#you would have to be doing something morally reprehensible

[tennco]

might've talked about this. on one hand i get that youkai are by definition not human and trying to fit them into human concepts of emotions, relationships, morality etc. kinda undermines that. ok. on the other personally i find leaving it at "they're not human we can't possibly understand them" is incredibly boring, because the only way we have to analyze and put their thoughts and actions in context is through a human lens and without that you're left with nothing. like that works for an eldritch entity or monster that's supposed to be incomprehensible but not a character, specially not the type of character that make up almost the entire body of your work. but that's only part of the point.

in touhou youkai (and gods and such) are by definition not human, however they are born from human concepts, beliefs, fears. they came into being because of humans, we made them, they have a little bit of us in them. youkai are by definition not human not because they don't share anything with us but because they don't quite get there, they are incomplete. you know the homunculi from fma? reminds me of that, born from one quality that humans have but lacking others. you can extend all this to the fact that most youkai with some degree of power choose to present in an human shape, it's hard-coded into them (and you can further extend this to 'they are trying to look like and overcome their creators' if you wanted to). it could also play into the metanarrative because a human made these characters and assigned human qualities to them.

there's probably some caveats to this and things im forgetting but i hope im making sense, point is i don't think you can make an "inhuman human" but you can get close. also there's something to be said about how "inhuman" is often used as a synonym for "morally reprehensible" or "evil" both in writing and interpretation because we couldn't possibly do something of the sort, but touhou does more than that thankfully. there's also something (WOKE!!!!!) to be said about how unlike other works that go into this the default human form seems to be what most would consider feminine. actually that's easily explainable because zun has said that the essence of touhou is beauty, and to him femininity and beauty are closely related, so in a way you can take all this to mean youkai are trying to achieve the most perfect, most beautiful form their minds can conceive. this is because zun likes girls, thanks for comign folks.

[eggsistential-breakdown]

HE FUMKIN SNAPPED

Seized by this scene from chapter four of @dril-cipher 's rb fic !!!! !! ! !!! ! ! !!

Video version and transparent gif??? flipaclip lets you do that??? version under the cut for all your transparent Ian gif needs if you have those. If you do please consult a doctor first

[comphetkoncass]

roy harper fans: sorry in advance for the fic im editing and posting today! if you read rhato it's pretty hard to view him in a positive light. and i want to talk about rhato.

premise:

dick grayson finds out that roy dated kory. you know -- when she had trauma induced amnesia, had isolated herself from anyone who remembered and cared about her, and was behaving erratically.

dick grayson punches roy harper right in his fucking nose.

[captain-lovelace]

People are bribing others to vote for Glenn so in the spirit of fairness, send me proof of having voted Lovelace and I will send you a picture of my guppies and/or my cat!

Sexiest Podcast Character — Scripted Champion vs Unscripted Champion

[lgbtlunaverse]

I feel like too often people frame Nie Mingjue's issues as ignorance borne from safety. Like, they think that because of his privilege as a sect leader he doesn't know what it's like to be in danger and forced to make hard choices to survive. And I disagree. Strongly.

First of all, Nie Mingjue is very familiar with death not only from war but from. You know. Actively dying since the age of fourteen. Let us not forget Nie Mingjue is dead! Super dead! And maybe he didn't die the exact way he expected to but he did, absolutely, know he was going to die. To act like Nie Mingjue is unfamiliar with the scenario of "do something you find morally reprehensible or die" is to ignore that he has been living that exact scenario and chose death.

Nie Mingjue knows death is a risk for someone like Jin guangyao, in fact he explicitly acknowledges it even in his worst moments like the stairs in chapter 49. Had his issue been ignorance, then he would've responded to Jin Guangyao saying that he's in danger and has to sacrifice others for his own safety with "No you aren't you'll be fine." But he doesn't. He accepts the fact that jgy is in danger with no qualms and says: then you should die.

