#thats the fundamental moral difference there

[dukeofthomas]

I find the fact that the confrontation at the end of UTRH is often summarized as Jason asking Bruce to kill the Joker for him fascinating.

Because that's not what happened.

Jason holds a gun up to Joker's head, gives Bruce another, and tells him that if Bruce doesn't do something (shoot Jason), he will kill Joker.

Jason doesn't give the gun to Bruce so that he would shoot Joker. He isn't expecting Bruce to pull the trigger on the clown. He's asking Bruce to do nothing. To be inactive. Because that will still be a choice, and despite having done nothing, everybody clearly agrees that Bruce would still, at least in part, be responsible for Joker's death.

...And to me, this moment is a kind of- microcosm, of the rest of Jason's point. Because after being captured and carted off to Arkham, the villain will escape again, and will kill more people. The only way to truly prevent that from happening would be to kill them; Bruce refuses to do so, and I respect his right to choose such a thing for himself, but it is still a choice, and if we agree that Bruce's inaction during the confrontation would leave him at least partly responsible for the Joker's death, then we must also agree that his inaction in permanently preventing the Rogues from killing more people means he is also, partly, responsible for all of those deaths.

[lotussokka]

the idea that jc is the main character of mdzs is so nonsensical its almost laughable to me honestly. he couldve been /a/ main character if mxtx had focused the narration around both wwx and him. it wouldve changed the story to be the tale of two brothers instead of being primarily a love story but all the components of the existing story couldve remained intact as one half of a two sided story. however even then he wouldve been one of two main characters. ive thought quite a bit about it over the years since i read mdzs and i cannot think of any way to tell the events of the story with jc as Thee Main Character™. the main plot is driven by solving a mystery that jc had a passing knowledge of, at best, so even if mxtx had focused the pov entirely around jc the way she did wwx, it would be debatable if he was actually the main protagonist or if he functioned as an outsider pov to the main events. i mean that wouldve been an incredibly interesting choice and i wouldve had sooooo many Thoughts about how he’s barely the protagonist in his own story, but thats not the choice mxtx made

[reonnex]

The infantilization of book!Wylan and show!Wylan really needs to be looked at.

This isnt a call out, or trying to hate on anyone, just an overall thing I've seen throughout being in this fandom

In the books while Wylan is a child he is also 16. People underestimate him into innocent and even younger. And while he is naive, this does not make him innocent. He has his own morals, own judgment that havent been ripped away from him yet. He is just trying to survive.

People use the "we could wake them up line" a lot snd I agree! But to also look at the full lines as well

Wylan gestured to the guards. "Is it safe to leave them, you know-"

"Alive? I'm not big on killing unconscious men."

"We could wake them up."

"Pretty ruthless, merchling. Have you ever killed anyone?"

"I'd never even seen a dead body before I came to the Barrel." Wylan admitted.

"It's not something to be embarrassed about," Jesper said, surprising himself a little. But he meant it. Wylan needed to learn to take care of himself, but it would be nice if he could do it without getting on friendly terms with death."Make sure the gags are tight."

This isnt him being ruthless. Its him being logical. He is taking what Jesper says to heart. Wake them instead of killing them unconscious becuase Jesper doesn't want to kill unconscious men. Which they do end up tying the soldier to a pole, not killing them!! Him having morals shouldn't contribute to claims of him being innocent.

Wylan is worried about hurting people but will do so if nessecasry to save his friends. We can see this in the show and books. In the show he does not want to make bombs for Kaz, but does so in the end because he acknowledges he has to survive. He is worried about Alby, but goes along with the plan still.

All these are what makes Wylan, wylan. It is his fundamentals, his morals and idels. They are not however claims to see how sweet and innocent he is and how he was corrupted.

Ontop of this, while it is never y it is hevaily implied that Wylan is also autistic. (Also, correct me if im wrong please, but im pretty sure Jack did talk about this.) Autistic people get infantilizated already, and I've had my own fair share of this as well. ( I am autistic and have a learning disabilitiy, as well a speech impedament that I still struggle with.) I have to work harder to make sure people treat me as a twenty year old. Because that is my age, and there is a significant difference in attitude in how people treat me when they know im autistic, and when they don't.

And for Wylan, I feel like its the same issue. While it may not be intentional, ive been people coo over the fact Wylan has done simple tasks or teen experiences. Him having Jesper read to him, getting flustered when talking to him, Wylan not understanding social cues as well as others and taking things to face value.

You can be excited for him and think it's sweet, but to also acknowledge that there is a line between "Thats adorable" and "He's adorable." Wylan is someone who is neurodivergent. He was extrmetly sheltred as a child and was never given the proper tools to help his dyslexia, due to this he has struggles that shouldn't be overlooked or seen as "cute" when he experiences outcomes due to the situation he was in. Whenever he doesn't understand social cues, i.e., "Whos mark." People giggling and saying it's silly or cute when he doesn't understand the cues. That's infantilizating! You are viewing things he struggles with in the lens of watching a child understanding the world. Which Wylan isn't. He is a teenager, no matter the circumstances. His age should be understood.

This infantilization also effects wesper in how people view the two of them. Many people view black people as "older, the man in the relationship, rugged" while the white person is seen as the "women, younger, more innocent."

Infact, I think the show only worsned it for Wylan. As now there are faces to names.

Jack does have a youthful face, but still looks his age. I have a babyface and even now at 20 I look much older then I did at 16. The same goes for Jack. He cant control how he looks but because of his youthful features people only push for this racially hetaronormative mindset more between Wylan and Jesper (Even if its untitional).

Even Kit looks his age as well and has a baby face. He's 29 right now but was in his mid twenties during filming. Season 1 was filmed back in 2019 but due to covid post production got set back, and season 2 was filmed in the beginning of 2022. But why is it only Wylan who is infantilizated? Jesper struggles just as much with his ADHD and trauma as Wylan does.

Jack and Kit are only one year apart, the same in the books but still ive been Wylan be portrayed as the "poor innocent child who was abused." and Jesper as the "he needs to get over his addiction hes a grown man/ he's too mean to Wylan."

In society now so many black teens are seen as adults and treated as such, while white teens are seen as younger and not pushed so hard. The same can be seen for wesper.

Ive even seen people on Tiktok and other socials claim that Jesper was rude to Wylan and abusive. (WHERE???). Both Wylan and Jesper have said things that hurt the other, and they both apologized for it, and get grilled as well. In the show and books they learn and grow. The infantilization of Wylan doesnt hurt just him but plays into racial stereotypes and also microagressions. Why is it that when the white character is calling someone out its "deserved" but when the black character (who might I add had no idea) makes a side comment he is labled as cruel and abusive?

