#several victims

[kai-rio]

realised people might want this, so here!!

a beckory playlist me and my friend @justjanee made, with almost 900 songs (aiming for 1000)! mix of angst and fluff :)

[neuroticboyfriend]

as long as you're here, there is hope. as long as you're here, something can change. something can make you smile. something can give you peace. something can get better. as long as you're here, a better life is not impossible.

[tethered-heartstrings]

I listened to the audio at the end of aperitif and counted nine gunshot sounds, which means Will shot Hobbs once for every girl he victimized; 8 dead with Abigail as his ninth.

[misseyres]

something about me is that i’m a sucker for ships where both people are traumatized and they find love & build a good life anyway. despite despite despite etc.

[bonefall]

the worst parent poll made me realize just how many ppl in the fandom are willing to jump straight into abuse apologia. bc on one hand you have ppl dumbing down crow's abuse to "him just being mean" and on the other end you have ppl saying that curlfeather didnt abuse frostpaw because she sacrificed herself and frost + her siblings love her so she couldnt possibly be an abuser. truly mindboggling stuff take these serious topics away from the fandom asap.

Part of me feels like it's because many in this fandom have a feeling that if a character's actions are abusive, it means you're "not allowed" to like them. Like there's an impulse where if you liked a character, it MUST mean they weren't THAT bad, because you'd personally never like "an abuser."

As if it reflects poorly on your own morality, as a person, that you connected with An Abuser. Understood them, even. Even if it was just a character.

If it's immoral to Like Abusive Characters, of course your reaction is going to end up being abuse apologia. To enjoy something isn't logical, it's emotional, so you will get defensive about it when questioned. When you do, it's not going to be based on logic because you didn't reason yourself into that position in the first place. It's an attack on you as a person.

I feel like that's often the root of abuse apologia in this fandom, and sometimes the world at large; "If I admit that this character/person IS abusive, it means I was doing something bad by liking them, so I have to prove to everyone else that they weren't or it means I'm bad too."

And to that I say... That's a BAD impulse! Grow up and admit you resonated with a character that did a bad thing! If that's an uncomfortable thought, sit with it!

Sometimes abusers are likeable! They usually DO think they're justified in their actions, or doing it for "a good reason," or were just too preoccupied to care. MOST of the time, people who commit abusive actions are also hurt or traumatized in some way. You might even empathize with them. None of this means their actions have to be excused or downplayed.

"Abusers" aren't a type of goddamn yokai, they're people just like you and me. You don't help victims of abuse by putting the people who hurt us in an "untouchable" category.

In fact, all it does is make you less likely to recognize your own controlling behavior. You're capable of abuse. People you love are capable of it, too. People who love YOU can still hurt you.

In spite of how often people regurgitate "It's Ok To Like A Character As Long As You're Critical Of Their Actions," every day it is proven to me further and further that no one who says it actually understands what that means.

All that said; I think it's no contest which one's a worse parent, imo.

They both mistreated their children, but Curlfeather did it through manipulation without verbal or physical abuse. She politically groomed her into a position of power so that she could use her as a pawn. It can be argued if this counts as child abuse-- but it's firmly still under the broad category childhood maltreatment, which is damaging.

(though anon I'm with you 100% at seeing RED when "but she sacrificed herself" is used as an excuse. Curlfeather's death does NOT CHANGE what she did to Frostpaw in life. I think it's a valid point to bring up when comparing her to another terrible parent for judgement purposes, such as in the context of this poll, but I really hate the implication that redemption deaths "make up" for maltreatment.)

Crowfeather, meanwhile, is textually responsible for putting Breezepaw through verbal AND physical abuse, as well as child neglect. His motivations include embarrassment from a hurt ego, revenge on his ex, and being sad because of a dead girlfriend. This abuse drives Breezepelt towards radicalization in the Dark Forest.

You could argue Curlfeather is a worse person for Reedwhisker's murder, but as a parent? It's not even a question to me. Crowfeather's one of the worst dads in WC.

[bright-eyes-strawberry-lies]

I'm still amazed that Rick managed to get Nyx explicitly baby-trapping Nico through non-consensual means and then those children were monsters and are being raised by Nico through the Disney censors. Like. Wow. Unironically, bravo sir.