That's not him betraying his values, those are his values. He is, essentially, pro-suicide. Jgy is like hey I have a moral dilemma what should I do and nmj straight up goes "Kill yourself" and earlier that same chapter when he was faced with a moral dilemma he went "I'm gonna kill myself." He believes the solution to moral dilemmas is suicide! He is extremely consistent about this! When it's pointed out to him that it would have been dangerous for Wen Qing to oppose Wen Ruohan it doesn't phase him because he thinks putting yourself at risk to do the right thing is the only moral choice. The idea that he can only hold this belief because he is himself somehow not in danger, again, requires you to ignore that he is dying the whole time. And it doesn't deter him. He is the idea of self-sacrifice as a moral good taken to its absolute logical extreme. Someone who is ready to die and demands the same from everyone else.

It makes him a very fun case study for fandom, because a lot of fandom spaces also tend to revere self-sacrifice as the ultimate good, and yet we get very uncomfortable when someone starts demanding it of characters we love. Like woah, hold on, that's a bit too far isn't it? Only we the audience get to do that!

[catnippackets]

disclaimer: as a sex-repulsed aroace person myself--

on one hand, there is definitely a bit of a double standard when it comes to handling canonically queer characters like, from what I've seen in the circles that I frequent (if you've had different experiences then great but I'm just telling it how I see it). for example, you're morally reprehensible if you ship a canon lesbian with a man or refer to a canon bi character as a lesbian. people will be so angry with you. and it's understandable, since there's so little queer rep in comparison to cishet rep that when there IS a rare actual queer character, the unofficial rule is "don't take that away from them when you add more headcanons to them". like, respect that this one is REAL and NOT just a headcanon. I think it makes perfect sense to feel upset when people take that away, even if it is just fiction and not even canon to the original source. and yet, whenever there exists a canon asexual character suddenly it's all "oh well asexual people can still have sex so it's fine if we headcanon THIS canon sexuality as something different". it makes me feel so genuinely heartache-y and depressed to see ppl ignoring that aspect of a character.

and by "canon" I'm also including characters that were never specifically referred to with a label but are very obviously coded as something, because those characters will still get the "even if it's not stated it's pretty obvious!!" treatment when it comes to showing attraction to the same gender, but not when they DON'T show attraction to any gender. like aro and/or ace coding just doesn't count. I understand that it's kind of hard to represent an absence of something, especially when you're only implying it and not even directly showing it, but it's not impossible. there's a lot of characters that you could argue are aroace coded the same way you could argue a character is gay coded. obviously to a degree every queer identity gets disrespected in fandom and it's something you just kinda have to deal with, but it's easier to notice when it's something you personally relate to. I don't think it would bother me as much if we didn't have that unofficial "respect the canon" rule and everyone just went wild with whatever, but the double standard does genuinely hurt me, especially when I see people I thought were cool about this stuff participating in it. so whenever I see someone fiercely defending an asexual character it really makes me feel good, like I'M being defended, not a random fictional character that I might not even recognize the name of. I feel safe, like that person will respect ME.

THAT BEING SAID,

AS a sex-repulsed aroace person who enjoys thinking about the entire spectrum of intimacy and where a character may fall exactly on that spectrum, ALSO as a person who is aware that "asexual" simply means "does not experience sexual attraction" and not necessarily "is violently repulsed by anything sexual", sometimes I DO want to play out scenarios for my own enjoyment. sometimes I DO want to think hm I wonder where this ace character's line is, compared to a different ace character. I wonder if there is anyone who would be an exception for them, and how they could go about dealing with that exception. I wonder if they're favourable, neutral, or repulsed. if those aspects of their character aren't explicitly stated then what's to stop me from playing around with them and working through my own issues in a controlled and non-canon environment? if they have the same identity as me, I am way more likely to want to play around with them like a doll and perhaps play out scenarios that I might have thought about before but don't actually want to do for real. I'm not taking away their identity, after all; I'm just, in this scenario, imagining this ace character as an ace that might have sex on at least one occasion for whatever reason. either just to try it, or because they do have someone they'd make an exception for, or if they got bored enough, whatever the reason. it isn't quite disrespecting their truth unless it's explicitly stated either in canon or by word of god that it's something they're uncomfortable with. and to be honest, if I see another asexual creator headcanoning a character as somewhere on the asexual spectrum and depicting them in sexual situations, it makes me almost happy, to know that they're still acknowledging that character's canon identity and accepting and exploring the nuance that could come with it, even if I personally believe that this specific character would be repulsed instead of neutral or favourable. there's this understanding of "I'm doing a character study exploration thing", and not "I don't care I just wanna sexualize this character"

