#that doesn't make all if not most people who engage in this behavior evil

[strongintherealgay]

If they are like most people, yes, they will give a shit.

Genuinely, your health is very important. It is also important to acknowledge that cannabis allergies are not common knowledge for most people. I found out about them when I was 12 or 13 when my dad told me his older kid's mom is allergic to weed. She found that out when smoking it in the 1980s, back when it wasn't legal anywhere so if she had died no one would have blamed the other people smoking. They would have both used her death to vilify weed itself as some sort of "satanic poison" and to paint her as getting what she deserved.

Part of community is taking care of each other. That includes understanding that there are going to be conflicting accommodations.

Until recently, I worked with youth experiencing homelessness. We needed to make boundaries for there to not be drug and alcohol use in our building or on the property we rented, especially since other young people were in recovery. If someone broke that boundary, we would talk to them, and if needed, asked that they leave the space and try again for another day. That said, we would hint at places they could go to so they could use if they felt like they needed to be high, including while in the space. However, this poses a risk of them overdosing without us being there to help them. I can recall four of my clients who had to be revived on premises. At least one of them ODed because they used as much as they could before coming into the building. That was someone who I personally revived in a scenario that was traumatizing for this kid and for myself.

I bring this up because while this is not the same as an allergy, this is an example of us weighing many factors to try to keep everyone safe. Luckily, none of my clients have permanently died. Keep in mind, many of these substances have an OD risk factor. There are no safe use sites in my county, despite the fact that would benefit everyone, including you, who has an allergy to weed.

If you can, talk to your neighbors and let them know what's up. But don't make them a villain in your head before you've even talked to them. We are in the first stretch of legal cannabis use in the United States. My state is tied for being the first rec legal state and it is fucking illegal to smoke anywhere in public. Do you know how ridiculous that is? Do you get how that is ridiculous, especially since you then can't smoke in many rentals? And what about your neighbors without a home? Where are they supposed to smoke?

There are no good answers right now, which is why it is important to help provide your perspective. More people will listen if you don't make everyone who smokes weed out to be personally against you. I understand that it feels that way, especially since it sounds like you have a more severe case of this allergy. But nobody wants you to die. Nobody wants you to have a medical emergency in general. But you vilifying stoners is just adding to that moral panic you claim to not have. It hurts everyone, including you. Both because people are less likely to engage with you, and also because your allergy will be triggered by people who have no legal place for them to go.

You don't have to like weed but I find people who are vehemently anti-weed but claim to be left leaning infuriating. If you go into a rage because you smelled someone smoking pot, how the fuck do you expect to form community with people addicted to meth? It's easier to say you hate smokers than to say you hate all drug users in leftist spaces because one makes you sound a bit like a square while the other is the writing on the wall. You aren't anti-weed, you're anti-drug user and anyone who uses substances is not safe around you.

[zoloteh-volossya]

Minthy and Trust

One of the interesting things about the evil endings from patch 7 is how surprised Minthara is if you enthrall her with the Brain or murder her as a Dark Urge who embraced Bhaal. I've talked a little bit about it before here, but a conversation with @alicelufenia that resulted from that post got me thinking.

Minthara grew up in a culture where backstabbing is pretty much de rigueur. She has spent at least two centuries living and loving in a city where she could not trust anybody, and where lovers and family alike may try and betray or murder her at any given moment. It's implied that she's survived multiple such attempts. Why, then, does she put such complete and total trust in you? Shouldn't she be more wary?

Part of it could be her faith - or rather, the gaping hole where her faith once was. She was completely devoted to Lolth until she encountered the Absolute, and while her faith in the Absolute was forced I think the habits we see - her prayer after her romance scene, for instance - are genuine. After Moonrise, she has lost two faiths in rapid succession. I think she'd done with gods for good, but still wants - almost reflexively - something or someone to believe in. Lolth's favor is described in some D&D novels as being able to feel her love, however fleetingly. I think a partner whose acceptance and affection she can actually feel goes a long way to filling that sudden void in her life. (I also feel like she does best with direction, that fundamentally to some extent she is a follower and not a leader. A partner provides the support she prefers in this sort of context; she can essentially make them her purpose. But this is more of a headcanon and not as strongly textually supported so I will not actually argue it. Feel free to disagree.)

Part of it could also be her loneliness. Minthara is clearly an introvert but all people need social contact of some sort. Back in Menzoberranzan, she would have been enmeshed in a strict social sphere that would have provided both regular opportunities for social engagement and rules for how to go about it. Minthy obviously feels very defined by her (former) social station - per her act 2 romance scene she doesn't know who she is without it - and laments the loss of the structure of her former life. On the surface, she thinks (incorrectly) that no one likes her, and she lacks the status and strict rules of behavior that once shielded her. She has nothing and no one... until the protagonist comes along. Once in a relationship with them, it feels like Minthara is almost trying to make them the entirety of her social life (which is hella unhealthy, girl). We see this the most in the evil endings, where she is fine with the loss of all the companions so long as she and the protagonist are together.

But my above two paragraphs explain why Minthy would want to trust the protagonist (a want, a burning driving need, a drowning woman grasping a rope, desperation making her overlook warning signs and red flags), not why she actually does. I think the answer to that can probably be found in her act 2 romance scene. She asks to see the protagonist's mind in their entirety and uses it to verify the protagonist's opinion of her. This is something she never was able to do in Menzoberranzan. For once in her life, she (thinks she) is able to confirm that this lover is safe, that she can completely unabashedly trust them. And so she does - she throws herself into it completely and utterly, as she does everything she sets herself to. It never occurs to her that this might be a false assurance, that her partner could change or be less devoted in their affections than she is. She checked; it's safe.

Until it isn't.

[utilitycaster]

actually taking the last bit out of the tags of that post because here is the thing. and I'm going to use specific examples, because I think it's illustrative.

the two groups of people in this fandom who have specifically harassed me have been, as I've said before, imo/dna fans mad I don't find the ship very good, and (to be fair, only on one occasion) shadowido/mauk fans who got mad that I said that tagging ao3 fic about throuples with individual pairs sucks. [hilariously the latter was not even about them at all, it was about me looking for imogen and fearne ship fic that wasn't witchy trio fic and finding it almost impossible to filter].

I do not like these people because they have engaged with harassment. It is not about identity; it is about actions. My closest friend, and the first non-family member I talked to on Wednesday morning, is a bi woman in an open marriage to a woman, with a longterm male partner. I was a bridesmaid in her wedding. The last time I visited her, in September, I was joined by other mutual friends, who are similarly in an open marriage with longterm partners and at least one relationship between two women.

