#we can disagree!

[trekkele]

re: redemption stories

Hi, i actually love your answer because it made it easier to sort my thoughts, so thank you <3 However I'm still thinking over how i wanna phrase my next - hopefully - elaborating ask, so that might take a bit.

Meanwhile, how would you narratively treat characters like Thanos (the mcu version), Mr. Freeze, Harley Quinn and Magneto in terms of redemption and forgiveness? 👀

And what do you think about the redemption stories of heroes that we've already seen? Like Tony Stark (mcu version again), Zuko, and, idk, Severus Snape?

Ooh this one has meat in, delicious. Also funny story! Tony Stark was actually in one of my previous rambledy answers that i felt went nowhere!! As an example of someone who’s ‘redemption’ felt hollow because it was ended* with an abdication of responsibility instead of an acceptance of it.

Ok to start! Thanos is in a different category of villain to me so lets break it down. There are villains who are acting, wether that is in response to a problem they see or a problem they are creating (ie, Thanos destroying half the universe for ‘resources’, or too woo Death, Harley Quinn to match Jokers freak) and then there are villains who are reacting (Mr Freeze to save Nora, Magneto to champion human rights for mutants). Both are capable of doing awful things, but they will be coming at redemption in very different ways because of the catalyst that would get them to stop.

For example, Thanos wont stop because he either sees himself as a savior to a problem he created, or because he is convinced his next “gift” will turn Death to him, and (narratively, Doylestly) Magneto wont stop because comics will never allow mutant kind to achieve acceptance and peace. Thats where the money is!

(Obligatory side note that i am on Magnetos side. He is right and that is my zeidy whom i love.)

Vs Harley Quinn and Mr Freeze, both of which have clear parameters under which they stop being antagonists. Mr Freeze saves Nora’s life, Harley realizes not only can Joker never give her what she wants, she doesnt want to be that person anymore either.

So in order to write these 4 characters with any kind of coherent redemption arc, you have to break down 1. are they acting or reacting 2. What are they acting or reacting to 3. Can this change without completely sacrificing the story/who they are 4. Would that be satisfying, narratively.

Thanos cant get a redemption arc because it would entail him 1. Admitting his resources excuse was bullshit and he could have just doubled everything (except the people) in the universe or 2. Death will never love him. And considering the type of guy he is, neither of those seem satisfying to me.

Mr. Freeze is less complicated because (going off his BTAS character) all he really wants is to cure this disease, and the US has a history of letting worse scientists get away with more. Give him an ankle bracelet and some funding and i think he can contribute more to society then he took* (*caveat i cant remember if he kills people or not)

The thing with Harley and Magneto is that theyre both mostly antiheroes. Harley is already pretty much “redeemed” in comics these days, and by having her enagage directly against the kinds of plots she used to run i think theyve done a pretty good job by making that a satisfying if not always elegant arc. *(caveat here that Harley is a victim of manipulation and abuse. She isnt a perfect victim of either, in case someone’s brought a horse and climbed onto it, but she is a victim. Her redemption under those circumstances was always going to be easier to swallow)

As for Magneto, let the old man rest and stop building giant robots to hunt down his people and you’ll be fucking fine. He truly is reacting to situations so i dont think he needs redemption as much as everyone else needs to leave Zeidy alone.

And now for the fun part. Tony Stark’s redemption could have been fine. It was spread out over a few movies in a few years, so the gaps would have been less obvious, the character progression would have been serviceable, etc etc, IF he hadnt gone and handed the fucking UN and ROSS of all fuckers all of his allies on silver platter because he never truly reckoned with his own guilt and complicity in the deaths of innocents. Ultron was a symptom of this btw.

Tonys arc circled around the abdication of responsibility vs the acceptance of it, and by the time he dies i think he simply hasnt done enough to prove he truly accepts it. *caveat here that i didnt watch the final phase and only know of it through fandom and meta breakdowns. I think Tony is a really good example of a failed redemption arc and i would love it the movies knew thats what they were doing. The movies end with his death because he simply cannot accept who he was and what he did enough to change past it. And thats pretty comics accurate actually.