but I literally feel GUILTY when I want to write what is essentially a thinkpiece disguised as a fanfiction or original story on asexuality and take an asexual character (canon or coded) and involve them in sexual situations to explore different avenues of the spectrum. I feel like I'm betraying everyone who's like me and is frustrated with how aroace characters are treated within fandom. I'm like "am I being just as bad as those other people who will disrespect a character's canon sexuality just because they think that character is hot and want to ship them with someone? do they do the same thing with other types of queer characters? how does this reflect that person's view of people, if they're explicitly told someone feels a certain way and decides to ignore it for their own amusement? or is it just because they're fictional and not real people and I'm being really sensitive and thinking way too much into it? am I not doing the exact same thing? do I have more credence to explore scenarios like this because I am aroace and sex-repulsed myself and therefore have a pass to do whatever I want and it won't come off as a little weird the way it might if someone who's allosexual did it?"

and these two opinions are at war in my mind constantly. like both of them can and do co-exist but I still struggle to accept that lol

[enlitment]

I don't want to sound like an apologist for anything but I feel like it should be acknowledged that the question of morality in different periods of history is complex and not easy to answer.

If you do say things like 'marrying an underaged person was totally okay back in the 1700s so what they did was totally fine actually' it definitely does ring alarm bells (as it should!)

That is not the exactly the same thing as saying 'considering the historical context of the era this person lived in, their behaviour would have likely not been considered too far out of the ordinary'. And I believe you can probably replace this with people's views of slavery or domestic violence and get to a pretty similar thing.

Is it dark and depressing? Sure. It's also, to the best of my knowledge, often fairly accurate.

I mean, I would have to do an actual research on this particular question to make any more definite statements. But just look at Ancient Greece's societal norms concerning relationships. That is definitely a challenge any historian needs to grapple with, but saying that every other man living at that time was a monster just isn't very useful, and doesn't feel like great academic work either.

Sometimes you would need to take a step back and try to look at these issues with more of a dispassionate curiosity to try and understand them. (As with Ancient Greece - what role did these relationships serve? How did they influence Greek culture? The structure of Greek society? etc.) That doesn't mean you renounce your own sense of right and wrong.

I feel like the best approach would be to acknowledge your modern perspective and clearly mark it in the text (something like 'by our modern standards, this would of course be seen as...' or even focus on writing articles from the perspective of the affected/opressed). But then also write about the way such behaviour would have been viewed in the time it took place. This does not, in my opinion, excuse the behaviour - it just helps to put it in the necessary context.

The bonus of this approach is that it allows the historian to highlight when someone's behaviour is genuinely considered morally reprehensible even by the standards of the time (something like 'even in a misogynistic society, his treatment of women was marked as particularly reprehensible' -> well better than that but it's also midnight, I'm tired and I'm sure you get my point).

There is also the possibility that some behaviour that is considered totally okay today will be seen as completely reprehensible by someone reporting on it hundreds of years from now. Something to keep in mind as a historian.

TL;DR definitely don't want to excuse any problematic behaviour but I think we should treat the question of moral norms in history as the complex and difficult issue it is, rather than jumping to conclusions

(also saying that someone's opinion is automatically unworthy because they haven't taken history classes at a university level just feels kind of elitist. Sure, an understanding of historiography and a critical approach are incredibly important, but it is not impossible to get at least the basic idea just from your own reading. And in any case, it is better to explain it rather than to dismiss the person's opinion altogether.)

[optimisticgardenhologram]

Mello gets a lot of shit about his chosen path of becoming a criminal and joining the Mafia to take Kira down. It actually makes a lot of sense though.

It's easy to say he should have taken the high road by legally working with the legitimate lawful authorities. But you have to remember Mello was offered and chose to leave behind all the power, influence and money that came with the position of being L's successor. As a consequence he had to restart out from nothing and rise up through the world from scratch. No matter how precocious, hard working and talented you are that's not really something that's possible for an outsider to accomplish in such a short time span in the straight world of government and business. However in the parallel underground world of organized crime these barriers aren't necessarily as rigid and entrenched - there is possibility for an unknown young upstart to prove their worth, rapidly make a place for themselves, and forge connections at the top of the organization. 