I am entirely secure, in my personal life, that I am kind and accepting to queer women (of which I am one) and to poly people (of which I am not), and so I hope you can appreciate that if someone attempts to attack me on the internet on these grounds because I do not have the same exact opinions on pretend people kissing, my response isn't "oh my god I should go off and die because I'm a terrible person," it's "get a load of this moron making wild assumptions about my personal life based on a single data point in my preferences in fiction; I'm going to make them regret doing this to me, and hopefully anyone else, because this is genuinely a detrimental behavior in the fandom space." And also, you know what. If they were a homeless person on the street and asked for a dollar I would still give it to them if their attacks were merely verbal (yes, I know the idea of someone screaming "YOU'RE A LESBOPHOBE FOR HATING IMO/DNA can i have a dollar" outside the grocery store is rather comical, and I think that is how you need to consider statements like "um actually I won't help pro-shippers." Imagine that conversation happening in an irl activist group. Everyone would be like "uh...anyway, how do we fight back against this hostile bench architecture.")

I think right now it is vitally important to remember what actual bigotry looks like and what needs to be fought, and the reason I tapped the sign of this post last night is literally that I think you are wasting time and energy engaging with people who think bigotry is "criticizing the pretend guy Ashton Greymoore for concrete but pretend choices they made" when I also think most people criticizing Ashton would, if Ashton were real, still toss them change if they needed it, or are people who currently donate to or otherwise work with local programs that assist nb people, disabled people, or unhoused children.

I like to argue and I like to engage in fandom and I will continue doing that because it is a source of enjoyment and comfort for me, but I really urge everyone to ask yourself "am I arguing about genuinely different readings, or do I think that everyone who doesn't like my blorbo ship is a bad person" because if it's the latter, I think you need to nip that in the bud of online fandom before it grows into something darker and worse. A lot of irl hate and bigotry starts from a place of "everyone who doesn't agree with me and give me what I want all the time is wrong and evil" and perhaps I am too optimistic, but I think many people who say things like that in fandom just are caught up in the drama of it all and are capable of exercising empathy when they stop treating shipping or interpretation like a popularity contest that, if they lose, indicates that everyone around them is irredeemable. But I also think it can be the start of a really bad path.

[drdemonprince]

Just chiming in to agree that that person is not a selfish bitch. I'm also really put off by moralistic performances of emotion, and I know in my case it's because it was part of a pattern of abusive behaviour that my mother did.

Anytime you expressed to her that there was a problem with her behaviour, she seemed to genuinely believe that if she put enough effort into weeping and crying on her children's shoulders, and verbally denigrating herself for being an inherently bad an immoral person, and stressing so much that she developed physical illnesses from it, then she could follow that up by asking for forgiveness - as if it would be cruel for us to continue her suffering by denying her that forgiveness. Except that to her, "forgiveness" meant "it's all swept under the rug, I have Atoned By Suffering Guilt, so now it doesn't matter and I can keep doing it again." (I really wonder how much the religious background of her parents' generation came into the formation of this worldview.) And at the same time, she refuses to read news that's "too upsetting" and never engages with literature or media about dark themes "because there's enough of that in real life."

It might be cynical of me to read this pattern into the way people talk online about genocide. But I keep seeing parallels. My perspective is that a) if you're not regulating your emotions well enough to function, then you have less capacity to offer practical help; and b) people who are actually trying to survive genocide want unnecessary human suffering to END, so you're not aligning yourself with that hope by engaging in rumination etc that compounds suffering with not practical benefit to anyone.

But also, watching my mother's behaviour has led me to add perspective c) that a lot of people (in Christian cultures?) haven't developed enough understanding of the complexity of the world and how to relate to it, and genuinely believe that an overblown emotionally affected reaction, followed by helplessness and thereby inaction, is the only possible way for them to respond when they're confronted with upsetting information that demands action from them. Being raised to think in a black-and-white "good vs evil" dichotomy, and thinking about people as "either morally good or morally bad" rather than thinking about people as neutral and behaviours as either ethically helpful or harmful... it doesn't give them a conceptual framework to integrate upsetting information and then carry on getting things done, it's like their moral anxiety gets them stuck and that keeps the emotions escalating.

I see people discussing this pattern in the context of religious trauma, and in the context of the cultural construct of "whiteness" - the discovery of something morally bad has to be followed by an extreme emotional reaction that basically amounts to protesting your own innocence and helplessness to deny responsibility for your direct behaviours (in my mother's case) or complicity in a corrupt system (in the case of overwhelmed average people learning about genocide).

Maybe I'm rambling more than I'm analysing here, but the comparison stands out a lot to me and it's troubling to watch.

yo anon no this is gold, thank you for sharing. This is remarkably astute.

I will add the quick caveat that hyperempathic people who are debilitated by their sensitivity exist, of course, and have very real struggles and none of this is intended to denigrate them. In practice, their behavior can have the impact of silencing criticism or distracting from the issue at hand but being wired that way certainly does not doom a person to behaving in a counterproductive, manipulative manner.

This critique is more about performative over the top empathy as a tactic (conscious or not) of offloading responsibility, and as a pseudo-religious ideology that makes predominately white western cultures particularly ill-equipped to deal with the consequences of their global plundering. almost certainly by design. Most moral teachings that we encounter in the west promote this tactic and ideology, and it gets very deeply ingrained in most us if we don't devote a ton of attention to uprooting it.

thanks for this great response.

[ramshacklefey]

Maybe it's just an allergic reaction from growing up in a cult, but I cannot help looking at some queers and would-be leftists and seeing the seeds of the exact social framework I grew up in. So, here are some questions to ask yourself about your social circle, online or offline:

Do people around me subscribe to a good-evil dichotomy, and is this dichotomy applied to people? There is no such thing as a "good" or "evil" person. In fact, I encourage everyone to ditch the entire concept of "evil." It's not a useful concept. The kind of thinking that creates good and evil as absolute categories, especially if it is then applied to humans, benefits no one. Learn to accept that morality can be vague in a lot of places, and that a person's actions may be judged right, supererogatory (going beyond moral requirements), less than ideal, wrong, misguided, or morally bankrupt without making any claims about that person's inherent nature.

Do the people around you un-person anyone? This flows out of the previous question, because declaring someone "evil" is usually enough to declare them not a person. And even if you've never consciously put it this way, we all "know" that we don't have the same moral duties to non-persons that we do to persons. There is no action a person can take that removes them from the category of "person." There is no group a person can belong to that removes them from the category of "person." And if the people around you are willing to act as if there were, there is nothing preventing them from doing the same to you.