[mikeslawyer]

god i’m so SICK of how people switched up on gypsy rose, especially now that she’s pregnant. the amount of comments that say “hope her child does to her what she did to her mom”??? are we forgetting HER MOM tortured her for years, declared her mentally unstable so that she couldn’t tell anyone about the abuse?? (she tried going to the police but because she was mentally incompetent on paper, the police brought her back home). gypsy is going to be physically affected by the DECADES of this forever, her brain was affected by the medication too.

gypsy’s mom is literally suspected of killing her own mom, and gypsy was confined to a wheelchair by the end, very likely to be next.

also, disgusting how everyone was so supportive when she got out of jail but now that she’s not behaving like they want her to, suddenly everyone has conveniently forgotten that she wasn’t ‘not getting along with her mom’, she was mentally and physically abused almost to the brink of death for twenty years. disgusting.

everyone supports long term abuse victims until they’re not a perfect picture of imagination. when has the world become incapable of processing that humans have complex emotions & are complex themselves? do better.

[shaxza]

[elviraaxen]

I'm probably not the first to admit this but goddamn was I a narcissistic prick when I wasn't on stimulants

[katerinaaqu]

Calypso was bedding Odysseus against his will every night for 7 years.

A week has 7 days and there are about 4 weeks in a month. Every month has on average 30 days. Or there are 365 days in a year.

Add them up and you will realize that Odysseus was raped more than 2500 times.

Let that sink in!

[spicyraeman]

Yknow what? Nah imma do a mini rant anyway, I think its a GOOD THING that lae'zel is 'nicer' to you the higher your approval is.

Wanna know why? Cuz shes blunt and pragmatic and her morals are very different from those on faerun, but she's rarely ever mean to people who she respects and who respect her. Gale and Karlach come to mind specifically you vary rarely hear her snark at them, bc there's a level of respect between them. She an asshole to both Shadowheart and Astarion at first bc they're sneaky shit stirrers who constantly antagonize her, but even then later in the game (depending on how you play) she gains a level of respect for both of them.

Why would she be needlessly rude to a person she's on multiple occasions put her trust in and respects.

^ This ^ is line that people are getting so worked up about?? Its so neutral and military I don't know how anybody thinks that's somehow out of character?? You've gone so far down the "women should be allowed to be mean" route that you've forgotten that they should also be a multidimensional character

[bitchapalooza]

I relate to Sanji too much because it really does seem like he’s adopted the mentality that physical and mental abuse is a form of significant affection but only directed towards himself, like he sees it’s wrong and unjust when other people are being abused, but when he’s the victim he feels this conflicted sense of I deserve it and Wow they love me so much! It’s heartbreaking just to think about tbh

[yuesya]

Mechamaru is a sad character, even though his anger at Shiki, to me, is honestly misplaced and more like self-loathing, envy, and commiseration.

It’s honestly sad what happens to Mechamaru because he did get the short end of the stick when it comes to Heavenly Restriction, didn’t he? He only wanted to have a healthy body, and in canon, he got it.

But what did it cost, really?

Because in the end, Mechamaru did in some way betray the jujutsu sorcerers. He can tell himself that he was desperate and he had the right to try and better his life when no one else cared to or was able to help him. He was in a shitty situation and tried fixing it first chance that presented it, but it doesn’t erase the fact that he betrayed his comrades. He indirectly (?)aided in the tragedy that happened by facitilating information to the curses, which HELPED Kenjaku’s plans, and he died for it. Here, he’s alive to suffer the consequences of ill-fated choices.

He wasn’t wrong to want it. He’s wrong because ultimately, his actions were an act of betrayal.

He feels remorse for his betrayal. He feels guilty. He feels angry at Shiki, because his gamble failed and here she stood as a shining bastion of a “perfect” life.

Though as seen in here, Shiki probably doesn’t give a single fuck about Mechamaru’s feelings. Only that his betrayal put the jujutsu society - and in turn, her family and friends - in jeopardy and that it went against the rules that Shiki was following ONLY because her family and friends wanted her too. Her moral and logic is pretty skewed, after all. Her first reaction to him being turned into a monster is to render him immobile VIA limbs breaking which honestly is NOT the first thing people do, but it’s admittedly in a twisted way the most optimal way to subdue transfigurated!Mechamaru.

TBH wrong is wrong. Betrayal is betrayal. Mechamaru isn’t an innocent victim who tried saving himself. How many more people would die and did die in the jujutsu world because he aided the curses? How many people died in Liyue because here the curses tried getting rid of Shiki?