Between Tony and Snape theres a common thread actually and its that death is not redemption. death can benefit and protect those you hurt but if it is the only action towards change you take it isnt redemption. So thats Snape isnt it?

The thing is, Snape never does redeem himself, nor, personally, do i think he ever tries. Because his death is related to his work as a double agent and his opposition to voldemort, while the actions he needs redemption for are several years of actively bullying children from ages 11-18. Thats. Not the same!! How exactly do you redeem yourself from being a bad teacher and bad person if you dont live long enough to become a good teacher and a good person.

And the thing is, its not even that he was forced into being a teacher by circumstance and is bad at it, he is shown several times throughout the series to be good at teaching when he wants to be. The fact that he chooses to be mean to children because of his own angst and guilt is like. Textual. I hate him.

Zuko is a pretty perfect example of a redemption arc that feels genuine because 1. His tragic backstory isnt presented as a reason to forgive him, simply as an explanation for his behavior. 2. His setbacks never completely return him to who he was. He always changes and retains that change at least slightly 3. His change is almost entirely divorced from the people he hurt - they happen in separate rooms so to speak. Those people might be a catalyst but they arent the driving force. He doesnt change for them but rather because what he’s learned from them. And 4. Even if he never got acceptance or forgiveness from the gAang, he would still have changed and remained changed. There are good metas on this that are more coherent floating around.

I’ve run out of steam but if any of this doesn’t seem complete or is confusing let me know and i can (hopefully) explain!

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

ghost horses

GHORSES

[deepseasmetro]

i think it's really an essential skill for anyone - but especially communists - to be able to really accept the fact (and this might sound obvious to you) that people can be right about some things and like. horribly wrong about others! somebody can have something worthwhile to say about sexuality and have horrible takes about race. somebody can something worthwhile to say about race but horrible takes about economics. and while like - it's absolutely true that the beliefs people hold are not independent of one another and will thus in turn affect one another - what i really mean more is that i don't think it's useful to completely dismiss everything a person has to say because of a completely separate bad take they have. i guess this is a roundabout way of saying we should be doing our best to evaluate the things people say based solely on what they are saying, not based on preconceived notions we might have of them or their other past takes.

(there is obviously exceptions to this rule - for example, it's right to be very wary of any discussions about sex work coming from a radfem, for example - context is always important. but you get what i mean)

[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.

[chattematsu]

[4.0 archon quest spoilers]

[mollysunder]

The thing I never got about the fan reaction to Mel and Jayce's relationship (in general) is that people were incensed on Jayce's behalf that Mel used him for political gain, but like... that's what happens when the government sponsors your research. Obviously the funding mechanisms aren't the same because Piltover is an oligarchy where civic functions such as the Enforcers and even Zaun's ventilation system are privately funded instead of through a common pool of taxpayer money, but the purpose is the same, which is to benefit from the conclusions drawn from the results of the research.

I don't understand how anyone in the audience could be shocked or angry that when Mel, a high ranking representative of Piltover’s government, chose to invest in hextech it wasn't clear that she and Piltover would benefit. And it's not like this foreign concept to Jayce, he was originally being SPONSORED by the Kirammans', which is almost the same relationship except it's more explicitly private to the Kirammans' benefit, but I didn't see any pitchforks out for Tobias and Cassandra.

It's just such a double whammy headache to end up reading posts where Mel is hypervillainized while Jayce is practically infantilized because as an adult man in his 30s he simply can't understand complex relationships or make his own decisions. The way some fans have been offended on Jayce's behalf straight up erases any agency or even intelligence he has.

[vebokki]

a conversation that was long overdue, part one

[avelera]

Ugh, sorry, one last political point because it’s the day for it and this is bugging me.

Democrats and people on the left in the US have got to knock it off with this whole, “All Trump voters are obviously stupid” thing.