Do the people around you accept the idea of social contagion? Do they support shunning/exile as punishment? Again, this comes from the idea of evil, but it goes another level down. The claim becomes not just that someone is evil, but that therefore only other evil people would associate with them. This is most apparent during cancel campaigns, when the mob is as happy to turn on the friends, coworkers, and relatives of the target as they are to attack their primary target. But even if someone has genuinely done some fucked up shit, there is nothing they can do that makes them unworthy of friendship. And associating, being friends with, and loving someone who has done wrong in the past doesn't have any moral bearing on you. Communities that act otherwise damage everyone. Fear of being associated with some who has fucked up means that people with maladaptive behavior patterns are cut off from positive relationships with those who could help them. And the threat of ruining lives in this way makes it harder for people to ask for help, whether they are the perpetrator or the victim of bad behavior.

Do the people around you assign moral weight to the media others enjoy? This is a concept straight outta the evangelical handbook. I cannot tell you how many youth group meetings I attended where we talked about the "danger" of Bad Media: it would poison your mind, it would make you drink and smoke, it would make you gay, it would make you have premarital sex. Horror films would make people violent. Angry music would let the devil into your soul. It was all a load of bunk. It remains a load of bunk no matter what it is that you object to, and people who are trying to control what media you have access to are way overstepping their boundaries.

Do the people around you assign moral weight to identity categories? Do they engage in any kind of essentialism? Assigning this sort of weight is just as bad when it's a bunch of leftists saying that All Men Suck as it is when it's a right wing preacher saying that Gays Are Dangerous. Claiming that a person can be more or less virtuous based on their inherent qualities is wrong and dangerous.

Are the people around you as or more worried about appearing virtuous as they are about actually doing the right thing? I was told throughout my childhood to avoid even the appearance of sin. Keeping up a public face of virtuousness and purity was necessary in order to be accepted by the community. This includes things like using the "right" language, enjoying the "right" media, dressing and presenting yourself the "right" way, and many others.

Do the people around you divide the world into categories, defined on a black and white dichotomy of people who are "on your side" and people who are "out to get you"? Yeah, this one is tricky, because if you live under any kind of oppression, there are actually people who want to hurt you and have the structural power to do so. But the vast majority aren't those people. The vast majority of people are just trying to live their own lives, and most are unaware of the problems you're facing. When you're inside a social circle like this, it's easy to get caught up in the mentality that everyone knows what you know, so their actions speak to which "side" they're on. The reality is that most people are indifferent to you, but would object to you being badly treated if they actually understood the situation.

Do the people around you object to nuanced assessments of a situation or morality in general? Is there some kind of "canon" of acceptable beliefs and slogans? Is anything outside of this considered suspect if not outright bad? If your thoughts on mortality and politics can be summed up entirely in tweets and bumper stickers, and people around you get angry at nuance or new ideas, that's a bad sign.

These aren't all of them, and none of these are hard and fast. There are fuzzy edges on all of them. But they are all tactics that enforce social cohesion and Right Behavior at the expense of actual discussion or measured responses to situations. They rely on and grow out of living in a high surveillance culture.

You can push back against them by minding your own business, refusing to engage in surveiling others, and actively opposing judging anyone to be a non-person.

So many of us grew up in and have tried to claw our way out of this kind of social life. Don't just recreate it.

[adragonsfriend]

"If Anakin had just been able to be open about his family..."

Frankly, if Anakin and Padme had been open about their relationship during the war they would've been that couple that everyone knows is pretty but dysfunctional, and whom no one wanted to invite to parties because of the risk of Anakin publicly trying to get into fights.

Don't get me wrong at all I think Anakin and Padme have the potential to be a good couple that that good for them and the people around him, I love the ship in general (even and sometimes especially for the fact that it's a messy one), I think they're characters with great chemistry and enough overlapping values to work together. That said:

We need to stop with the idea that openly having a family (while simultaneously being a Jedi or not) would've automatically fixed a single one of Anakin's issues.

This is going to get spicy and not be as well written as my usual kind of post, cause I'm tired of this idea. Fight me if you wish (but before you do, think really hard about whether this post is actually mad at you or if it's talking about someone else).

If you're familiar, Jane Austen put it best in Sense & Sensibility in this conversation where Elinor (the main heroine) and Marianne (her sister) discuss Willoughby (the man who played Marianne, unwittingly actually fell for her, then left anyway when an opportunity to marry rich came along, and afterwards came to confess than he was miserable despite his new wealth and now believed he would've been happier if he'd married Marianne and been comparatively poor),

Marianne's lips quivered, and she repeated the word, "Selfish?" In a tone that implied, Do you really think him selfish? "The whole of [Willoughby's] behavior," replied Elenor, "From the beginning to the end of the affair has been grounded is selfishness. It was selfishness which first made him sport with your affections (he intended to play Marianne), which afterwards when his own were engaged made him delay the confession of it (he didn't tell Marianne he actually fell for her when he had the opportunity), and which finally carried him from Barton (he left her when the opportunity to marry rich appeared). His own enjoyment, or, his own ease, was, in every particular, his ruling principle." "It is very true. My happiness never was his object." [said Marianne] "At present," continued Elinor, "He regrets what he has done, and why does he regret it? Because he finds it has not answered towards himself. It has not made him happy. His circumstances are now unembarrassed (he's rich now), he suffers from no evil of that kind, and he thinks only that he has married a woman of a less amiable temper than yourself (he doesn't like his new rich wife). But, does it follow, that that had he married you, he would have been happy? The inconveniences would have been different. He would then have suffered under the pecuniary distresses, which because they are removed he now reckons as nothing. He would've had a wife of whose temper he could make no complaint, but he would've been always necessitous, always poor. And probably would soon have learnt to rank the innumerable comforts of a clear estate and good income as of far more importance, even to domestic happiness, than the mere temper of a wife." --Chapter 47

(Please excuse any mistakes in the quote, I was typing it out from listening to the audiobook)

Point being, circumstances do not automatically change people. We largely create our own realities and our dissatisfactions with those realities. A greedy person who refuses to change themself will be dissatisfied no matter what they gain in life.

And Anakin is greedy when is comes to his relationships. Not for money, but the way he wants people to make him feel. It's the whole arc of his character over the prequels and the originals. He learns to love selflessly from Luke, right at the end of his life. It's so important. It's the most important moment in the whole of Starwars, and to claim that Anakin was loving well before that moment diminishes it. Anakin's love for Padme did exist, and it had its good moments, but it was not selfless or giving like his love for Luke became in that moment.