In so many shows and books the black character is usually portrayed as the joker character. Six Of Crows does this as well, which is something important to not ingore. Jesper is seen as the flirty joke character. However the only difference is soc also show more sides to his character by letting him be vulnerable. Letting Jesper show his struggles to the audience as well, how his neurodivergece effects him, letting him dress in skirts and bold colors that step away from the gender norm. So many times in media the black character is just there for shits and giggles, or is used as the villan/antagonist.

It believe its really important to understand this, and to acknowledge if your infantilizating him, or even using microagressions on Jesper unintentionally, then to learn to understand why and to grow from them.

[deltaruiner]

mami tomoe being really lonely as a parallel to homura? who has (as of the end of rebellion) set herself apart from each and every one of her friends on a fundamental level? :3 :33

actually thats a really interesting parallel to make bc:

Mami didnt set herself apart. She is instead shown in "the different story" as being set apart by her circumstances unwillingly- She cant connect with other teens her age because magical girling it is hard work!! So she has no time to truly connect to someone beyond casual chatter during the school day, much less invite them to a tea party!

She also could not connect with other magical girls however, all of them either perished soon, had their own group, or simply did not really want to befriend anyone due to the risks of both resource management and possible danger that exist in magical girl groups. Her closest try was with Kyouko- who, as we all sadly know, turned on her.

The main reason Mami could not truly befriend anyone was, entirely, that she was a magical girl.

Homura also isolated herself from everyone, come rebellions ending. The reason she did so was also due to being a magical girl. But she was also isolated like this in a very different way.

Homura chose to isolate herself. But it was also because she felt that NOT being isolated was as impossible as it was for magical girls such as Mami- a matter of material obstacles that cannot be overcome in any way the world permits, rather than a high moral or material cost to pass them.

This is because!!! She is a magical girl!!! This is because her wish and hopes and dreams are all centered around Madoka! Not to mention her lesser (but present) desire to protect and uplift her friends too, as estranged as they are!

Her perspective that dictates that she MUST isolate herself from her friends to protect their happiness, is (obviously!) false. She assumes that she is evil and intolerable to them (false), that she is not and will not ever be able to BECOME tolerable and good, much less a positive to them (false), and finally, that existing with her friends as the demon she is is simply impossible (ALSO false, but Homura, despite all looks, is unwilling to let her friends suffer from her in any way she can prevent, and thus sees being near them despite them disliking her presence as a physical impossiblity, rather than a moral one)

Both Homura and Mami isolate themselves from the world due to their nature as magical girls, which makes it seemingly impossible to connect with anyone for a longer term.

Mami couldn't do it because it was physically impossible to her.

Homura couldn't do it because her reason for existence is so entirely focused into a single thing, that despite there being nothing truly stopping her from violating it, the cost is so great that it amounts she a physical barrier she cannot break. Nothing is worth more to her than Madoka, so no cost could make her abandon Madoka.

Homura said this, as Madoka freed her from her own witch.

"I wanted to see you one more time.

And if I had to go so far as to betray that wish...

Yes, I knew I could shoulder any sin."

This is said after she flashes back to seeing Madoka die.

In other words, should Homura be unable to see Madoka again, and save her, she would give and do anything to defy that fate.

That includes giving up ever connecting to anyone ever again.

Even Madoka.

[zeravmeta]

you know for the longest time I've been of the opinion that the rhine labs trio dynamic is a parallel to the dynamic that doctor-kaltsit-amiya have and honestly this event is giving me more to play with

because like. saria is The Boss. like she is very much The Guy that everyone in rhine labs looked up to (and even still look up to) that could handle basically anything. rhine labs was the dream that kristen and saria made together, where even as further and further conspiracy and questionable experimentation took it over, people still trusted her. and thats so reminiscent of babel, the dream that theresa and doctor shared and the eventual fate of that, with one (saria and doctor) so clearly just supporting the other (kristen and theresa) because they cared about them. Saria always had a strong moral center, but years of having to slowly look the other way and cover up more and more made her numb to that sort of thing, up until the breaking point with ifrit, which has left her with so much guilt she literally Cant do anything except atone. Much in the same way, doctor was once just a medical practitioner who had to step up and fill in the diminishing ranks up until they turned out to be very good at war, from which they sacrificed more and more of their humanity until they were a cold machine of war, with post amnesia doc living with that sword of damocles always hanging over them that they'll eventually have to answer for their past selves' sins. it's this particular wrinkle that contextualizes sarias own relationship with doctor, because she can so clearly see herself in them and yet, much in the same way she has to stop kristen, she Would step to stop doctor if they ever became the same way again.

silence and kaltsit also have an interesting parallel in this aspect, as both have a very specific strained relationship with saria/doctor due to what they caused. notably, both of them looked up to saria/doctor, but were left feeling betrayed after seeing just how much they were willing to justify for their goals. the key difference with them here is that kaltsit being an immortal left her taking action and planning for literal centuries on how to fix all these problems, whereas silence is basically on day 1 working to dismantle and reform rhine labs. they also fundamentally share the same types of feelings to saria/doctor, where that, while there isnt only loathing and resentment, a whole bunch of their interactions are indeed colored by that feeling, and that even if the other truly is working to right their wrongs, that doesnt mean that those feelings of bitterness just dissappear, and justifiably so.

ifrit and amiya may not seem like complementary characters at first but in fact I would argue that due to sharing Hypergryphs Favorite Character Archetype (the girl who will end it all) they actually overlap significantly, but they just have one key difference: ifrit didn't have to grow up quickly the same way amiya did. the point of silence and sarias intervention is that ifrit was not forced to take up the mantle the same way amiya did, and a lot of their respective dynamics hinges on how they treat ifrit/amiya: ifrit is very specifically protected by saria and silence, both of them willing to completely drop their history for her sake, while doctor and kaltsit, while protective, are also subservient to amiya. the two might be the adults in the room, but its amiyas goals that they are supporting and amiyas dream that they are fighting for. they even both have the same type of relationships with their caretakers: even though saria/doctor did wrong them, they still heavily admire and look up to them, with silence/kaltsit being someone they also deeply cherish but are more willing to push back against.

you can even extend these parallels to the idealism that both trios drew from their true leaders: kristen and theresa. in a weird way, these two characters share the trait of genuinely and unconditionally loving their "other half" (saria and doctor) but are so committed to their dreams that it inadvertently destroyed their other half. Kristen was perfectly fine committing atrocities for her dream, even if she was willing to take every detour if it meant that saria would stand alongside her again and support her, while theresa, even though she hated war, was perfectly willing to let doctor become a war machine to win more and more of their harsh battles (a trait thats also passed along to amiya).

the real difference is that kristen's dream was always for herself, while theresa's dream was for everyone else, and the fallout of that is drastically different: kristen burned her bridges for her dream, while theresa's death completely shattered hers. saria, silence, everyone in rhine was betrayed by kristen, whereas thereas death splintered the organization and left so many mourning.

they're all a sort of twist on each other in that way. saria is a doctor who never spiralled into the war machine that pre amnesia doctor was, silence is a kaltsit without the agency or control that she has, and ifrit is an amiya who never had to grow up as quickly.

what makes it so good to me too is that the rhine trio isnt a dark reflection of the rhodes trio, it's the opposite.

true reconciliation between saria and silence *is* possible, and very well the path that they're headed in. for everything that happened, they are working together and slowly rebuilding that trust because they've already had their reckoning. with doctor and kaltsit, there's simply too much history and (justified) loathing on kaltsits part for their past relationship to ever be truly salvaged, even moreso because both of them are willing to follow amiya to the depths of hell for her dream, while saria and silence would die if it meant that ifrit would never have to pick up a weapon again.

maybe one day, if doctor does get their memories back, and true closure can be achieved in that shared history, they might be able to salvage their relationship, but as it stands theres still too much to answer for.