Also when you think about the state of the world by 2008 - with the general population terrorized, Kira able to topple governments with nothing but a name and face, and entire nations being cowed into submission - organized crime is probably one of the last-standing vestiges of coordinated resistance Kira. The mafia has is a built-in element of secrecy (and by this time most are no doubt using fake names) and at the most fundamental level are Kira's natural enemies. It is not only in the mafia's best interest as an organization, but it's necessary to their very survival to bring down Kira.  Their position in the world makes them natural allies in the fight against him. And what they bring to the table is power, money, resources and willingness to throw everything needed into the fight, to make gains against Kira and win. For them there's no going back, it's kill or be killed. And Mello was able to leverage his intelligence, skills and the stark reality of the situation to rally them to his cause and elicit their full trust, loyalty and support. 

It's unsavory to work to the benefit of mafioso scumbags and push forward their cause, but they were never more than means to an end for him.  Mello has always been willing to make high risk, high reward moves and above all do ANYTHING it takes to achieve his goals whether or not the path there would be considered the morally upright one. 

Near's lawfully-sanctioned SPK on the other hand was fully disavowed by their supporters, defunded and outlawed by the American government the moment its leadership changed and the new weak-willed President was cowed into submission in the face of Kira's threats. Ultimately they too had to become criminals to continue the fight. If Near didn't have access to L's wealth and resources, he'd have been forced to back down unable to fund his ventures and his employees.

You can say that Mello should have just sucked up his pride and worked with Near from the start. But that wouldn't be responsive to his character, and honestly -specifically at the start of the case- I don't think it would have been effective either. In the conventional law-abiding world Mello would never have been permitted to make the extreme maneuvers he did that ultimately cracked open the case by forcing Light against his will to hand over the Death Note itself and reveal the cards he's been hiding for over 5 years.

To be clear this isn't in any way a defense of organized crime and the reprehensible activities that the mafia (fictional or otherwise) is involved in, but just an examination of why it was in fact a calculated and strategically practical choice for Mello to ally with them in this situation.

[a-dinosaur-a-day]

Opinions on owning pet parrots? I'm doing a degree in animal welfare and have pretty much come to the conclusion that the smaller species are fine if you can provide what they need but the larger birds like the greys, outside of being rescues, shouldn't be pets at all.

Okaaaaaaaay so time to make everyone mad at me again I guess

parrots have been human companion animals for longer than Judaism has been around, so, I don't think we can just say "it's wrong" and force everyone to stop doing a thing that's been done for that long. Like, this isn't a human randomly taking home a tiger, this is a long going process with many species of parrots now being near-domesticated in the strictest sense of the term

Parrot ownership is in fact ancient in many "tropical" areas and the idea that it's a new thing is... white supremacy! what a shock!

in the United States (I am not talking about other countries, just my own), literally no companion parrots are wild caught anymore. They're bred. Bred as companions. If we were to outlaw larger parrot ownership, many birds would be without a home, and that's morally reprehensible

in fact, the kind of backlash against parrot ownership that's risen up in the past decade has directly led to a shelter crisis. most shelters are overfilled and overstressed, which is a *lot* worse for the birds in many cases than home ownership

parrots are pets that have extraordinarily high care needs. They are not good pets for everyone. but no pet is! Every single companion animal has its pluses and downsides, and many of them have many more downsides than pluses. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have a home.

There are some people who are actually able to take care of companion parrots, adequately, in their homes. First of all, we've learned a lot in the past few decades. Second of all, there are lifestyles that work well with even larger parrots and their needs.

So, while the number of human beings on this planet who can adequately take care of large parrots is extremely small, it is not zero. Which means if someone thinks they can take care of a bird well, and has the space and resources and time, then they should be allowed to, if that's what they wish

Because birds in the USA are bred as companions, the vast majority of said parrots would be unhappy in any situation that doesn't involve close contact with humans. Admittedly, all my parrots are "small" (whatever that means), but I know for a fact that if you took them away from our home they would be significantly worse off, because they're bonded to us. That's how this whole flocking thing works

Also, our most recent rescues, who had been stuck in a shelter for 15 years, are definitely happier now getting more individual attention and space. Shelters are supposed to be temporary places for most birds, not permanent homes, because they can't get the adequate level of care and attention that they need.