Being open about his relationship with Padme would not have changed that quality of it. Openly having kids would not have changed the qualities in him.

Could he have found the people and time and motivation to face and deal with his issues while having a family, especially if the war somehow ended? Of course.

But having bio kids wouldn't've fixed him any more than having a padawan did. Being with Padme openly wouldn't've resolved the fact that she has a job she cares about , and is a full person who can't cater to his feelings all the time. ("Nothing matters more to me than the way you make me feel.")

Side note, but the utter hypocrisy of criticizing Yoda for assigning him a padawan and then turning around and saying, "but if he'd just not had to hide that he was having kids..." is wild. A knight raising a padawan is going to get a so much communal help and oversight from the community around them (as we see in clone wars), as oppose to a parent in a nuclear family format. If Anakin was "too young and totally unprepared for a padawan," and "Yoda shouldn't've done that," then Anakin was infinitely less prepared to be responsible for actual infants.

The only way being able to be open about his marriage would've helped him is that someone outside the relationship might've tried to step in and been like "please get help." And frankly, that's not actually anyone outside the relationship's responsibility to do. Also, Anakin displays plenty of red flags that have literally nothing to do with his relationship with Padme that people advise him to deal with, which he does not deal with.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Anakin could've left the Jedi. He was free to put down his laser sword and have the househusband arc he deserved at literally any point. And frankly, if his ONLY two options (and this is absolutely a false dichotomy) were commit mass murder or "fail" his duty to the Republic by retiring, I think we can all say which of those is better--both for the Republic and, for Anakin's soul or whatever.

When Ahsoka lost faith in the Jedi she was brave enough to make the decision to leave and find her own path. She left and discovered she still wanted to help people, just in other ways. Literally no one (in world or fans) considered her a failure for opting out of being a soldier in the war. Anakin could've done the same, and it was only his own ideas about status and attachment and violence (and yeah some genuine sense of duty too) that stopped him from doing so. In fact, he is the one to yell at Ahsoka that "The Jedi are your life!" Because he wants her to stay in his life.

Romantic relationships don't fix people.

Becoming a parent doesn't fix people.

People can fix themselves. When they do, it's often partly so they can be better to the people in their lives, be those spouses, friends, children, whatever--but the relationships themselves, the presence of those people in and of itself, is not what does the fixing.

It's effort. The genuine effort to act better. To follow their best impulses over their worst. To take themselves out of risky situations. To build good habits.

The idea that Anakin had to have a spouse, or had to have children in his life either to be happy or to not murder people is Hollywood and/or Sith propaganda, and we should treat it no differently than any other, "her magical vagina will cure him of his issues," or, "let's have kids to save our shitty suburban marriage," narrative.

[anonofthemys]

I wish Charlie was better written.

Of all the characters in Hazbin Hotel and Helluva boss, I think Charlie might be my most disappointing character and emblematic of alot of the problems I have with the show.

(My second most disappointing character would be Lucifer)

From the outset, Charlie SHOULD be a really good protagonist and an interesting character: the princess of hell, who grew up in a place surrounded by human evil and suffering, wants to make a positive change in her home by helping sinners redeem themselves from their sins and ending their eternity of suffering. Her naivete could be an advantage in her always seeing the good in someone, but also a flaw that needs to be addressed and corrected, as too much of it would cause her to make poor decisions.

But from the execution, Charlie in the show just comes of as a rich, airheaded nepo baby who never thinks things through and wants her "dream" to suceed just so she can win her parent's (mainly father's) love.

One of the big things I dislike about show Charlie is how childish and immature she is. She's 200 years old but comes across as being perpetually 15. It feels like she's just a "uwu pure girl" who needs to be coddled by other characters and can't stand up for herself.

Thing is I never had this problem with Pilot! Charlie. Pilot! Charlie is how I wish she was still written. She was naive yes, but she also felt more like a real, realistic person. She obviously didn't trust Alastor to help her but enforced her authority to make him help anyway, she stood up for herself against Katie Killjoy, and she just... felt powerful? Idk, Pilot Charlie just felt like she had her head on her shoulders. She felt like she went for more diplomatic solutions to problems out of a conscious choice to want to be better and uphold her morals, not "because it would be mean not too!" I don't think Pilot! Charlie would be so up in arms of Vaggie being an angel like series! Charlie was for some reason.

My big issue with Charlie is that as a main protagonist, she is very childish and her methods are ineffectual, but in the same breathe she's treated as if she doesn't need to change and her "methods" of redemption are the key to working.

Charlie in the show has a very childish understanding of what it means to redeem someone. Her big method of redeeming sinners boils down to "Not stealing, saying sorry, sharing circles, trustfalls" just basic summer camp activity stuff. She never gets to the root problem of redeeming sinners which involves actually engaging with the behavior that GOT THEM INTO HELL IN THE FIRST PLACE! She has never even once asked any of them what they did in life to get into hell. The simple question "How did you die?" opens up alot more doors for possible redemption than any of her "strategies" did in the show.

The thing is, this could've been a GOOD thing for her character. This childish manner of thinking of redemption could've been addressed as an actual flaw of hers to overcome. She could've learned to stop treating the sinners as children and learn to actually engage with them as people. Get into the root of their issues, ask them how they died and assess the behavior that got them into hell in order to help them change. But instead, Charlie's camp consoler solutions are said to be working just fine by Serpentious getting into heaven.

The big issue is that Charlie is never actually CHALLENGED or pushed back on as a character. She's not perfect but she's portrayed as such by the narrative. Any criticisms of her and her goals by other characters are seen as bad because of the characters who give them. And it's so disappointing because there SHOULD be. Charlie should get CONSTANT push back and resistance from her goal. She should be constantly having to asses her methods of redemption and whether her goal is even possible. Because it would make it all the more satisfying when she DOES succeed. Because her goal is a very good one for a protagonist to have.

But of course, this would also require Charlie to be actively engaging with more sinners other than just the main crew, but that's probably a topic for another time.

[dmbakura]

Would you say AA has this sense of thinking he /needs/ to be like Cazador, because that's "what works" and what's "safe"? Like this is who he has to be, and nothing else is viable? That's how I interpreted AA's masking (especially during his sex scene, it seems very insincere and more like what he thinks he needs to be than what he wants) and I can't really make it work with Neil's statements honestly.