[mecachrome]

hello! i read you primer (which was lovely) and if you dont mind, what makes you think that lando has a high eq? not that i disagree with you but i feel like high intelligence of any kind is not something that is commonly associated with lando (i say this with affection of course) thats why it stood out for me :)

hey anon!!! first of all thank you so much :) and ofc i'd be more than happy to share my perspective although of course this is just my very random meta as a semi-uninformed oscar fan hahaha

ok not to go off on too much of a tangent but i think something i often encounter in real people fandom is this ig very restrictive perception of "intelligence" when it comes to examining celebrity upbringings and career choices? which i don't think necessarily comes from a malicious place, and i mean obviously a major factor & meaningful context behind lando specifically not finishing school is that he is extremely rich and had major financial security to pursue his dreams, and then on top of that he's definitely prone to saying many impulsive and objectively uninformed things, but...... just as a purely personal philosophy i try to avoid ascribing too much weight to "traditional" notions of intelligence or one's academic success. like i do find it endearing that oscar studied engineering subjects because i did too, but just as an example if you look at oscar it's really like, Well the difference between his education and lando's is frankly MUCH less pronounced than the difference between oscar's and lily's (read: a-level cs is not going to make you a software engineer...), even though people often act like lando is the dumbest person in the world and oscar is some engineering genius. and then furthermore when you examine the actual types of "intelligence" useful to someone becoming a successful racing driver aka the rote memory, technical knowledge, and sheer intuition required for honing race craft and maximizing pure pace around a circuit, lando is just as smart as any driver. or at least that's what i think!!!

let me put the rest below the cut........

also to some degree i really do believe it's smarter to know that you're wasting your time in school if you can be doing something else that will be more fulfilling and is accessible and achievable to you, because doesn't that just afford you extra time to practice and hone your craft and get further with your life? again with lando this was a decision that could only have been made with a massive safety net and undeniable amounts of privilege, Which I Recognize, but just like—idk. i think it's fine to not like school, and even though Lando Norris specifically certainly does not need his academic history defended i try to remain consistent in not moralizing the specific dimensions of someone's intellect.

but anyway!!! that doesn't really have anything to do with eq or your question HKLSDFH i just like overexplaining... in terms of eq, i think it kind of just inherently shows in how lando makes and maintains his friendships honestly, which all goes back to the idea of his empathy. and this is perhaps a bit of a fannish meta oversimplification and obviously everything i say is VibesTM at the end of the day but i do think he's someone who's just incredibly and stubbornly loyal, and that even though some of the things he says come off as callous to fans who examine his intent through the lens of their own ideologies, they're actually usually perfectly fine in the context of his relationships and the general culture of the f1 paddock. like he's been friends with maxf and co since he was a functional baby and is somehow still codependent with these people who aren't actually properly relevant to the sports bubble he occupies at all anymore, and yet that hasn't changed the fundamental makeup of the connections he's made because he just, like... values people.

like tps and mclaren personnel and pretty much every driver on the grid etc. all genuinely LOVE lando, and imo he's very self-aware of how he comes off to fans and does show a lot of grace despite............certain things. like he's not going to always Say The Right Thing in the moment, but he generally understands how people feel about him and why they react to the things he says, which is why he's so effective at both marketing himself and hiring people who can market him better (how many other drivers have built up a branding as strong as ln4 & quadrant before the age of 23!)

the way i see it is essentially that lando's "honesty" is part of his eq. because formula 1 is an entertainment product built off bullshit, but actually successful and healthy and sustainable outfits need honesty and accountability to thrive. and ultimately lando is, at least within a sporting context, a deeply accountable person. Also speaking again of different perspectives of intelligence: for ex mclaren works the way it does because zbrown understands his place, andrea understands his place, and lando and oscar both understand their places!!! like zak brown's savvy is in business so he handles the press conferences even though that's usually the tp's job, and andrea understood that key was ineffective in his role so he retooled the entire engineering triumvirate, and then lando and oscar... work as teammates because they have a productive and collaborative understanding of each other and what they're meant to deliver every week.

idk if that makes sense really. but i think lando takes on a lot of responsibility and clearly cares deeply about the team and is very vocal about that, regardless of whether "he's too scared to be max's teammate" doubters believe it alksdfhlkfdh, and i think this kind of... general refusal to entertain bullshit in a world of bullshit & the fact that he's still friends with daniel and close to maxv and all these people who he's apparently deeply wronged according to certain corners of the internet etc. etc. is a pretty solid reflection of that eq. he doesn't always know what to say but he usually means the right thing, most of the time..... and as much as oscar is clearly mature beyond his years i don't think lando has ever shown an inability to face the heat as the senior driver and team leader at mclaren? like if you watch any recent interviews where he answers technical questions or discusses where mclaren is developmentally or their place in the championship fight he always speaks very well and confidently and measuredly. like IDK. maybe i'm just crazy though. lmk if that makes no sense HDSLFKH sorry for this essay 😔

[pisspope]

"Fiction is catharsis. Fiction is experimentation. Fiction is a place to explore the taboo, the weird, the different. Take that away and all you have is generic, watered down slop. Ship your fave with a fascist. Write weird incest fics. Explore unhealthy dynamics. THATS. WHAT. FICTION. IS. FOR. "

While I don’t agree with pitchforks over ships, I do take issue with "fiction justifies all content without critique." Fiction can indeed be a medium for catharsis, exploration, and experimentation, but that doesn’t exempt it from thoughtful examination or accountability.

In the context of FloJean shippers, it is about glorifying harmful ideologies and normalizing toxic relationships. This isn’t about policing what people are allowed to create or enjoy, but it’s important to recognize that fandom spaces are shared, and the content produced within them can have an impact on others. Writing or drawing works that explore taboo or dark topics doesn’t mean those works are immune to being questioned or challenged. It’s entirely possible to engage with darker themes responsibly without romanticizing or trivializing them. However, looking at some fujoshis, specifically FJ creators here on tumblr, there’s often a lack of critical thought put into these.