I’m sure it’s satisfying to believe, but it is simply not true, and making assumptions about your opponents that aren’t true is how you lose elections.

Half of the voting population of this country is not stupid and it is ludicrous to insist on believing that. Trump voters include doctors, lawyers, business owners, people with PhDs and graduate degrees, and people who attend college courses for fun. They are, unfortunately for many of us including yours truly, our parents and relatives and I at least know for a fact in those cases that they are well educated, well traveled people.

Assuming these people are just stupid and uninformed is, in fact, stupid. It a simplistic view of the world that is going to make your platforms lose if you embrace it and refuse to look deeper.

In practice, people engage in politics because they want the greatest happiness and prosperity for the largest number of people that they care about.

Everything after that is just haggling over price.

For example, the Left/Democrats might believe that the great amount of happiness and prosperity is brought to the largest number of people they care about when an advanced degree is available to everyone without leaving them in crippling debt, when people can age with social services that allow them dignity, when billionaires and companies cannot exploit their workers, and when peace and just causes are allowed to flourish around the world, including the education and enfranchisement of women, and the long term health of our planet. I personally believe that brings long term prosperity to us all.

Left and Right wing voters right now both probably agree that everyone is happier and more prosperous if they can afford a house and have a job that covers their needs and then some. How to get to that is the sticking point that they disagree on.

Right wing voters also want prosperity for themselves and those they care for and what they disagree on with the Left is how to achieve that. I’m not going to go into their platforms here because the whole point of this post is not assuming things about your opponents.

Now in order to persuade people to hold more Left leaning views, you need to make the case for why what you care about is a thing that they should care about and, more importantly, how it enhances the happiness and prosperity of them and those they care about.

Otherwise, you are asking them to vote against their own interests, which no one engages in politics to do, at least not on purpose (even if it is the ultimate outcome in many cases).

If you don’t care about making this argument to opposite side, then fine, you’ve already lost and you deserve to keep losing elections.

You deserve to lose because you’re not making a case for why anyone should support your causes in order to gain happiness and prosperity for themselves and those they care about, including expanding the field of people they care about, and it is ludicrous to expect people to do that without being persuaded either intellectually or emotionally.

This is what finding common ground and building coalitions is about, even if you don’t agree on every point. And if you self isolate and stick to your purity, you deserve to lose because politics is about how we govern large groups of people towards a common goal that, ultimately, is best simplified as the goal of their greatest happiness and prosperity.

Good faith politics is negotiating over what that means. Because resources are finite we can’t all get everything we want all at once. And not everyone agrees on everything so you need to prioritize the best possible allotment of happiness and prosperity for the short and long term, and that’s when we get into the nitty gritty of all the horse trading that happens in politics etc etc.

And you get into things like billionaires having outsized ability to enact their own happiness and prosperity but here’s the thing, many people especially on the right go along with those views because they believe (rightfully or not) that those goals will increase their own happiness and prosperity as well and if you don’t agree you’ve got to explain to them intellectually or emotionally why that is and provide and alternate platform or path for them to gain it that is more effective by at least some measure of that value.

Anyway, at the risk of this becoming a political science thesis from someone who isn’t a political scientist, just an amateur academic, tl;dr please knock it off with assuming everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, it is a losing proposition and it doesn’t get us anywhere near the goals we want to achieve politically, ie, the greatest happiness and long term prosperity of the people we care about.

[bread-wizards]

I actually think Dorian and Orym should fight more.

Remember when their slowly building tension over and entire episode (full of passive aggressive remarks and blame throwing) led to threats? And how after, Orym thanked Dorian for handing over the crown sadly because he knew Dorian would be mad at him? And Dorian couldn't even look at him because he was legitimately hurt, thinking Orym was disappointed in him for doing what he thought was right? That was peak.

The fact they went from that to their current closeness and trust is the best part of their entire dynamic. Their relationship was hard fought and still will be. They will fight for it because they respect and care for one another deeply, and their disagreements don't change that, only improve it.