I also think he's very much capable of cruelty but the way AA acts is something else entirely to me because it's so goofily a Stereotypical Cartoon Villain Big Bad Sexy Vampire which doesn't really come across as honest in the way, let's say, Gortash's antics seem honest from what we know of the character. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what masking means, idk. I'm definitely not saying it's not honest that he wants to do all that power-hungry shit and that he's secretly a pure tortured soul because that's a lame ass reading that contradicts canon but everything about how he carries himself is so uncanny and all those underlying themes of being really fucking afraid and unable to face what happened/running away from it don't lead me to believe he's living an authentic life, more like he's trapped inside himself.

I don't really see how this contradicts anything Neil said. He never says AA is Astarion's most authentic self at all, or even that he's healthy and confident, only that he stops masking with theatrical deflections.

You also have to account for the supernatural element here too. In dnd lore, most true vampires basically succumb to personality rot and become paranoid and obsessive scheming freaks. I know the 'vampire ascendant' is a new thing and bg3 plays with the lore a bit more but considering this is alluded to by Astarion AND Cazador and heavily reflected in AAs behavior, I'm willing to believe that the vampire ascendant is literally just that but on steroids. Hence the cartoonish behavior lol

Astarion's a complex character. A lot of his arc is a question about how trauma can shape a person and what remains (if anything) after they've gone through something inconceivable, and if they can move past it and reclaim an identity for themself. I don't think it's a coincidence that his background is mostly vague and we don't actually know the kind of person he was before he was turned (unlike *those* fans, I also don't believe 'corrupt magistrate' means he was 'always destined to be evil' or some nonsense like that.) So much of his character is informed by the choices made in the game and how the experiences shape his worldview. He's by far the most dynamic character in the game and people want there to be a simple answer to his character (whether that be 'he's a poor uwu baby who did nothing wrong' or 'he's always been irredeemably evil and is incapable of change') when the reality is there just isn't one.

All this to say, same as what I've been saying from the beginning, both endings for him serve a purpose. They're two sides of the same coin for his character. They are both true to Astarion and his development and they're meant to contrast in ways that make you think deeper about him and his story. They absolutely cannot be taken in a vacuum and I am just so annoyed with people not engaging with the story on this level and wanting there to be simple moral platitudes to everything because they're uncomfortable with complexity.

[crooked-wasteland]

Who are your Kinnies?

I don't internalize characters in the way many would define as kin, but I do have characters I relate to. I have several, but I think I'll stick to Silco from Arcane.

Silco is a cold and callously unpredictable man who seems to love his cause more than he could ever love another person, but his most meaningful trait to me is his sense of loyalty. He functions on this idea of loyalty, as long as you do not betray him, he will always be there. And it's why so many people are deeply attached to him. Jinx and Sevika are testaments to Silco's ability to create a space of safety in his relationships, despite everything else he is. Silco kills Vander for his disloyalty years later. Silco is a greedy, despicable, manipulative, selfish bastard. But he is also deeply loyal, which also makes him deeply loving.

There is a man in Silco who has an immense amount of love to give, you can argue his entire mission on giving Zaun independence is itself an act of love. While Shimmer is extremely dangerous and damaging, the money the manufacturing and selling of the drug provides could be used to clean up Zaun, and it has in the show. Many people hate the scene of Silco with the other lords of Zaun, but his Shimmer has helped clear the air in the under city and made it so no other children will end up like Viktor, poisoned and crippled by the toxic fumes of the mines. The mines the people of Zaun worked in to build Piltover. There is a genuine good that comes from Silco's evil, and there is love for everyone suffering under the hands of Piltover behind that idea. But when placed in terms of the individuals, Silco doesn't really love anyone, because he can't. And his love for Jinx shows why. If he loves one person, he cannot do what he must to save everyone. This evil man who was so set on his goals was willing to throw them all aside and take the hardest path imaginable for the life of a single girl. Because he loves so deeply and so selfishly.

It's this intense dichotomy that many refuse to engage with outside of their own perspectives, and in no way am I attempting to say Silco is actually a hero. Arcane is excellently written with how no character is stripped of their humanity to fill a narrative need. They are all complex people with the light and the dark sharing the same spaces. It's complicated and so beautiful. Additionally, I hope this post conveys that when I "kin" a character, it is in this sense that I can personally empathize with their perspectives as is. Not justifying them or making moral judgements, but understanding the person under the behavior.

[skrunklowumbo64]

DISCLAIMER: Don't engage with a toxic user that's being called out, just block, report, ignore, & move one.

Remember when I made a public apology for making a callout tweet about a certain Tumblr group of IDW Sonic critics (a certain fox was one of them) on Twitter like roughly 2 years ago?

Yeah, I was in good terms afterwards, but a year later, when I randomly saw the edgy sadist fox man wishing death on a comic book writer showing up in my personal Twitter timeline, I took my apology back from him (plus some of his associates overtime) & gave my two cents about it.

The reason why he wished death on a comic book writer was because the satanically evil boogiestans were harassing & doxing his friend who had cancer. You know the old saying, 2 wrongs don't make it right. This isn't the only toxicity thing he has done & I got several evidence to show below.

CW/TW: Excessive Slurs, Bigotry, SH, & SA

(Uncompressed Image Link)

(Uncompressed Image Link)

BONUS EXAMPLES

Plus archived links to his Twitter & Tumblr accounts.

There are way more than what are shown in the images & I can't expect to find them all. Several or so of them are from a few years or nearly a decade ago, but it does prove that he's always been an heartless irredeemable sadist, even before IDW Sonic existed & before you pull that "years ago" defense card, his behavior hasn't changed for the better, like these for example (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13).

What do I think about him?

He's overly smugged, to a point of being arrogant.

He gets overly insecure whenever, for example, any Sonic game gets any criticism &/or negative opinions from people who're either fans of Sonic or not.

Most of his "critiques" are in bad faith.

He has extreme accusatory behavior (I.E. He accuses people of hating Sonic & not playing the games for daring to like anything non-game Sonic related, getting things about Sonic wrong, & making AU fan fics that differs from the games).

He has a habit of blocking anyone over the most pettiest things (I.E. Anyone using the term, Mobius, being told to calm down, people liking transgender Bridget, people liking SnapCube & Team 4 Star (he also wants them banned over it), etc.).

He constantly relies on ad-hominem attacks & vulgar insults whenever he talks to anyone he doesn't agree with, either directly or behind their backs by screenshotting their posts then posting them in his clique chamber to complain about it or both.

He's got this obnoxious Anti-WokeTuber vibes going on despite claiming to be against bigotry.