Now when it comes to FloJean specifically, we need to remember Jean is portrayed as a deeply empathetic, moral individual who values kindness and despises authoritarianism. Shipping him with Floch undermines these aspects of his character by placing him in a dynamic that fundamentally contradicts his core values. I understand opposites-attract dynamics is fun.but FloJean often disregards Jean’s consistent opposition to Floch’s views. It makes the pairing feel forced or out of character. This is different with pairings like ReiJean or JeanMarco where both made Jean grow as a better person. For FJ there are no redeeming qualities, no good in it, it is natural for people to feel strongly against the ship and to see it as problematic and about time this extend to the shippers themselves. I cannot fault the antis in a way you know.

if you don't like flojean, block the tag. you curate your internet experience. don't act like people are bad just because they ship two fictional characters together.

you're a fascist. don't be a cop of other people's online experiences. get off the internet and get a life.

[st-just]

So I saw your hot take, and I'm just curious, what do you think character development should mean? If a character stays a shitty, pathetic, borderline abusive asshole no one is going to like them, because who would like them IRL? They suck. Thats why they have to be better (although I gotta admit, sometimes they deserve to just die rather than go through redemption arc i.e abusers)

re: (or I mean, I'm assuming)

I'm going to be honest, going off this ask I think we might just want and expect fundamentally different things from fiction.

But to try and answer your question, 'character development' imo just means the character changing in personality or priorities over the course of their arc - it's an entirely amoral term. The tragic hero being consumed by their hamartia until they destroy everything they care about falls under the heading as much as some degenerate sinner having a Damascene conversion (or secular equivalent thereof).

(I ran out of fire emojis to respond to, but: my related hot take is that works/fandom treating being a good friend or devoted romantic partner or being willing to sacrifice and suffer for the sake of your child as being automatic proof that you're fundamentally a good person is both aesthetically boring and morally repugnant)

[intertexts]

HELLOOOOOOO i hope u have fun w ur siblings :] but also holy shit i cant wait for u to finish 39 and get to 40 heheheheheheh. ANYWAY. welcome to wibby torment nexus hours here we go!!!!!!!!!

actually going to start with the whisperer/mal/trickster thing because holy shit dude ive had IN DEPTH thoughts about this. i cant even type it all out here bc thats for a wholeeee second ask but basically. fuckin. yeah. fundamental basics: in nhw world trickster killed clarence. not going to give you the reasoning for this yet. im on the fence about how particularly intentional wibbys death was BECAUSE of that but.... yeah thats for sure a fucking soup ingredient dude.

out of all the options you said... hmmmmmm okay. i like all of them for different reasons. i dont think he would specifically kill wibby JUST to spite mal, theres definitely more to it than that, but i think its a funny little bonus for him. mals hatred is proabably MOSTLY one sided. but trickster thinks its funny to make him look like an idiot sooo. haha i killed the kid who reminds me of the other guy i killed in front of you get fucked loser! I ALSOOOO. HMMMM. I DO REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF WILLIAM GETTING STRUNG ALONG but i dont think trickster is manipulative Like That. hes impatient, he doesnt like playing the long game he likes instant gratification. getting ashe was a HUGE exception to that. so while i do love a good "morally grey hero works with the villain to get something he wants" thing. i think its EXTREMELY in character for william to do that but maybe not so much trickster. i do think if we want a moment like this though...................... what if. ohhh evil cooking in my mind rn. what if trickster makes it. OH FUCK. OKAY. HERE WE GO. LITERALLY JUST POPPING INTO MY MIND AS I TYPE OKAY OKAY FUCK . PSYCHIC DAMAGE

what if. what if. this happens at the beginning of the battle. they find muse sitting in the clearing by himself. they all show up ready to fight, theyre surrounding him (they have scouts out looking for trickster, too, since taking down the puppetmaster is how they free the puppets. ill get to this in a second). um. well. his hair is down, not in any fancy braid or anything. and william cant sense the breaker state. (dakota can, but hes not fast enough). trickster is making it seem like ashe is free by suppressing the breaker state as much as he can wihtout actually turning it off. he has ashe turn toward his friends, talks to them like its actually him, saying htings like "guys please he let me go help me get these off of me" (referring to. the strings) . and . in a panicked state of. relief and desperation to get ashe back, because he cant sense the breaker state, he believes the ruse, wibby is the first person to rush forward. it would maybe be more in character for dakota to rush in, but he hesitates, because with the effects of his power he CAN tell that ashe is still in breaker state. he and/or virion reach out to grab william before he can get too close but hes too fast and hes already in his own breaker form so even if they could grab him their hands would just slip through. he gets close enough and far enough away from the other heroes that trickster has ashe snap fully back into muse mode and rips wibby in half. so his real goal there was just to trick (ha!) at least one of the heroes into getting close enough to do that (lmao funny prank, get gamzeed idiot) but the fact that it was william specifically who did it makes the whole thing EVEN FUNNIER. his trap fooled the logical one, the smart one, the one who is usually stopping the OTHERS from doing stupid things like this !! AND this also just so happens to be mallard ghoul conway's little pet project who looks suspiciously like the hero trickster killed when he took over his first city!!!!!!!!!!! the whole thing is just so delicious for him. which . oh god the wards are out of commission because of wibby death but its also maybe kind of a good thing that this happened because trickster is so busy laughing at his own successful prank that it makes it just a tiny bit easier to find where hes holed up.

is this anything. hi. holy shit wibby torment nexus. i feel like there was something else i wanted to say but i got so lost in the sauce of the Scenarios

AUUUUHGH THIS IS EVERYTHING. YEAH. YEAH HOLY SHIT. sorry i took so long 2 get to this but like. Augh. holy shit. ok. this hits so perfectly i love it a lot. yeah. this goes hard. what if. also. honestly. he just could straight up turn off muse's shaker stuff/breaker state for a minute....... maybe he lets ashe think he's free maybe he's still controlling him or maybe it's genuine & he's really free for half a minute..... then also they doesn't have any reason to suspect him & if dakota Does ashe's telekinesis just. trips him up or prevents him from getting 2 will in time (bc half of dakota's thing is just Being Really Fucking Fast right).... will goes into his breaker state for Extra Security (remember how i said he hates actually fighting w/ it & stuff? he just Doesn't Know that it doesn't work right in ashe's area of effect.) & as soon as he gets close the ruse drops & everything bubbles and shifts around him & it's too late. do u think the trickster still does it with ashe's hands? also i couldn't stop thinking abt the image of wibby's breaker state just. dropping as soon as muse rips him apart. the clean blue-white glow fizzles and disappears & everything's just. blood and meat spraying. that moment of horror. (& maybe also dakota & virion literally just. can't get close safely for a while, they don't Know wibby is still Alive Like that, they just saw him get ripped apart, it's only when they recover from the shock/get desperate enough to enter the muse dreamscape that they realize his lungs are like. still going & stuff....) anyway. did we ever talk about how we fix this? how does he fucking get put back together????