Which brings me to another point: Whether it was voluntary or not, because of his betrayal which fed the curses informations and had Shiki hunting after them, Mechamaru ended up as a tool in the ambush against Shiki. Mahito tried using him as a shield, but unfortunately for him and the curses, Shiki’s reasoning is far too settled in pragmatic reasoning and logic to a certain point, after which she settled into brute force or death. She wouldn’t sacrifice herself for just Mechamaru, after all, nor be squirmish about breaking some limbs or killing some people.

Kinda shameless to be angry at the girl who you involuntarily aided in ambushing, no?

It’s just. The first time I read the short about Mechamaru (which was STILL amazing btw) I felt sorry for him.

The next few times I reread it though, I was like wait a minute, this doesn’t sound right, this guy is making Shiki to be the bad guy in interrogating him when he “just tried helping himself and he didn’t truly mean to betray the jujutsu society qwq!!!” because she has a perfect life but BITCH so many people just died LMFAOO Shiki here just doing her job and being hated, my poor girl (though she doesn’t care).

Mechamaru lost his gamble in using Mahito and turned into an even worse monster.

Likewise, the curses lost their gamble in trying to delete Shiki and were all basically wiped out in minutes lmao. They probably didn’t expect the Gojo Satoru Expy to actually be a Gojo Satoru 2.0 lol.

Shiki just doing her job, stuck in another world. :( And she had promised her cousin to make a detour to buy sweets, too rip. :(

(which brings me to another point i’m not gonna expand: Satoru and Shiki’s relationship? I LOVELOVELOVE IT!! The opposing powers they present! Satoru is not truly the sole “honored one”! Satoru has someone who somewhat understands the way he looks at the world! Who will stand by his decision and trust! Who’s willing to murder a bitch or a few for him! They’re two peas in a pod, sometimes HE has to be the moral compass for Shiki even! HIM! THE Gojo Satoru! A moral compass!!! 😂😂😂)

!! I am bouncing a bit in excitement from this haha.

Mechamaru! Is a very very unfortunate character. His attempt to outsmart Kenjaku and the Special Grade curses was not something that ended well for anyone. The information that he provided them allowed Kenjaku's faction to set up the test run at the Goodwill Event and break into the warehouse, stealing the Death Paintings and Sukuna's fingers. If we think about what happened in Shibuya, where Sukuna was able to cause as much devastation as he did because of ingesting the additional fingers... arguably Mechamaru played a definite role in allowing this situation to occur in the first place.

Mechamaru wants to be healed. He wants to have a normal body, and be a normal student of Kyoto High with his friends.

In exchange, he betrays the school -but he's not really betraying them, Mechamaru tells himself. Look, he's even been careful enough to extract a binding vow for his friends to be unharmed. And it's not as if he really intends to throw in his lot with Geto. As soon as he gets what he wants, he'll turn on them. Mechamaru doesn't need to kill them in order to win; all he needs to do is escape and find sanctuary with Gojo Satoru. And with the intel that he'll have in his hands, Gojo will definitely protect him. Then, they'll be able to counter their enemies properly from there-

We all know how that turns out in the end, though. The many casualties that result from Kenjaku's plans... Mechamaru might not be responsible, but he's certainly not blameless in allowing Kenjaku to set things into motion.

Mechamaru strikes me as a character who has a strong confidence and ego, which is balanced at the same time by a helpless sense of inferiority and anger. He knows that he's a powerful sorcerer, and he's the only sorcerer whose range covers an entire country -not even Gojo Satoru can do that! And Mechamaru is observant, and intelligent. He hates the limitations imposed upon him by his body, and he wants ever so badly to see for himself the world that he can only interact with through his puppets-

Shiki gets the brunt of that, in this particular AU.

Mechamaru lives. He lives, but he's angry and guilty and oh how he regrets, without truly regretting. Sorcerers are selfish creatures, and Mechamaru is no different.

Here Gojo Shiki stands in front of him, beautiful and powerful and perfect, looking down on him like Mechamaru means absolutely nothing. Given the turmoil that Mechamaru is currently experiencing... it's only natural that he lashes out at her.

(It's no excuse. But it is a reason.)