He gets easily butthurt over people enjoying any non-gaming media or anything in general of not just Sonic, but also Kirby, Castlevania, Dragon Ball, TMNT, & more as well.

He's a massive hypocrite, like for example, he hates anyone making & enjoying non-canon Sonic material while he's faving/making rule 34 fan art & fan fics involving sonic characters voring each other or any other fetishy things (which are also non-canon material).

etc.

If you're wondering if I'm aware about his certain questionable fan fics & favs, I knew already cuz I was the one that caused a chain-reaction on Twitter in the first place by randomly DMing some one rando about it & I honestly wish they shouldn't bring it up whenever they argue with said fox. If you want me to talk about what I think of this Dwai guy nowadays, maybe, but not right now.

How do you think I found out? I just googled the username, checkout their account on some furry site, & went to their profile from some controversial bunny site that's publicly shown on their profile bio out of morbid curiosity. Before you ask, I don't have an account on that controversial bunny site & never will.

My reaction to said content on there was disgust & uncomfortable. I hardly engage with those UCP addict types cuz they're not the most pleasant people to talk to & they're always predictable.

Did you know that he was banned on Twitter seven times, plus all tweets made before 2023 aren't searchable & apparently his first 6 bans had something to do with involvement with you know what? If you're morbidly curious about it, examples here. Remember, don't waste your time trying to argue about it.

The more I see toxicity from him, the more I having trust issues increased & regret making an apology to him, to a point where I think he's too FUBAR to deal with.

If he sees this, he's gonna be like, "TWEEGARD ZNOHVWEHK!", "MUH VWEE ZPEECH/VWEE KONTWEE!", "DOT TEEL MEE WAT 2 DOO!", "PEEOHWEETON!", "KOHTIZT!" "VWEEN/EYEDEEDUBBAHEW STAEN!", "CHUHZT SEH YOO HEHT SAWNIK GEHMZ & GOH!", "YOO HEHT MEE CUZ I KWEETESEYEZD VWEEN!", "CHUHZT PLEH DA GEHMZ!", "SWAENDOHAHR!", "STAHKR & HOHWAZZAHR!" the no you card, strawmanning, "At least I don't (Insert whatever bad thing the stans did)!", ad-hominem attacks, the "Stans are being mean to me!" sob stories, the whataboutisms, screenshotting then whine &/or being smugged about me in his clique-ish echo chamber, & more, guaranteed.

If you're saying I made this because of that one argument or whatever, I always had issues with him before it, not because of different opinions, but because he's the most insufferable individual to talk to due to his arrogant, nihilistic, cuss-happy, & creepy nature regardless if it's about Sonic or not.

For those who're about to ask me to make more callout posts about the people associated with him, I'm not interested & please don't beg me into making them.

If you also have issues with him, share your thoughts here, it also doesn't just have to be about IDW Sonic or Sonic general.

[horizon-verizon]

I came across a comment underneath a post related to Show!Rhaenys which stated that had she survived she wouldn't have objected to Addam and Alyn becoming Corlys' heirs. Now, while we will never find out whether she would have done so or not, I believe it won't be out of character for her. And it is not a compliment.

In the book, Corlys most probably pushed for Addam to be legitimized and named heir to Driftmark because Joffrey was betrothed to Lord Manderly's daughter as part of the marriage pact made by Jace. Now, the previous arrangement according to which Luke was to succeed him with Rhaena as his wife was advantageous because their children would have carried his name as well as his bloodline. That window was closed with Joff. So, he probably thought that he might as well have his biological son succeed him, if nothing else. He had also lost Rhaenys by then and was angry at Rhaenyra. She was not in a position to refuse his demand.

On the show, Rhaenys suggests the idea of supplanting Joffrey with Rhaena as if the succession of Driftmark is candy which they can take from one kid and hand over to the other. In other words, she was suggesting that they pressurize Rhaenyra to set her son aside knowing that she is dependent on their support. This makes her callous in a way that even Book!Corlys wasn't because neither does she have the excuse of grief nor is Joffrey betrothed to someone else in this continuity.

All Show!Rhaenys cared for were appearances. The appearance of being fair and just. The appearance of being right. She doesn't care if Rhaenyra or anyone else gets screwed in the process as long as she gets to maintain it.

She wanted Baela, and later Rhaena, to inherit Driftmark primarily out of her prejudice against Rhaenyra's sons. But if Corlys were to put forward a "true" Velaryon heir then she is exactly the kind of person who would advise Rhaena to sit back, marry Addam or Alyn and remain content as Consort because such is the order of things .

Aaaah...posts like this make it so painful for me, bc I don't want to keep saying "it's the writers, a Doylist reading of them fucking shit up is more salient for this bc the entire project is set against portraying misogyny as it is by making their women "good" and behaviorally subservient for their guiding-women-for-violent-men shit, thus most Watsonian readings don't address the integrity issue of HotD very well". But you're asking me for a more Watsonian reading.

On the show, Rhaenys suggests the idea of supplanting Joffrey with Rhaena as if the succession of Driftmark is candy which they can take from one kid and hand over to the other. In other words, she was suggesting that they pressurize Rhaenyra to set her son aside knowing that she is dependent on their support. This makes her callous in a way that even Book!Corlys wasn't because neither does she have the excuse of grief nor is Joffrey betrothed to someone else in this continuity.

It think one counterargument some people may have is either that Rhaenys doesn't owe Rhaenyra anything whether Rhaenyra did something to her or not OR that she is a lot like many imagine real medieval women would act. Second one is fair, until you see how she's still very different from her book self and much less disposed to use violence for the reason of trying to make women more pacific and imply those who don't are uniquely evil from men who do the same. First one is dumb bc it is she who decides to engage and rebuke Rhaenyra for thinking similar thoughts she may have thought before.