[sur-i-ki]

𝘈𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺, 𝘺𝘰𝘶'𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦

To anyone from the outside looking in, you and Naruto were the least compatible together. For anything.

The constant squabbling, the fighting, and the sheer annoyance the two of you exclude when together would easily make someone think: 'Dating? These two can't even be friends'

For instance, take last week for example; the two of you, one board game, and the rest of your mutual friends glancing nervously at the two of you. The end? You refused to give Naruto his monopoly money, and so you dumped his instant ramen all over him. Sasuke and Sakura both kicked you out onto the curb for that.

You washed his hair later that night at your house as he littered kisses over your bare stomach.

Anyways.

Or, let's talk about when the two of you had your mouths taped shut because you couldn't decide on a movie. Sitting in silence togther as the rest of your friends sprawled across the floor-for the entire movie.

Except you traced out 'I love you' on his thighs the entire time as well.

Regardless,

There is no regardless. No matter what instance is brought up, there is always something after that, just, makes no sense. Whatsoever.

When Sakura asks Naruto why he fights with you, he replies, "Because we like to. It makes her happy." It’s safe to say everyone's jaw dropped, and probably dislocated afterwards when he looped his arm around you and dropped his head down to kiss your shoulder. You were seemingly unbothered.

When a guy asks you out, not thinking of the hulking blondie beside you, onlookers are shocked to see him pull you into his side.

But, you hate each other!

Do you?

Well, you can't hate him much when he whispers into your ear that you're his, he's yours, and that will hold true forever. Can't hate him when he brings you potted flowers instead of bouquets because "his girl" shouldn't have dead flowers. And you especially can't hate him when he doesn't take any of your insults seriously and returns them tenfold. Even if it’s to see the Cheshire grin on your face when he does.

So yeah, to any onlooker, you both are incompatible, but he says "my girl" and "pretty babe" and so many things when all you do is look at him, and, well, he's pretty compatible with you, so you don't care.

He's yours. And he’s cute. So who cares.

⇝ 𝘓𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘴, 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥! 𝘗𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘮𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Unsolved Mysteries.

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[beanghostprincess]

A bit tired of people complaining about Sanji's principle of "not hitting women" being misogynistic when it has been clearly stated multiple times that he does not choose it and it's heavily tied to his trauma and admiration for his dad and respect for women and definitely not from seeing women as somehow weaker than him

[ardate]

Every Boromir hater makes my enormous love for him grow stronger. Sorry you couldn't understand him, I get him tho and we're holding hands and the whole of Gondor is laughing at you

[v1-kisser]

Proship dni for my comfort thanks.

I feel like everyone portrays F/Os as these romantic, perfect all around lovers, and while that's all well and good! I prefer F/Os who are flawed, who don't always say the right things. Who can sometimes be petty or selfish. F/Os who have a habit of seeing conflict as a contest on who can talk the loudest, instead of a conversation. F/Os who run out of patience sometimes and have to go cool off mid-conversation, even if they're right. F/Os who struggle to communicate their emotions.

I find comfort in the idea of a relationship where mistakes like that are allowed and given room to breathe. A relationship where, no matter what the conflict is, the walls eventually come down. Maybe it takes hours, maybe days until you're both calm enough to work it out. Maybe it takes several conversations to solve it, but each end in Hey. I love you. I'll talk to you tomorrow.

You're not perfect, and neither is your F/O. That's okay. That can be beautiful, too. There's not a hug that's more comforting than the firm, tearful one after reaching mutual understanding. Knowing that you didn't mess it up too much, you didn't break things permanently. You couldn't if you tried. They missed you... and you've got some serious affection to catch up on.

[front-facing-pokemon]

[snekdood]

"if we make america worse and more of a dictatorship that will be even harder to unravel and make it the way we want the country to be, maybe then everyone will join our Glorious Revolution!" bb girl you cant even be in the same room with someone who thinks you should vote, how in tf do you think you're gonna unite people to fight in The Revolution with you? it's gonna be you and your 5 friends, i hate to break it to you.