[mousemilf]

i feel like seeing the world through actions rather than character seems like you're subconsciously distant and dissociated from yourself; as though some deep-seated insecurity or anxiety about an inherent personality trait means that you place value specifically on behavior and not personality.

for example, is a person artistic simply because they make art, or are they compelled to make art because they have this specific inexplicable draw and desire to do so? would someone who was not innately kind or interested in being kind "do" kind things?

which innate trait were you born with that drives you to assume that different opinions must stem from a psychological issue?

anyway, no, i am not innately artistic. nobody (or everybody, which is essentially the same thing) is. i bothers me that we treat art as so much more sacred than other human activities. would you say the same about someone whos hobby is collecting funko pops? are they driven by an inexplicable desire to collect shit figurines?

making art is something i know how to do. its a skill ive acquired, like cooking or driving a car. to attribute it to an innate talent would be to erase the years of study and practice ive put in. if its more initially rewarding because i have any natural advantage, it might be that i have pretty good fine motor skills, but thats a neutral physical trait like my height or weight, which i dont glean any meaningful identity from either. but maybe that initial aptitude led to more satisfaction, encouragement etc which has naturally caused me to think about art more than someone who did not start with that immediate small advantage.

ive had the privilege of teaching hobby painting classes to people who are not skilled and would not consider themselves "artistic," and everybodys reactions when they learn a new technique and make something they thought they couldnt is proof to me that art making is rewarding to *everybody,* not just a special class of divinely ordained creatives. i fundamentally do not believe that i am unique for finding art fulfilling. it feels good to make stuff. thats just human.

as far as kindness goes, if there are intrinsically kind people, it would follow that there are intrinsically unkind people, right? people who are born without kindness as an innate trait... so then what would be the point of trying to rehabilitate people whove committed violent crimes? if they dont have that inherent drive for kindness that innately kind people do, then it would be hopeless, right?

if we can neatly divide people into categorically kind and categorically unkind people i guess it would be much easier for us kind people (im at least flattered that you assume id be on that side of the dichotomy) to like, just be confident that we are morally in the right and not ever have to question the actual impact of our behavior since our intentions are good by virtue of this innate trait we were born with. sure whatever.

assigning importance to intentions and feelings rather than actions and their impact is like very yuckydisgusting to me. like i said in my reblog right before this, if kind thoughts were enough to make someone a kind person, then negative thoughts would be enough to make someone a bad person. silly and obviously wrong. i've fantasized about all kinds of destructive actions, but it literally does not matter at all, the only important thing is my choice not to act on those fantasies.

wanting or trying to be a kind person does not make someone a kind person. some of the nastiest motherfuckers ive ever met were constantly agonizing over whether they were a good person and looking for reassurance that they hadnt done wrong. yet they continued to act selfishly and harm people around them. their desire to be kind did jack shit.

but yeah, i do place value specifically on behavior because thats the only part of personality that meaningfully exists to literally anybody outside of your brain. basically. i think thats the main point of all of this.

[loving-n0t-heyting]

Whence all these assurances in my circle [speaker] is a secular liberal democrat only by sheer happenstance of birth and education, obviously if they had been suckled on some other creed theyd go all in for it instead?

The overwhelming majority of ppl close to me have wound up adopting moral, political, religious, etc beliefs radically different from their birth parents, culture, school system, etc. Maybe some of them will protest that this is purely arational "values drift" if put on the spot about it but for the most part they describe and seem to have experienced it as the result of learning and reflection

Yours is the ideology whose point is it doesnt decide on big substantive differences of value and ultimate belief and severs ppl from all fundamental attachment to community, comrades, and cult! Thats liberalisms whole deal! Isnt it... weird to treat this pluralistic, universalist agnosticism as an arbitrary affliction of particular circumstance you will defend to the death for no other reason than that you were born to it?

[paingoes]

Questions for any/all/however many of your OCs because I'm bored and curious.

How have they changed throughout their development? (I don't mean in-character --- like how do they differ now from the previous versions? How are they different now from the very first time you thought of them?)

How would the story differ if a character/s were in the position (societal, emotional, etc, any or all) of other character/s?

What's something (or multiple things) that they'd never, ever tell anyone?

What's something they'd never tell anyone, but really want to?

What do they think of when they hear the word "home"?

Are they religious? What are their thoughts on religion?

ooooo this is so much fun thank you for sending!!! okay!!!

1.) How have they changed throughout their development?

i wanna say that delta has been pretty watertight since inception. the story was created with him in mind. honestly i didnt always know where the plot was going and a lot of that was improvised, but his character and the way he reacts to things are fundamentally what holds the whole thing together. living weapon-whistle blower dichotomy was always there. thats my boy :)

paris and lorelai were both like. they invited themselves in and havent left basically id say that was their effect on the plot. ive said this a lot but the early paris characterization is kinda weak, he was just meant to be a kind of controlling and cruel whumper. and he was always supposed to be close to delta in age. that was basically it. i feel like the first time i really "got" him was when i wrote him in Moonshine blacked out and sobbing on the floor. and even now when i reread it im like. Oh there he is.

lorelai i guess ive also had her characterization down for a while. she has a good heart and despite her sheltered upbringing she has a very strong revolutionary spirit! shes kind of an idealist and she has a really rigid moral sense which is a good contrast to paris's ability to justify literally anything.

i planned to write rubies before crash out or to have crash out be like. a side story to rubies. but i remember the exact moment i realized when i wanted to do with paris and lorelai and it hit me in the head really hard. i was like. they neeeeeed to do fear and loathing in las vegas.

2.) How would the story differ if a character/s were in the position (societal, emotional, etc, any or all) of other character/s?

gonna hold my tongue on this one because the roleswap/princess delta AU is coming!!!!! no spoilers hehehehe

3.) What's something (or multiple things) that they'd never, ever tell anyone?

hmmmm. i feel like delta would really try to avoid talking about times where he was like. gleefully and proudly complicit in hurting and destroying other people. "glee" is definitely a strong word but he takes pride in his work and he knows hes the fucking best at it. he really enjoys the dopamine rush of hitting targets on a purely mechanical level and he enjoyed being The Favorite at the institute. hes knows its wrong now but at the time? he lived off the validation.

one thing lorelai would never tell anyone is that she thinks the living weapon thing was hot.

lorelai: omg poor delta :(((( thats so sad lorelai: it shouldve been me

while lorelai is pretty morally upright she defintiely has a thing about violence and control CTRL. lorelai is a foil to paris but she is a parallel to delta and i think she also really really wants to feel useful in the same way he can be. this doesnt mean shes okay with what paris did to him AT ALL but she is very. captivated by the concept to say the least.