In contrast to Mechamaru's complicated feelings towards her, Shiki is fairly indifferent about him in return, despite his role as a lure in the 'ambush' for her. She simply protects him because she was assigned to retrieve Mechamaru for an interrogation. Shiki can't retrieve him if he's dead.

... So that just means she'll need to do her best to keep him alive, until she manages to find a way home.

[cheese-water]

I know I’m late but idc that person who tried to spread fake allegations about tubbo is so fucking stupid. Like yeah, the obviously fake story is telling enough but their lack of forethought as to what they’re actually doing is just crazy.

They outright used Tubbo’s name and blatantly accused him of a crime that he didn’t commit. AND if his viewers can defend him based on the limited evidence we have, I can only imagine what his lawyer could do if given the opportunity. This random person has potentially put themselves in so much legal trouble and for what? goddamn twitter likes???? Like congratulations, thanks to your actions not only will you rot in hell but also possible rot in jail as well.

It hasn’t even been a month since Cellbit’s twitter calúnia case was made public and yet we still have people who don’t understand that their actions have consequences ESPECIALLY IF ITS FUCKING ILLEGAL

[somewhat-very-insane]

things that people seem to think are perfectly fine and socially acceptable, but that should not be punishments. and no, i don’t care what your kid did do «deserve it,» these are just wrong

starving or withholding food from your children

making your children destroy their comfort objects (or destroying the objects yourself)

feeding your children foods that they are allergic to

watching your children while they shower or bathe (when significantly past the age where any «help» bathing would be necessary)

hitting your children, manhandling your children, or otherwise utilizing aggressive physical contact against your children

making your children pick up broken glass (without teaching them how to safely do so) or walk on broken glass

withholding medical treatment from your children

threatening to do any of these things to your children

teaching your children ideas like «privacy is a privilege, not a right,»; «these items are in my house, so i am allowed to destroy them even if you paid for them»; and «people are allowed to hurt you if they feel like you did something wrong,» are so damaging to impressionable, fragile minds. you are setting your child up for a ruined, unstable future by doing these things.

* feel free to add on

[batsplat]

hello, i have a question. what is the difference betwwen a hard and a dangerous racer? is there some sort of characteristics like how succesful a racer is or is more of a "a dangerous racer races on the limit and that's dangerous. a hard racer races on the limit but. its just a hard racer". thank you for answering!

completely in the eye of the beholder, I'm afraid. it's a perpetual debate, and one where everyone draws the line differently... very much a case of one man's dangerous manoeuvre is another one's hard but fair overtake... that being said! I'll have a go at coming up with a general framework with which people assess this stuff

let's bring in two strawmen, which feels like the most direct way to illustrate the possible stances you can take on this debate. to be clear, nobody really fits neatly in either ideological category - but, well, these are pretty much the two most extreme positions anyone could have:

when people are describing something as 'hard racing' (as opposed to... idk, 'clean' racing), they are usually talking about a) contact between the two bikes, and/or b) an action that forces the other bike to take evasive action. what constitutes forcing evasive action? well, this is all very nebulous and hard to define - there's crossing another rider's racing line, making them pick up the bike mid-corner, forcing them wide/off-track, not yielding in situations where one of you will have to yield to avoid a crash... but this is always an assessment that will depend on the specific circumstances. not every block pass is considered hard racing, for instance, even though you are quite literally 'blocking' the other bike. contact is the more straightforward one... if you initiate a move that leads to contact, then most people would agree this is 'hard' racing

so say you are in the 'A' camp. according to this line of thinking, pretty much every contact is 'dangerous' riding and should not be allowed. here's what gibernau said about jerez 2005, included in the sete post:

let's not discuss the merits of the jerez 2005 move specifically here - this is an expression of a broader ideological position. "this is not a contact sport" "it's not about hitting another guy"... so, according to this stance, actions that knowingly result in contact should not be acceptable and as a result need to be penalised. taken to the logical extreme, any and all 'hard racing' is dangerous

let's go to the other extreme, 'B'. let's say you're very pro-hard racing, to the point where you think that contact is more than fine and that it is unreasonable to call it 'dangerous'. sure, of course it is dangerous, but inherently all motorcycle racing has a lot of risk attached. racing that involves contact is basically acceptable. even within this extreme, my lovely venn diagram allows for some actual 'dangerous' riding - either behaviour that is wholly irresponsible during races... or stuff that doesn't count as hard racing because it's not 'racing'. here are some examples:

stuff that happens during races but is like... egregious misbehaviour. cf romano fenati pulling a rival's brake lever during a race - obviously dangerous and no longer really exists within the confines of actual racing

in either races or non-race sessions - not following proper safety procedures like for instance ignoring yellow flags. again, should be pretty obvious why that's dangerous

poor behaviour in non-race sessions,the general tag for not exhibiting appropriate care, awareness for your environment, all that stuff... the extreme example is marc barrelling into the back of another rider after the chequered flag had been waved in friday practise at phillip island 2011 (more on that here). it's also things like faffing about on the racing line, see the pecco mugello dramatics

so, yes, everyone will agree that there's some stuff that counts as 'dangerous riding' that's distinct from 'hard racing' just because it's not actual racing. that's the most straightforward stuff... but yeah, anyway, those are basically the two extreme positions you can take. you can say that all contact is bad and dangerous, that any time you're forcing another rider to take evasive action and are making a pass that isn't 1000% clean, you are putting others at unnecessary risk. or, you can say, hey, everything goes, rubbing is racing on steroids - sure, there's a small category of things that aren't acceptable, mainly stuff that isn't actually racing, but otherwise you should be allowed to brute force yourself past riders whenever you please

obviously, they're strawmen for a reason. basically nobody holds either of these positions in their entirety - and in race situations, there's always going to be actions that are seen as hard racing by some and as dangerous by others. so, unfortunately, we're going to have to dig a little deeper here, and figure out by what metrics people draw the line between hard and dangerous. let's... hey, how about we bring in casey stoner, just this once. as a treat. here's what he said after laguna '08:

“I’ve been in hard racing all my life, some very aggressive racing, but today was a little bit too much. I nearly went in the gravel so many times and I don’t think it was necessary.”

hard racing? casey's done that before. some very aggressive racing? no issue. but what valentino did at laguna was "a little bit too much" and not "necessary". the specific thing casey cites is nearly going into the gravel - and indeed, forcing other riders wide/off-track is one of the types of racing behaviour that most finely straddles the line between 'hard' and 'dangerous'. for other examples, see suzuka 2001 in which biaggi forced valentino off-track and valentino flipped him off when he eventually got past (a few more details here), qatar 2012 where marc forced luthi off-track and got slapped after the race (here) and sepang 2015, where... uh. you know. or how about argentina 2018 where... look, I think you get the point - plenty of controversy comes from forcing your opponent's bike into places where it's simply not supposed to be

while we're at it, let's throw in a little excerpt from casey's autobiography about the race:

A lot of it was fair racing, he was out-braking me on the inside and riding better than me around a lot of the track. If it had all been like that I would cop it sweet. But a couple of moves off camera added to my frustration. I risked running off the track, and racing at the limits like that as we were I even became worried about my safety.

(does have to be said that the pair of them spend... relatively little time off-camera, never when the bikes seem to be particularly close - but of course the problem this statement creates is that by definition you can't judge any footage you don't have access to)

so, let's strip away the details and think about what casey is actually talking about here. it's a risk/reward calculation. this is what's at the heart of this riding standards debate: what level of risk is acceptable for what level of reward? there are situations in which there is inherently a higher level of risk in a way that isn't caused by either party - influenced by the circuit layout, what the weather is like, how hard you're both pushing aka how much on the 'limit' you are, and so on. but even if that risk isn't your 'fault', if you are riding at very high speeds on a dangerous track, you can still be considered a dangerous rider if you're not exercising appropriate levels of caution

so, let's break it down even further and try and come up with some basic criteria by which people judge whether a specific move is 'hard' or 'dangerous'. how about this: (1) does the action have a reasonable chance of coming off, (2) is the risk you're taking proportionate to the reward, and (3) is the move likely to cause serious harm to you or the other rider. let's take them one by one

listen, it needs to be plausible that you're going to be able to pull this move off. if you're firing the bike from fifty miles back into a gap that doesn't exist, then this is by definition an unnecessary risk. you are not going to do yourself any good and you are also not going to do the other rider any good. (sometimes it might be in your interest to crash the other rider out so you might as well, but unsurprisingly this is frowned upon. see the 1998 250cc title decider.) obviously, this is going to be affected by your skill level - if you're a mid rider, there will be fewer moves that are 'plausible' for you than for the best riders