Neither of these things will ever endear me to show!Rhaenys in particular, because both display a condescendingly disengenuous claim of moral superiority form the show itself about what this war is about, which is that this war was not as inlfuenced or caused and directed by sexism as it was by aristocratic selfishnesss...which the War of the Five Kings and literally EVERY other war in ASoIaF is caused, so why do we care so much about the Dance and changing Rhaenyra's or Rhaenys' characters....these female characters? Why do we change Rhaena of Pentos to merge w/Nettles, make the man who supported his wife political claims and showed not hint of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE domestically abuse her (S1 epi 10)? Why make one of the rapists (Hugh the Hammer) more sympathetic by making him a down-on-his-luck family man with a sick child? Why turn a politically intelligent woman into one who take multiple baths and has sex with a Kingsguard with little development towards theat, and make this a feature of her character in the second season? Why add MORE gender violence against women in general (Aemma, Rhea Royce)?

she is exactly the kind of person who would advise Rhaena to sit back, marry Addam or Alyn and remain content as Consort because such is the order of things

Yeah...bc they wrote her that way. Just hateful, this rewrite. Can't take her (them) seriously, Rhaneys is their spokesperson, and the inspiration of Hilary Clinton really how Hess' personal feelings or views really shaped the characters instead of her knowing what F&B is and be willing to tell that. (I say Hess bc it is her who said she used Clinton as her inspo) And if she wasn't willing...never should have signed on.

[purgemarchlockdown]

All the stuff you want to talk about sounds really interesting! I'm ok with listening to you talk about any of them!

Thanks......my writing gets a bit weird when I'm sick so it might not be the most readable but like- Im so normal about the 0506 parallels Im so normal about them- I've written a Normal amount about the ways Shidou projects onto people and how he causes harm through that because he's ignoring what the other person wants and instead prioritizing His Own feelings and emotions

(My emotions are out of control, that’s inconvenient? I don’t care!)

But I was really sad about not being able to include Mahiru actually in the savior-victim post!!! Cause she does this Constantly! The whole of her first T1 VD is her making Es Increasingly uncomfortable because she won't Listen To Them. She doesn't Care about how they feel because Mahiru is focusing on how much She views love and she believes Everyone wants a romantic relationship even if they Just Dont Know it Yet.

(Funnily enough I'm aro so Mahiru's talking points make me extra uncomfortable in a way.)

Mahiru believes in an Ideal of romance, so when she interacts with Reality and the complications of it, that ideal breaks down. Because nothing can ever really truly live up to the fairytale ideal of romance (nor Should It, since those ideals tend to have some Extremely Horrible and Unhealthy versions of love and gender and sexuality that is damaging to people)

Mahiru says herself she can only speak in cliches. She's not Engaging with how love and romance actually are, she's engaging with the Ideal of love and romance she was raised by society to believe in.

This causes some Severe Conflict with her boyfriend. Mahiru Outright states she guilt trips her boyfriends and gets upset when he doesn't comply with her.

If you don't hug me, even our hearts will start drifting apart

This is Bad Behavior no matter what kind of relationship it is!

Y'know-it surprised me that people went with the stalking theory in T1 because if I wanted to campaign a reason why she should be voted guilty I would of pointed out her Abusive Behavior.

Because that's what this is! And it's hard to accept that when it comes to Mahiru! Because Mahiru is Kind and Sweet and Loving and Prioritized Her Idealized Version of Love and Her Emotions over Her Partner's Feelings.

It's easy to see abusers and people who engage with abusive behaviors as evil people who wake up one morning and decide to hurt someone. But that isn't the case a lot of times and I think it's important to recognize that!

Shidou and Mahiru project onto others and are callous as a result. But it isn't out of Malice, and I think that's really cool of Milgram to write them like that.

[infintasmal]

𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐆𝐎𝐄𝐒 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐓𝐎 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐎𝐒𝐄 𝐇𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐓 𝐁𝐄𝐀𝐓𝐒 𝐋𝐈𝐊𝐄 𝐀 𝐊𝐈𝐂𝐊 𝐃𝐑𝐔𝐌

@dupliciti : abatina and gladiolus for serval Botanical Headcanons

abatina : is there anything in life your muse has changed their mind about over time ( due to becoming more educated on the topic , certain experiences , etc . ) , or that they would change their mind about under certain circumstances ?

After the Astral Crew arrives in Belobog, most everyone's world turns upside down, including Serval. She learns that the stelleron she devoted years to studying was actually the cause of the Eternal Freeze. That the sealed Underworld has been suffering under the weight of their exile. And that her dearest friend, the person she trusted above all else, betrayed her friends, her cause, and her city, all without saying a word. And at first, she couldn't handle the knowledge. She grappled between her grief, her anger, and her guilt. And unable to deal with it, she sought to run away completely.

But with a little help, she worked through her emotions. Cocolia wasn't a perfect hero of the people, nor some great evil. She was a woman with a dream, corrupted by a power centuries in the making. And it's okay for Serval to miss her, to love her and call her friend. And most of all, that the fate of Belobog doesn't rest in the hands of the Architects or even the Supreme Guardian. It's the people who will carry the planet into a warmer, brighter future. And most of all, that she's still needed here. Not just by her family, but by the people who were failed by their leaders. And there are plenty of things for a genius mechanic to fix. Many of these things were ideas she knew deep down, but wasn't able to grapple with. So while her mind wasn't 'changed', it was certainly put back on track.

gladiolus : describe a moment from your muse’s life that they will never forget .

Serval has always loved music. But the stuffy piano lessons her parents mandated did little to fulfill her interest. She was tired of being told to sit up straight, follow the music, don't improvise. So when she snuck out one day, running around the edges of the city, enthralled by people who seemed free from the endless constraints of her life at home. And it's in a back alley that she first heard someone playing guitar. The woman said it was an older instrument that used to be more popular. Serval loved the sound and the passion with which the woman played. She returned to listen every chance she got, eventually learning to play herself, even repairing a broken guitar to use herself. And while this certainly a memory she holds dear, it's not the most precious.

What really stuck with her was when she brought the instrument home and made the mistake of playing it in the house. Her parents were furious that she was engaging in such low brow behavior. The threw the guitar away and punished her. She was devastated, crying angrily in her room. But it was alright.

Her brother and sister came to find her. They were still little at the time, maybe too little to fully understand the situation. But they'd heard her playing. They wanted to hear it again sometime. And Serval couldn't help but smile. She wanted to play again, it was fun, and maybe she just wanted to prove her parents wrong. But looking down at her little siblings, she was more determined than ever. She promised to play a concert specially for them one day, on a big stage with lights and everything. She would show them something fun, beyond the rules their parents set in place. And they'd all smile together.

[danganronpasurvivoraskblog]

The more Junko loves you, the more she is willing to inflict pain and suffering in you so she can feel the despair of doing it to you. This is why she is NOT a sociopath because they don’t feel emotions and empathy which Junko clearly does.

//I remember we talked about JoshScorcher's Top 10 Video Game Psychopaths video a short while ago, and he mentioned that he doesn't define Psychopathy by characters who display over the top insanity and craziness, which is why Junko and Monaca didn't make it onto the list.