4.) What's something they'd never tell anyone, but really want to?

i cant think of anything tbh! lorelai is mostly an open book and she says what she's thinking. if delta felt strongly enough about anything to confide in someone, and he felt safe to do so, i think he'd cave to that too. i feel like i should have an answer here for paris because he's definitely in the business of "i can't admit this even to myself" but i think if he really wanted to say something he would just say it. i dont think any of them are really good at keeping secrets.

5.) What do they think of when they hear the word "home"?

paris thinks of thales, which is silly. it's not like he ever spent that much time there.

loreali thinks of absalom! she loves her home and its kind of incredible she ever left. she made a big sacrifice doing it and she doesnt regret it but she does get homesick a lot.

delta has no immediate associations and that is something that definitely eats at him. minor spoilers for rubies i guess but he will eventually come to associate Galatea -- and especially Levon -- with home.

6.) Are they religious? What are their thoughts on religion?

i think it would be funny here to say lorelai's family is southern baptist. delta was raised atheist and in fact i think Martino was probably a total snob about it and made him read Space Richard Dawkins. none of them are particularly spiritual but paris and lorelai are both weirdly superstitious. paris believes in the afterlife.

destroyer does not have good religious lore but i did once canonize Space Catholicism so i could make a dick-sucking joke

[cryptidfang]

because i'm insane i like thinking about Hannibal characters and moral philosophy and the way Will's character fits in is actually really interesting

Basically, Will is a virtue ethicist.

Virtue ethics is different from both deontology and consequentialism because it fundamentally links your actions to who you are as a person. The goal of life in virtue ethics is to live the life of a 'virtuous person', this isn't just about doing the right thing in individual situations, its about the narrative of your life, having the proper ethical instincts and following through on them on every occasion. Doing the right/wrong thing isn't just about what you did, it reflects on who you are as a person, whether you are virtuous or vicious.

This is very reminiscent of Will to me, he is very concerned with what his actions and sense of morality says about who he is, Will's view of himself as either 'good' or 'bad' is like the main conflict of the show. He doesn't really seem to care what other people think of him, or about the effects his actions have on other people, just what they mean for him and the narrative he has in his head (he kisses Alana so he can feel normal, he continues working at the FBI so he can feel like a good guy etc.). He puts a lot of effort into convincing himself that he's normal and moral and basically no effort into convincing other people of that (at least in the beginning.)

Will also does try pretty hard to cultivate his moral instincts like a virtue ethicist would. Presumably the reason he 'couldn't pull the trigger' when he was a homicide detective was because he didn't want to let himself know what killing was like because he knew it would change him and how he thought about morality. (And yeah, this did happen and we see him pretty distressed and ambivalent about how his ideas of the 'right bthing to do' are getting confused and changing a lot from how we see him at the beginning of the series.)

When Will feels guilty over his actions it centers on him and what he's 'becoming' (all those nightmares of him growing horns etc.) Contrast this with Abigail, who's nightmares center on the people she killed and show her feeling guilty about the people that were harmed, this is much less self-centered than Will tends to be, he's the main character in his guilt and anxiety.

Even with Abigail, a lot of Will's actions (buying her fishing gear, asking to go on the hike with her that she was meant to do with her mother, ignoring her murder of nicholas boyle) are more for the sake of keeping together the narrative he has in his mind about Abigail and their relationship than for her as her own person.

(Philosophy is hard to explain but I think its interesting and thats all that matters) (Basically Will Graham is insane thank you good night)

[cryscendo]

i was gonna reply to your comment on my post but i thought id bring the discourse straight to your inbox instead alskfjdslk its not like we're telling teenagers to go out and discover some weird kinks of their own right this second lmao but they absolutely have to learn to be comfortable with the fact that people are going to be into kinky shit they think is weird and thats its not in fact a moral issue and also none of their business lol

like when i was a kid everything was so fucking raunchy and im not saying it was better but everything has to be so fucking sanitized now and thats not good either. when i was a kid online in the 00s people would literally link you to shock porn videos as a joke and that was just an accepted norm. nowadays there are so many ways to tailor your online experience to you and people are just ignoring all these block and filter functions and look at shit they know they dont like and bitch about it when they had every opportunity not to see it

and it goes back to the fucking rocky horror discourse like god forbid youre trying to portray a queer character in a way thats anything other than the most palatable beige blank slate that ever was. god forbid a queer character acts or dresses or looks or behaves in a queer way aksfjsld they want everything to be so fucking boring and palatable to 1) encapsulate every single queer experience on earth in a single piece of media and 2) be tolerable to straight people because theyre under the illusion that there is any acceptable way for a queer person to be to a bigot other than dead. both are a useless endeavor and they need to quit wasting energy on caring about either

like god fandom just feels so bleak nowadays and i know part of it is bc of how fast things move and no one can hold longterm interest in stuff anymore but a huge part of it is how flat out prudish people are all of a sudden

let ships be problematic let queer characters be weird let sex be kinky lmao let fandom by fun again my godddd

sorry for the rant aklsfjkdshfdk i apparently had a lot to say but hey i love you thanks for complaining with me xxxxx

omg i’m so sorry i meant to respond to this earlier than now!!! i saw it originally when i was waking up for work and thought “ooooh she’s making some banger points i’ll respond to that on my break” and then i just… forgot. so here i am now better late than never 🥰

i’ve always had a bit of a problem with the incessant need to sanitize fandom. i’m not saying ppl can’t curate their fandom experience to appeal to their interests, because obviously, they absolutely can. HOWEVER i do think it has become much more policed than it once was.

i think kink, and understanding its place on a fundamental level (especially within queer spaces), is something that takes maturity to fully understand. like with the rocky horror thing, the use of sexuality and kink is inherently different than what a young person of today might perceive it as. it doesn’t particularly surprise me that people are so sensitive to it, because they simply don’t understand their roots — they’ve formed this concept of queerness that pleases them, and therefore find other demonstrations of queerness to be antiquated or “back-pedalling” (even though we both know it isn’t). i think it’s dumb and immature to try to dictate “right and wrong” ways to be queer, but i’m also not all that shocked that it’s happening.

all this to say, queer characters don’t have to fit into the boxes that we deem as “appropriate”. just like how real queer people don’t owe an explanation for who they are, these queer characters don’t HAVE to reflect every queer person that engages with their media.

personally for me, kink is a MASSIVE component of the queer experience. so because of that, i like my favourite bitches to be kinky but that’s just me 😌

absolutely feel free to rant anytime your opinions are literally always correct to me <3

[understandableparadox]

I think a fundamental problem with a lot of vampire media is that a vampire is not supposed to be a zombie. it is supposed to be a human who surrendered to their own vices and flaws. the flaws of cowardice in the face of death and the vices of pleasure and gluttony.

which is why vampires can be made very versatile. As much as I don't really like Twilight, it is still a story of dealing with vices with creatures that fundamentally have allowed themselves to be dominated by them.

which is why i really like the movie Renfield.