also, I'll point out that being pets has allowed many parrot species to have thriving populations that are not threatened by climate change, which is something to their benefit. given. you know. climate change. not that pet ownership is conservation, but, it's not that far removed from it - the axolotl population owes a lot to both pet ownership and zoo captivity, for example.

like, it's a spectrum, right? And it doesn't really go along with size, at the end of the day. There are tons of extremely neurotic and high needs small parrots, and many larger ones that are exceptionally chill. So while the vast majority of humans on this planet should not have a parrot, that's not all of them; and while the number that can handle higher maintenance ones is even smaller, its not zero. And I think, given the fact that we have all of these captive bred birds in the states at least, it's not a good idea to tell people that there is no way to ethically practice husbandry with them.

and I'm not the kind of person who assumes I know everything about someone's life in order to tell them "no you shouldn't bring home that cockatoo", so I'm not going to. In fact, I give everyone on the internet the benefit of the doubt if they have a parrot unless a) that parrot shows signs of distress (like plucking) or b) there is clearly something wrong going on (like someone's smoking weed around their bird)

so, no, there's no commonly kept (and thus domestically captive bred) bird I think is a bad pet for every single human on the planet. And it's not my business whether a particular individual should or should not have a particular bird.

[cringefailvox]

my ultimate fantasy for hazbin s2 is a reveal of something in alastor's past that he can't explain away or justify, something genuinely morally reprehensible, and he and the other residents of the hotel have to navigate around each other with the renewed sense of "right, he's actually a bad guy."

i feel like the show and the fandom both sometimes forget that alastor is actually legitimately morally corrupt because he's superficially nice and abides by certain rules and social mores. but he like, does murder people. that's a real thing that he does.

i feel like he can get woobified a little and portrayed as like, a byronic hero who's always actually in the right but judged and misunderstood. there's an element of truth to that, but he's mostly a selfish and cruel person who does awful things because he doesn't care.

it would be personally EXTREMELY satisfying to see him face real consequences for the way he treats people, especially from the hotel that he seems to have grown to care about. fuck that deer UP!!!

REAL AND TRUE. it's always interesting to me the way murder is evaluated in fandom next to like, sexual assault, as being the more redeemable crime somehow, which i think is quite evident in the way people talk about alastor vs valentino -- neither of these characters is remorseful or even particularly in a hurry to justify the horrendous things they do, and yet i've noticed a general tendency towards letting alastor off the hook for the serial killing but not budging on the line that val is irredeemable. and like, ofc with the caveat that this is fiction and neither of them are real, but it's interesting sometimes how people measure crimes with a value system predicated on distance, where serial killers are so removed from the average person that it's nearly outlandish, definitely a spectacle, but sexual assault is real and immediate in a way that hits people harder. there's also the matter that alastor is part of the main cast and val is a secondary antagonist -- but anyway this is getting off topic from what you were asking

i absolutely agree that i'm excited to see the show really begin to grapple with the ethics of the main cast, esp alastor, because it's like. we know he's a terrible person. the gang knows he's a terrible person. but it really comes back to the bit in episode five, when lucifer (rightly, in this case, but unhelpfully) points out that alastor represents all the worst things about sinners, that he epitomizes everything lucifer loathes about hell, and charlie's response pivots neatly away from that ethical problem: "he's defending this hotel. it might be a bit more sadistic than i'd hoped, but he's doing it for me." alastor can be as morally bankrupt as he wants so long as it's in the service of a cause that charlie perceives as good

this actually makes perfect sense for charlie's character and it's sooo fascinating. she doesn't actually seem to care about how horrific everyone in hell behaves all the time -- what she cares about is those people dying en masse without any value judgment from heaven, she's affronted that it's all numbers to them, she really seems like she's only spearheading this redemption program because she thinks it'll bring down overpopulation and stop heaven, not because she was genuinely bothered by the rampant sin before. "happy day in hell" is all about how much she loves hell and keeps putting an optimistic spin on all the property damage and cannibalism and public bdsm. she doesn't care about alastor being evil because he's not her redemption poster child, but she DOES care about angel getting into turf wars and doing drugs in the hotel because it reflects badly on her. girl i need to see your personal ethics and values get cracked the fuck open so bad

[forsoobado137]

Do you think NPs can be charged with crimes? How would a trial work out?