//But I still think a case can be made for Junko in that list because her insane attitude, like I said before, is a deflection. She's an evil woman, but the craziness she displays is a fake personality she gave herself, because she gets bored of her own personality.

//That said, there are other reasons why she didn't make the list that I understand.

//Psychopaths typically exhibit shallow emotions and a lack of empathy. Junko, however, experiences deep and intense emotions, particularly in her love for despair. Her emotional engagement is complex and multifaceted, going beyond the superficial emotions associated with psychopathy.

//Furthermore, although Junko manipulates those around her, she does form genuine, albeit twisted, relationships, particularly with her sister and childhood friend/boyfriend, and as mentioned, her classmates too.

//It's bold to say that Junko puts them through the ringer GENUINELY because she loves them; it's very clear that she's doing it for her own selfish interests, but psychopaths often struggle to form any real emotional bonds.

//One of the most interesting things about Junko as a character and a villain is she is highly self-aware and understands her own motivations and the implications of her actions. She is reflective about her desire for despair and can articulate her philosophy clearly. Psychopaths often lack this level of self-reflection and insight into their own behavior, and while they CAN be intelligent, Junko’s creativity in devising elaborate plans and her ability to foresee and manipulate events show a level of strategic thinking that is not always present in crazy people, who may rely more on charm and superficial manipulations.

//People are very quick to label Junko as a maniac and insane, but the hilarious thing is she is anything BUT. She's not insane, nor irrational, she's just full of Despair, and that's all there is to it.

-Mod

[your-average-art-dealer]

therapists and psychologists in general have already said multiple times that having weird fantasies doesn't make a person bad

most women have rape fantasies, that doesn't mean they want to get raped

survivors will often be into cnc or non con because they can take back control

but overall, thinking that art = harm is a fascist rhetoric and used to distract from the real worrying things, that is a persons behavior

predators aren't caught for thoughts, they are caught because of how they act. And it's fucked up to assume you know a person's thought and intent behind art, then say such conservative things like "we need to SAVE them!" from what though?

I think this is on me for posting those tags without the context but

I totally agree with you, and those tags were originally attached to a post that said essentially what you're saying here (which is this post)

People should NOT be shamed for thoughts they don't want, nobody should. They are intrusive for a reason and people shouldn't be punished for having them.

What I was trying to get at with my tag post was an addition to the OG post because I have seen that the people who are violently against proshipping see those in support of it as pedophiles when that is in fact (a MAJORITY of the time) so not the case because something that is common to see within the proshipper community is that it is usually children and/or people who have trauma and are using it as a coping mechanism.

And this isn't a blind assumption. I've seen blogs where when asked why they do proshipper content they say it's to cope (expressly stating the intent behind the art), I've known people who were proshippers who were children when they were or was a proshipper to cope with trauma, I WAS A PROSHIPPER WHEN I WAS YOUNGER and I'm still trying to work through my intrusive thoughts about that kind of thing to this day.

My point wasn't that every person who engages with it is evil and "should turn to a better light" or whatever the fuck, but more so that it's a trend that someone who does make proshipping material is a person who needs to realize that maybe creating something that expresses grooming in fiction and turning it into "oh so cute! relationship goals! this is so good!" isn't the best way to cope, nor is it a message you should really be sending...?

Am I telling people to go around looking for proshipper content and then bash the creators and say they need help? No. Nor am I saying that every proshipper is a perfect little angel. But I am saying that assuming someone is bad for stuff like that is only going to cause more harm than good and you need to be aware and realize when it's a person making something to say it COULD happen in real life and it is really just art, versus when someone is making something to say it SHOULD happen in real life and they support it. The latter being the area where it should be addressed.

I don't know If I got all my thoughts out here. My feelings are so complicated and truly case by case. But I hope I did well.

You can disagree with me still, and that's fine, I won't hold it to you cause again I think it's just really complicated and it's impossible to have views that perfectly align with each other but maybe you see a little bit where I'm coming from now and know that I really don't come from a place of hatred and bigotry.

[whumpcereal]

Hi! I absolutely LOVE your writing, I’ve reread both Behavior Modification and The Kennel more times than I can count and I am always devour your posts whenever you make them. You really have an incredible way with words, characters, and whump, and it’s absolutely INCREDIBLE. One thing I think you also do really well—and which I’d like to ask for some pointers on, if it’s not too much trouble—is writing Ivan’s perspective in a way that effectively portrays him as downright despicable, but also complex, engaging, and believable. I want only horrible things to befall him, but I do enjoy the parts of Behavior Modification that are written in his POV as much as the others, and I think it really adds to the work! There’s a part of my (private, unposted, never to see the light of day) story coming up that absolutely has to be written from the villain’s perspective or it’ll spoil a big twist. I’m not used to hanging out in my bad guys’ brains, though. It feels much easier to focus on the victims and their emotions, which are much more understandable and ofc more sympathetic. How do I give my awful bastard a feeling of depth and authenticity when I feel like I can’t relate to pretty much anything he thinks, says, or does? (For all that I do technically dictate his atrocities for that good whump…)

Hello, kind anon!

First of all, THANK YOU! I am going through a big dry spell with my writing right now, and I appreciate all of your kind words more than you can possibly know. Impostor syndrome is real, and we all need reminders to help us feel a little bit more confident, so--thank you so much for that. <3

Second, I think, when it comes to writing villains, the most important thing is remembering that they are their own heroes. Ivan is a shit, yes, but he believes in his own scientific mission, he believes that he has been wronged by Joe, and he believes that he is helping Jack fulfill a destiny that he might have missed. Ivan is just an instrument of science; this is what Jack was always meant for; and Joe deserves the pain of watching Jack fall away because he is the bad guy for not having given Ivan what he wanted back in the day.

If you find your villain's rational motivation for being a villain--for Ivan, it's science and little petty revenge; for Doc, it's a delusion that he's helping people who would otherwise be forgotten and doing it better than WRU--it's easier to write them with complexity. Your readers know your villain is awful, but your villains don't! Why didn't Joe love Ivan? Why didn't Doc's wife understand his rescue operation? They're just people out there peopling, and why doesn't everyone get what it is they're trying to do?

Real people who do bad things--unless there is something very specific amiss in their mental chemistry--sometimes don't understand why what they're doing is so bad. Sometimes they feel remorse too. But their behavior is driven by extremes that I think they either aren't entirely aware of or would believe are beyond their control. They aren't cartoon characters, and perhaps they aren't even inherently evil, but they are deeply flawed.

TL; DR--humanize your villains and see where it leads you.