THATS RIGHT YOU BITCH ASS MOTHERFUCKER YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO READ A SCATCHING BITCH AND MOAN SESSION ABOUT THE SATURATION OF SHITTY VAMPIRE MOVIES BUT NOW YOUR TRAPPED HERE READING MY THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS ON A NICK CAGE MOVIE, SIT DOWN SWEETHEART IM NOT GONNA BE DONE YAPPING FOR A FUCKING COUNTRY MINUTE

Renfield 2023 is a movie starring Nicholas Hoult, Nicolas Cage and Awkwafina.

Renfield if you do not know is the fanatical familiar from the original bram stokers dracula movie. the human who in exchange for aiding dracula in their dark dealings would perhaps gift him with the same dark curse, making renfield a fellow child of the night.

This movie takes place Years afterwards after a very serious battle with the last vampire hunters of the modern day and age. Dracula has suffered Severe damage from the fight and has Renfield aid him in taking refuge within the depths of an asylum while he recovers.

Here we get into the meat and potatoes of the movie, as much of a sin as it sounds, it does focus on nick cage as dracula but instead on nicholas holt as the aforementioned Stooge prime renfield. Renfield, between his random killings in order to sate the blood lust of his master, becomes more and more acquainted with the new modern world, undergoing the most harrowing journey of them all...

Therapy. 

Renfield over the years has lost his spark of mad fanaticism and is worried not only with his relationship with Dracula but his relationship with himself. Aiding at least one by attending an abusive partners support group to find victims. Mostly abusive partners and criminals.  

This is very notable because it's already setting up the original themes of vampires. Your cowardice and your vices. It sets up Renfield as a true coward whose vice is his love of dracula, or more exactly his desire to  Be Like dracula. Enough so that even though he wants to feel better about himself- to feel less like a monster- he still follows dracula's demands in killing people who he has decided to pass judgment on. 

Oh sorry i forgot a detail, renfield is a power ranger and his morpher is eating bugs. He gains some vampire powers everytime he eats a bug and does some john wick shit but thats not my deal, i dont care if renfield can do a sick back flip and punch a guy (complete fucking lie, the action scenes in this movie are so god damn rad sometimes, please watch this movie, please please please!!!)

The movie splits into a couple of different story lines. One being Renfield attempting to balance his burgeoning need to have a functioning moral compass and his romance with awkwafina character, rebecca the detective. Rebecca the detective attempting to balance both the rash of murder cases and a rash of mob related crimes in order to avenge her father, and the mob themselves attempting to figure out who is wiping out their foot soldiers. 

I'm not going to harp on the story for long so let's start talking about renfield. 

Renfield is a hypocrite, and it's made apparent throughout the film that he is a hypocrite. Despite wanting to be a good person he is still a murder. He has doomed multiple people to die across the world. He left his wife and child to be with dracula. He has done so much to cut himself off from his own humanity that it's almost insane that he wants to run back to it because Dracula has not yet answered renfields desire to be a true vampire. 

This all is blended into the idea of having dracula be a parallel to an abusive narcissistic partner in a relationship. Which in all accounts throughout the movie is true and we're going to bounce back and forth from that for a bit so buckle up bud. 

The main ire of the movie is that Renfield wants to push his problems that he has gained away onto Dracula without acknowledging his roles in them. Again we see that cowardice. Renfield cannot stand to see his own faults. He listens to Dracula both out of fear and admiration. At the start of the movie I mentioned that Dracula sustained heavy hits from the last vampire hunters. Well I forgot to mention how he survived. Lets go ahead and listen in Real Close to what he says 

The hunters had dracula dead to rights if you can dare to pardon my puns. Trapped in a binding circle, burning in holy flames and about to get skewered through his heart. The dialogue is specific, Dracula makes no specific promises but notes that Renfield is complicit and that regardless of whatever Dracula has done, he is still his greatest ally. We play on that cowardice and that vice. That desire to be near dracula or be like dracula contrasted with his fear of the repercussions of his actions. 

Snap back to reality and we see that Renfield is still struggling with this. He does not want to face the repercussions of his actions so he continues doing as instructed by Dracula while also indulging in his vices, his desire for escapism by delving into all of these new things. Vigilantism, pushing his problems onto dracula, pretending that he is at the moment capable of having a new life while still using dracula's powers to attain it. 

Ah but now we need to introduce the main concept of this film. That being the portrayal of Dracula as an abusive partner with narcissism. Dracula plays on renfields, and says it with me in class, Vices and Cowardice. He knows what to say to make Renfield back down. He knows all his fuck ups and exactly what renfield wants, that being to have a simple life with dracula, but not in a gay way of course, we still have to have a straight romance sub plot, i mean its insane to think that renfield wants to bone dracula its not like dracula promises to be his salvation while he is suspended in air in a soft whispery voice while renfield stares at him with all the gale of a oculerly enlarged puppy but hey what do i know? I unironiclly read isekais, my media literacy must be that of a brain dead lemur. 

We can see this played out in this scene here

Dracula knows how to keep the hook in renfield's mouth both taught and loose enough to keep him at the perfect level of knuckle dragging dejection to ensure that he runs back begging. In that while yes he is right that renfield at so many points gave in to his own desires and *coy eye to the audience as I listen to them scream “vices” at me.*. He has begun to make an earnest attempt to become a better person. Better late than never. 

Thus renfields true growth is him rejecting that which made him so close with dracula, the rejection of what makes a vampire and vampire. He embraces his cowardice by both admitting to what he is and now allowing himself to push his own crimes onto dracula, and then standing up to dracula, and then rejecting his vices when once again dracula makes him the same offer. To be that same shield towards himself and his own shortcomings rather than deal with a life without a master. Despite it being possible in the future coming with the promise of being a full vampire like himself. 

Look guys, let's not juggle bowling pins and call it arm wrestling, Watch Renfield. Its a good movie and nick cage is fucking awasome, thanks.

[darklight572]

"Are we just gonna ignore that?"

Mermista is, of course, referring to Hordak and Entrapta together at the end of the Finale. I think its an interesting question, and represents far more than a meta look at the ship of Entrapta and Hordak.

Fundamentally, She-Ra Princess of Powers (2018) has a drastically different view of what it means to be "moral" and what "punishing villains" mean. It does not necessarily hold every individual who does something evil responsible for their actions, instead, investigating the system that prompts this evil. I want to explore that concept primarily through the characters of Entrapta and Hordak.

Hordak (The Derivative of Pure Evil) Starting with Hordak because he's frankly a bit less nuanced than Entrapta, not unnunaced, just less. He's introduced as the leader of the Horde, passive himself, but frustrated with Shadow Weaver's lack of progress. As the leader of the Horde, all-commanding, responsible for the (at least) decades of devastation and death.