Yes, NPs can be charged with crimes. For example, France was arrested when he showed up to the first Olympics naked. Nations are not above the law, and can be prosecuted just like any other citizen. The only difference is they have a few advantages.

I'm going to use America as an example.

So let's say that America gets arrested. He'll get processed, mugshot taken, blah blah blah. He's going to call his boss and let him know what's happened (if the news hasn't heard of it first). After getting chewed out by his boss, a couple things can happen:

America gets pardoned by his boss and gets off scot-free. Usually, this will be for federal crimes that either aren't very serious, or non-violent.

America doesn't get pardoned, but he gets bailed out of jail. So this is for stuff like grand theft or malicious property destruction. He's not dangerous, but pardoning him would be a bad look. So he'll still have to go to trial for his crimes.

America is STAYING IN JAIL! He either killed someone, robbed a train, or some other morally reprehensible thing. His boss has to teach him a lesson that this is unacceptable. America is stuck in jail and has to go to trial.

So let's say America's boss didn't pardon him, and he's going to trial. He has luck on his side. He's going to get some really good lawyers to get him out of this. He also usually has the media on his side as well. Not only will he have a PR team, he's also well liked among his people, so they're not gonna wanna see him behind bars. This puts pressure on the court. But if this were a crime like murder, he wouldn't really have that much support.

America's legal team will try to get a plea bargain to reduce his charges and get him a lighter sentence. 99% of the times, it works. But if he did something REALLY bad, then it probably won't. The trial is a media circus, and his team will want him to look his best. He's dressed immaculately, and told to be on his "best behaviour".

Now let's say despite the strong legal team and media support, America is convicted. The most likely outcome is probation and fines. If it's murder or something horrible, he'll be on intensive probation. So he can do his job while also being punished for the crime.

[transmutationisms]

Why do u think so many people in like 'neurodivergent' spaces seem to simultaneously hold the belief that certain developmental disabilities or 'mental illnesses' arent 'an excuse' to be unable to do certain tasks, act certain ways, or to 'work on urself' or 'be better', in a way that completely ignores people with higher support needs that genuinely cannot do these things,just a complete lack of understanding that some people are not ever going to be able to 'mask' and that no, its not a 'privilege' to be very visibly, obviously considered developmentally defective from a young age..........but also practically worship psychiatry and pathologize every single iota of their behavior, labelling themselves with things like 'demand avoidance' without understanding the context behind these words or who gets nonconsensually labelled with these things, and what it is used to justify doing. I dont know how some people can be so ignorant of the material reality faced by people who get shoved into the 'low functioning' or 'severely mentally ill' boxes (how many autism influencer types have u ever seen bring up sheltered workshops?), but its a massive barrier to interacting in ND spaces for me and a lot of people i know. i dont understand how people who talk about how ADHD brains react differently to meds than 'neurotypical brains' can not understand that like, for example, i cant eat a certain food, i can eat rotten food and food i dislike but not that food, no matter if im starving, I was restrained and force fed that food in special ed and then force fed my own vomit when i inevitably threw up, I would have eaten the food if i could to make that stop! Why is this contradiction so prevalent!!! Anyway love the blog im also having an #ediblenight

well a few things. one is simple moral hypocrisy (accommodations for me, not for thee)

another is that i think many people actually do perceive the philosophical nonsensicality of psychiatric diagnosis (the recursive circle whereby you are dx'd with x because you do y, which is caused by x, which you know because the definition of x is that someone does y, which was based on clinical observation of people doing y and doctors determining that was harmful and therefore indicative of a medical problem, in other words the entire thing's observational but interpreted as providing a causal explanation)--

--they do perceive this as basically nonsense, hence "having x doesn't excuse [behaviour]" but then simultaneously, they have a prima facie credulous attitude toward Science, and toward the claim that psychiatry is Science, and so you get these like nonsense statements out both sides of their mouths where a diagnosis doesn't excuse anything they find morally reprehensible or personally annoying but it does also provide biologically irrefutable explanations for other things WHEN that's convenient for them.