this is basically the common sense metric. if you are riding in a pack, make sure to keep in mind that crashing in this situation could get ugly. if you are fighting for p5, maybe a different approach is fitting than fighting for p1. if you can make an overtake a lap later as long as you're patient, in a way that's a lot safer than doing it now, perhaps just do that instead. don't be silly in the wet! this comes down to stakes, whether it's worth it, how likely the move is to succeed... and also what the consequences would be if you got it wrong, for both yourself and other riders. you're making an overall judgement based on all of those factors... sometimes you need to take risk, but it's better to make sure that risk is reasonably sensible

however high the potential rewards are, there's a certain level of risk that is no longer acceptable, where the 'risk/reward calculation' stuff has to be thrown out of the window because the reward no longer matters. this is basically the catch-all for 'wholly irresponsible riding' - anything that's just going too far

so, uh. obviously everything described above is super subjective... but that's what people are judging in my opinion, this is the standards they are using in their head to determine where they draw the line. so, as an example, to bring back the stuff from this post about the inter-alien ideological differences:

and again, this is also what the debate after aragon 2013 was about:

if you think aragon 2013 is unacceptable to the point of being dangerous, then you probably take quite a hard line view and think pretty much any action that could lead to contact needs to be stamped down on. while that contact did have unpleasant consequences for the other party (dani wasn't able to walk for several days and his title bid was basically over), it is perhaps a little worse than could have been reasonably expected in that situation. in that sense, there's a bit of surface level similarity with jerez 2005... there, valentino made the pass for the win at the last corner, knowing he would probably bump into sete while doing so. neither rider is knocked off their bike (though sete has to leave the track) and it is at a slow corner, with relatively 'light' contact. unfortunately, as a result of where valentino's bike impacted sete's body and sete's preexisting shoulder issues, it ended up injuring sete (see here for valentino learning of this perhaps a little later than was ideal and only after he'd taken the piss out of sete for dramatically clutching his arm). at aragon 2013, marc was harrying dani and sticking very close to his rear tyre as he applied pressure to his teammate before he made a small misjudgement, getting his braking a little wrong and clipping the back of dani's bike. he happened to cut a crucial wire in the process, causing dani to highside a few moments later

these aren't equivalent situations and each have their own risk/reward profile. but the basic point is this: inviting contact with another rider will always generate more risk, and can always have unintended consequences... even when the action is relatively innocuous and the rider would not have expected this outcome. if you are in the 'all passes should be clean passes' school, this risk is fundamentally unacceptable. even trickier - what if contact is made as a result of a move you initiated but the other rider could have avoided? of course, you started it, but they could have yielded... and maybe they should have, maybe that would have been the wise, the sensible thing to do in that situation. it's always important to remember that at least two riders are involved in all these situations - and there are many cases where contact and/or crashing is not 100% the fault of any one party. so, for instance, there are several moments in laguna 2008 that are so risky in part because casey is also refusing to yield. that's not to necessarily imply any blame or fault! of course, it might not be ideal for the most aggressive riders being able to bully everyone else as they please because they know they can generally rely on everyone else being more sensible and yielding. but the differing outcomes resulting from the choices made by the 'other' rider will always help influence perception of any race situation - a move that is seen as 'hard but fair' might have been seen as considerably more dangerous if the other party hadn't yielded

and yes... yes, there is absolutely a question of your success rate. this links back to point (1) - is the move plausible? there are moves that aren't really considered examples of 'hard racing' and certainly not dangerous... because they worked. take valentino's last corner move at catalunya 2009, at a corner where you don't traditionally overtake (remember, before the race jorge was going around tempting fate by saying that if you're ahead by that point you're sorted). sure, he goes for a gap that exists, but it could easily have gone wrong - and if a lot of other riders had tried that, then it would have. how do you think yamaha would have felt if valentino had taken both yamaha riders out at the very end of the race to allow ducati to claim an unlikely victory and an increased championship lead? here's another one: misano 2017 and marc making a last lap move in treacherous conditions to snatch the win. no contact required to make that risky as shit - and if stuff like that goes wrong too often they call you an idiot at best and dangerous at worst. of course, both valentino and marc have had moments where they very much did not pull off moves they were intending, which is how we get ambition outweighing talent and 'I hope he can learn from this one and improve for the future', among other hits. but, relative to the amount of risk they're regularly taking in their racing, they get a lot of reward for their troubles... because they're very good at what they do. the risk/reward calculation is one that they... uh, can both be very adept at, but it's also one that's fundamentally easier when you're skilled enough to pull off a lot of moves that would be beyond the capabilities of other riders. it's when you don't know how to judge your moments, when you keep trying moves that you can't pull off - that's where other riders will start having a problem with you