However, despite that, he is- at least later on -given sympathy by proxy of standing next to Prime. Sure, Hordak has tried to dominate a world for decades, Prime has ruled the Universe for hundreds of years-maybe even a milenia. Further, while Hordak rules from afar, delegating his violence to Shadow Weaver and Catra, Prime manipulates directly- robbing will and mocking any form of attempted dignity in his presence.

Note that when Hordak does attempt to be charismatic he mimics Prime, most likely intentionally. It is clear that the evil Hordak has shown is fundamentally deritive, and that creates some amount of distance between Hordak and his actions. Further, there is the-slight as it is- possibility that Hordak had-fundamentally- no choice but to do as Prime programmed him. I find this interpretation doubtful due to the existence of Wrong Hordak, but, in fairness- he was severely physically damaged immediately.

Regardless of your take on that, Hordak is shown sympathy by Entrapta. This is interesting, not because Entrapta "doesn't care about her friends" as some people try to argue, but because it clearly displays how Entrapta cares about her friends. Sidelining that for a moment, Hordak is a great example of systemic oppression at work- not just as a leader, but as a victim of it. He was created "flawed" and was cast out, having only known one thing- Prime and his conquest- he attempts to emulate it but can't, not totally.

In his mission he recruits people like Shadow Weaver, and encourages her when she creates people like Catra and Adora- no doubt- even ordering the creation of the program which creates child soldiers. Stripping them of their indviduality through uniform and loyalty, twisting collectivism to benefit one individual through the gathering and hording of resources. When we see Hordak interact with his empire its strictly toward his end or delegated to another party. He expects his soldiers to be an extension of himself in totality, obviously, as a result of him being a clone of Prime.

The fact that most of the antagonism for at least the earlier seasons is a result of Shadow Weaver should not be ignored. Despite explicitly ordering Shadow Weaver to stop focusing on Adora she continues to do so, she has the capability to summon Force Captains and order them against his wishes- even one he promoted himself! By his own creation, Shadow Weaver is able to push a system where she wants to go, thats because at this point SW is who controls it, not Hordak. Once Catra defeats and imprisons Shadow Weaver, she attempts to take her place- and then the focus switches from SW to Catra as the primary antagonist.

Hordak is, never really the "true" narrative antagonist of She-Ra, not really, instead he represents the impersonal ambitious and destructive system of oppression.

So why the hell does he let a short, genius, probably neurodivergent woman invade his sanctum and aid him with something he hasn't confided in his closest generals with?

Entrapta (Schrodinger's Scientist) Lets talk about Entrapta.

Entrapta begins fairly simply, as the typical "mad genius" archetype, even introduced in a stereotypically villainous way cinnematically- a silhouette on a canvas of forboding colors. Then, revealed to be, fairly short, and asymetrical design wise- with top heavy hair that supports her. Immediately cutting most of the threat from the introduction. Entrapta seems to embody that contradiction as we move forward. Simultanously focused on doing whatever she can to learn and experiment and still being so anchored to others.

Over and over, we see Entrapta convinced not necessarily by helping friends or stopping enemies, but by studying more and more technology. Ot at least, thats what seems to happen, I want to posit another explanation. Mostly, I want to focus on her decision to stay in the Horde, and I do think its a decision. While Catra does indeed manipulate Entrapta at least to an extent, is isn't using false information or to lure her to some forboding place. Catra feels- imo -empathetic toward Entrapta. Her friends who had claimed to care for her had left her, used her as a tool to accomplish their goals, thats something Catra can relate to.

While this perception isn't true, Entrapta seems to believe it, and is visibly disturbed by the relation. Quickly, Scorpia befriends Entrapta, and even Catra seems somewhat fond of Entrapta's company. Entrapta explores all sorts of situations, helps the Horde quite a bit, and even begins to befriend(?) Hordak? Why? Is it because she feels betrayed and whats vengeance? Is it because she doesn't care about whats right and whats wrong? I don't think so- I think Entrapta fails to see the system behind an individual, or maybe doesn't care for it. She's almost a mirror to Catra in that way.

However, where Catra thinks herself immune to the propaganda of the system just by knowing it, Entrapta seems unaware or unconcerned by the logical ends of her actions. In a way that seems to both contradict her focus on scientific rigidity and completely fit with how she was introduced: in the throws of experiment, and completely unprepared when the logical end of it backfired. It is both a strength and a weakness of the character- something I have to agree with user Gythyanki (https://www.tumblr.com/gythyanki) that She-Ra 2018 does quite well.

Humanizing Hordak (And Destroying the System) It is precisely due to Entrapta's unique perception of systems that she is able to befriend Hordak. Keep in mind, for his entire life, Hordak has only known conquest and using people as a means to their ends. Thats how Prime sees him, thats how Shadow Weaver sees him, thats even how Catra sees him. So- when this woman- who should be an enemy, who should be a prisoner- not provides aid to him when he thought no one else could, but doesn't just use him it makes perfect sense that he becomes fond of her.

And while Entrapta's decision to help a tyrannical dictator build a portal that could have ended the world was.... not good, in the end, if Hordak hadn't been turned at least to Entrapta's side, there's a chance Prime could have won. And really, thats sorta the point right? Its not that Hordak didn't do horrible things. Its not that Entrapta was right to build robots for Catra or help Hordak build a portal, but that, it was not wrong for Entrapta to extend compassion toward him. That the evil being done is not ultimately caused by the individual, not really, but by the larger system at play.

Once you elminate Hordak from his context as ruler of the Horde, what do you have? You have a "defective" clone who'll do anything to return to his "brother's" good graces, but has fundamentally failed him by becoming an individual. Hordak learns to have his own values and chooses the one that showed him kindness over the one that used him. So "Are we just gonna ignore that?" has an answer, no, we aren't. Because we've already dealt with the problem. Hordak's means of doing harm has been taken from him, and his motivation to do it similarly.

Fundamentally, what would killing Hordak accomplish here? I might even ask, what would punishig him accomplish? She-Ra Princess of Powers seems to refuse the traditional concept of punitive punishment, and instead focus on how people are actually effected. How was Catra and Adora affected by Shadow Weaver? How was Shadow Weaver affected by Hordak? How was Hordak affected by Prime? What sort of system perpetuated the harm these individuals did? And how do we stop it?

I can't claim to know what the objectively best moral framework is, but I do know, that I can agree with the idea that maybe people matter a bit more than vague notions of "justice" which harm more people than they actually help.

End Note I: I am NOT saying Entrapta and Hordak are justified in their actions, and I am also not saying that Hordak shouldn't probably have to do a lot of rebuilding. One more note: individualism isn't inherently a "bad" thing, but it can be weaponized to attack geniune collectivism used to aid people in securing resources, be wary of that sort of thinking.

End Note II: Just in case you were busy reading and didn't wanna open a new tab GO READ GYTHYANKI'S STUFF, I WILL FIND AND RANT ABOUT HOW GOOD IT IS IF YOU DON'T