another thing is just that experientially, lots of our actions feel out of our control for like numerous reasons having to do with alienation largely, and when those actions are also stigmatised it pushes people toward the promise of moral exculpation that psychiatry markets itself with, which is a kind of determinism in its strong forms and isn't really compatible with interpreting other people's actions as being intentional or willed or whatever. so again you just end up with these double statements lol , like, a problem with psychiatry trying to claim legitimacy as a 'brain science' is it does kind of counterpose itself to most interpretations of free will. any time you are stuck choosing between moral culpability and biological determinism you kinda already lost the plot & this is something that antipsych people get maddeningly accused of all the time when what we're actually saying is it's possible to be neither biologically diseased nor broken nor immoral for doing the Behaviours lol

[brucewaynehater101]

How the Bats argue against Jason's murder in fics

Now, Jason's murders vary in fics on a spectrum. There's murderous killing even common goons up to only those folks who are repeat, violent offenders that are not able to be contained/do their time (whether due to a corrupt system or them escaping).

We are gonna chat about the second one [in simple terms, Jason being particular and only killing the really evil bastards].

Side note, this is neither arguing for or against Jason's methods. This addresses how Jason may relinquish killing in fics in a more realistic manner than simply because he was told to or he wants to make amends

I've seen the Bats arguing shit like:

"Murder is wrong"

"This is not how we operate"

"We are not judge, jury, and executioner"

"This makes you a villain/evil/a murderer"

These arguments, frankly, are shit. This should not convince Jason to stop. Red Hood is killing from a logical-based moral standpoint (by neutralizing the threat permanently, he is saving inevitable future victims). Jason believes his option is frowned upon, but ultimately the right path. It's a "I'm doing what's necessary even if it damns me" mindset.

Arguing it's wrong will simply make him scoff or laugh. He knows the Bats don't like it, and he know they find it morally reprehensible. He still finds his actions to be necessary.

Jason isn't a child that needs to be told "right" and "wrong." He simply has a different moral code. Instead, these arguments in a fic serve as a reflection on the Bat that makes those statements.

This is not a diss to anyone's religion, but a similar comparison is to folks who base their moral code on holy texts and then try to tell other people what's "right" or "wrong" based on what their scripture says. If the other person doesn't have the same religion, you simply can not make moral arguments based on texts they don't believe in... Cause that writing has no weight to them. You would need to argue why something is "wrong" without resorting to: because [] says so.

By only declaring it as wrong, all that Bat is doing is showcasing their inability to communicate/be morally flexible. They are showing an unwillingness to acknowledge Jason's points or try to engage in counterpoints to convince him. These arguments usually predate the Bats trying to force Jason to stop killing instead of allowing him to make the choice for himself.

That is a perfectly fantastic fic idea to explore, but this wouldn't persuade Jason to change his ways. In fact, it may make him dig his heels into his methods more.

For arguments to sway Jason's opinion on how to pursue justice:

There is no oversight for Jason's murders

Cops enforce with killing (regardless of how you feel about the truth of this statement, Jason would hate this comparison)

Killing takes away chances for reformation

The threat of death causes false confessions/fear-based responses

Unclear standards on killing leads to innocents fearing Red Hood and not feeling safe

Escalation can occur (especially in fucking Gotham) when people feel their lives are threatened

Killing takes a mental strain and is thus harmful to Jason

Death is permanent and they can't suffer

There is no remedy for human error if they are dead

I'm sure there's more, but these are starting points to stop Jason's murders or ween him off of it [such as requiring Babs or Tim or Dick or Steph or the Outlaws or fucking Alfred to double check Jason's work before the execution].

Once again, I am not claiming any of these reasons are "correct" or that Jason's way is "incorrect." This is how a certain dynamic may be influenced by various conversation paths

[taragreenfield]

I saw your comment about not liking Darklina because you felt Alina wasn’t suited for Aleksander (which I agree with!) But if you had free reign, how would you create the perfect love interest for him? What personality traits would they have, and how would you make them attractive to him? I’m curious to know what kind of character you think would actually be a good match for Aleksander :)

Hi! Thanks for the question.

Well, first of all, it should be, of course, someone who sees him as a man and not a monster. Someone who tries to understand where he's coming from, even if they don't necessarily agree with everything he's doing. Someone who doesn't automatically assume the worst about him.