which is where we get to reputation! how different incidents are judged will also depend on the existing reputations of the riders involved and whether they are seen as 'fair' racers or not (an even more nebulous term, if possible), versus hard racers, dangerous racers... often, this is a question of quantity too - with certain riders on the grid, you will notice they're involved in controversial incidents disproportionately often. how likely people are to pay you the benefit of the doubt... how likely they are to believe you as to what your intent was in a certain situation, perhaps the most nebulous concept of them all. 'hard' and 'dangerous' aren't assessments that are made in isolation, and how severely riders are judged will often depend on their pasts and how those pasts are perceived by others

where you get into really sticky territory is... okay, both valentino and marc have more often than not (arguably) been able to stay on the right side of 'the line', where their moves might be hard but aren't putting anyone else in active danger - but that's because they are at least theoretically capable of exhibiting a good sense of judgement and are also good at what they're doing, as covered above. here's a question: do they bear any responsibility for when younger and/or worse riders copy their moves and/or general approach to racing, with worse consequences? when they have been criticised, when they are called dangerous, at times it's not just what they're doing in the moment... it's what they're inspiring. so you've got stuff like this from sete:

even more drastically than that, after the death of a fifteen year old rider in supersport in 2021, one of his fellow rider said this about marc (which marc unsurprisingly strongly pushed back on):

(just worth remembering, this is a rider who did walk away from the sport as a result and was clearly deeply affected by what happened - the marc comments were part of a longer statement that got overshadowed by this part and the resulting controversy)

setting aside the merits or lack thereof of these specific assertions, what of the general questions they raise... can you be a dangerous rider in an indirect fashion like this, by the very nature of your legacy? are riders who helped bring about a more aggressive baseline standard of racing in any way responsible for anything that happens as a result of this standard? (even worse, there's a line of succession here - after all, who was marc's biggest inspiration?) or does individual responsibility reign supreme here? athletes are by design only interested in their own successes, aren't they - and 'legacy' is so abstract, how can anyone know how others will be influenced by what they do? how can we even begin to assess how big an influence individual riders really are? let's not forget that there will be other factors - riders in the past have discussed how particular characteristics of the moto2 class have bred more aggressive racing, or the influence of the size of motogp bikes, or how difficult it is these days to overtake in a completely 'clean' manner, or the rules themselves and to what extent they have actually been enforced etc etc... maybe there's also an element of people focusing on the easiest, most visible explanation in the form of star riders, without giving proper consideration to the underlying factors that will influence an era's style of riding. again, how you feel about all of this will vary from person to person - but part of the hard vs dangerous debate is inherently forward-looking. and it's hardly just legacy... your hard/dangerous moves may also be setting a precedent in the present. to what extent is it the duty of riders to worry about that?

so then, that's what I've got. how you draw the distinction between hard racing and dangerous riding will come down to your individual ideological position and what you think racing even entails. do you think all contact is objectionable? do you think only the most extreme of transgressions - most of which don't qualify as 'racing' per se - should be labelled dangerous? somewhere in between? everyone will draw the line in a different place, according to the situation and their individual biases and understanding of events. it comes down, generally speaking, to how you judge the risks and rewards of a certain move, whether you think what a rider attempted was 'worth' it. all of which depends on whether the rider could realistically have managed whatever action they were attempting, whether the potential rewards were proportionate to the risks, or whether the whole thing was just too flat out dangerous to ever be worth it... of course, none of these are objective standards by which you can assess the racing, but they should give you a rough indication of what people are even talking about when they're distinguishing between hard and dangerous racing. riders as individuals are also far from consistent in their stances (surely not!) so you do have to play it by ear a lot of the times... and while there are plenty incidents where the majority can agree whether it is 'hard' or 'dangerous', there are plenty more where you're going to get a lot of contradictory opinions. no definitive answers here - unfortunately a lot of the time you'll just have to make your own mind up