @ibtisams @malcriada @flower-tea-fairies

@baby-girl-aaron-dessner @dlxxv-vetted-donations @troythecatfish

@rebecca-levin-art @ana-bananya @vakarians-babe @mangocheesecakes

@lonniemachin @neechees @wolfertinger666

@vakarians-babe

@punkitt-is-here @dlxxv-vetted-donations

@dlxxvetted-donations2 @autismswagsummit @detectivehole

@orriculum @archerinventive @georgiansuggestion

@yourplayersaidwhat @stickyfrogs @dashcon-two

@aromanticofficial @historical-fashion-polls

@whipjack @ameliasom

[netscapenavigator-official]

I know this isn't gonna help anyone on the Luigi Mangione jury, but I feel like I see a lot of people throw around "Jury Nullification" without actually understanding the responsibility it entails.

Jury Nullification is NOT your explicit right. It is a legal gray area that rides on the back of your explicit rights. Specifically, a jury has the right to

Return any verdict it sees fit.

Not be punished for the verdict it selects.

Not have their verdict challenged or directed.

For these reasons, you (as a Juror) and the people (as a Jury) have the right to vote whichever way they see fit for whatever reason they may choose. That includes voting "Not Guilty" in a situation where the defendant has broken the law, but the circumstances or law, itself, require an alternative verdict.

However.

Just like you have the right to return whatever verdict you choose, a judge has the right to remove you from the jury if they feel you are being deceptive about your impartiality. The point of a trial is to be as neutral and impartial as possible. After all, a trial with biases is not a "fair" trial. Jurors who have prior knowledge and opinions about a case and its circumstances must be removed from the case and relieved of their jury duty. Jurors who intent to disregard the letters of the law in favor of opinion, morality, whatever, must also be relieved of their jury duty and replaced. Therefore, if you approach your fellow jurors and tell them about Jury Nullification and your plans to utilize it, someone may very well tell on you to the judge. It is then that judge's obligation to remove you from the jury and replace you with a more impartial juror (one that may not know about Jury Nullification). Therefore, if you openly support Jury Nullification in a court room, you can (and will) be removed from it.

So, even if it means hanging the jury with a non-unanimous vote, you cannot inform others about your intentions, and you cannot encourage others to utilize Jury Nullification, too. It sucks, but it's reality. Court rooms are very disapproving of Jury Nullification to the point that they have (wrongly) charged individuals with Contempt of Court for telling jurors about it. Lawyers are even forbidden from telling juries they can use this right, in the first place. That's how disliked this ability is. So one more time:

If you intend on actually utilizing Jury Nullification, you have to be completely silent about it. Period. You cannot inform your fellow jurors about it, and you cannot inform anybody in the court room about your plans to utilize it. That is it. That is how things work, and you have to tread lightly and carefully.

[lastoneout]

People LOVE pulling a "this [extremely common thing] never happens to anyone ever" at the weirdest time. People legit claim that my critiques of ecofacism and the problem with eugenics in the green movement are ragebait because they don't believe me when I say I am critiquing people whom I know irl and also it is not even remotely hard for me to find buckets of the type of person I'm talking about online if you actually take five seconds to LOOK.

People legit cannot comprehend that their experience of the world is not universal and it's so annoying.

that customer post is going to drive me to ritualistic cannibalism and its NOT going to be in a sexy way

[xcziel]

if you have to compose a thesis defense before giving your opinion on a song, and preface that by saying whether you like or dislike something is "the least of the discussion" then i'm sorry

you don't really care for the song and you are afraid to just *say that*

it's a pop song about sex

either you're gonna put it in your playlists or dance around to it or it's not your thing - it's not a binding personality test or resume entry

this new trend of listening to stuff because you feel obliged to out of some approach to moral purity or as some kind of "support" or whatever blows my mind

it's the "not reading fanfiction unless it is morally and politically correct" thing taken to the next level

like??????