It should be someone who treat him as equal, and doesn't assume some sort of moral authority over him. My least favourite trope is when the FMC, the paragon of virtue and morality, deigns to give some affection to an absolute wreck of a man and try and "save" him. He doesn't need salvation. He needs love and acceptance. The two characters in the ship should be flawed (as all humans are) and not shy away from their darker side. Trying to mold your partner into something more palatable to you is a reprehensible way to treat someone you love.

I don't believe Aleksander needs a submissive, obedient partner, so it should be someone who is able to challenge him and call him out if necessarily, not from the emotionally immature position, by screaming "you are a monster!" and running away, but from the position of reason and common sense. Someone should have told Sasha that it makes much more sense to expand the Fold to some Fjerdan city than to a city in his own country. His partner shouldn't be afraid of their powers and own them to the fullest.

His partner should share his passion for protecting the Grisha and recognize that the real villain is the system that oppresses them (the very system Alina sided with, ahem).

In terms of powers, Aleksander's partner should be also immortal and their powers should be comparable to his. Not necessarily sun powers (I personally find light powers a bit boring and overdone), but if you absolutely want to go for Light/Dark dynamics, at least get light powers right for once. Have you seen the actual Sun? It's not a sweet pure saintly figure that hands out blessings and smiles like a fool while wearing a halo. The Sun can burn your eyes out. It can turn the earth into a radioactive wasteland. It causes skin cancer. It's not unicorns and rainbows.

In terms of gender, I don't think it matters. In terms of age, I suppose, it should be somebody younger than Aleksander, because I kinda like the idea of him feeling human again with them (although I don't believe that Alina who dehumanized him at every turn could have made him feel like that).

[khalixvitae]

I never post here anymore due to personal stuff, but I want to reach out on all my socials about this because people need to see it. Can I just say that I am so incredibly disheartened by some people’s responses to what is happening in the South Eastern US/Appalachia? I really can’t explain the level of devastation that is unfolding here under Hurricane Helene. There are people trapped in my childhood neighborhood without power or water because of downed trees and power lines and flooding. I couldn’t get ahold of my family for more than a day because there was a massive cell service outage in my state. Parts of where I grew up will not have electricity for three weeks. My family could be without electricity for three weeks. I didn’t know if my best friend was okay for 12 hours because there was no way to communicate and we live two hours away from one another. I’m entering day 3 of not having electricity.

And frankly, we’re on the luckier side. A town my family has visited every year for the last 20 years is fucking gone- leveled by flooding from a failed dam. Everything including the road is completely washed out, and this is in the fucking mountains. And that’s just what we know about so far during what is still widespread cell service failure. There are entire interstates that have washed out or fallen apart during mudslides- whole towns are gone, and people cannot call for help.

And the number of people I’ve seen, people who say they’re advocating for MY rights as a trans/queer person, who have fully dismissed this in favor of taking to twitter to make comments about how it’s “Trump Country anyway” and how we “deserve it” and “should’ve voted blue to keep this from happening” is brutal. Every time something happens to us down here, out of touch middle class liberals are so quick to blame our collective region of the country for struggles we do not have the time, energy, money, or legislation to prevent. As if we’re fucking stupid and should be purged, like we somehow matter less because our politicians are a breed of fucked up that a whole lot of us disagree with. We aren’t a monolith and we are right fucking here, and mocking us on twitter in the middle of a humanitarian crisis is not going to help your case, I promise.

I cannot explain to you what it’s like to hear somebody with your mother’s accent describe that they can’t pull people out of cars quick enough because the flood water is moving too fast. Everything I’ve ever known is either blipped off the power grid or under water. I’m begging you, please see us as people who are suffering and not as a monolithic entity.

There are trans and queer people here, just like everywhere else. We are suffering at the hands of legislation we don’t believe in, legislation that thinks we should die, and now a mounting natural disaster that we still don’t know the full extent of. There are poor communities, communities that are predominantly BIPOC, disabled people, it goes on. There are a whole lot of us who don’t fit the criteria of the pro trump agenda, who don’t match the bill of what an American southerner looks like in the minds of those who have never been here, who are actively suffering. We ARE voting blue both locally and on the federal level.

But here’s the kicker: it doesn’t fucking matter that we’re here. My life doesn’t mean anything more than my neighbor who might hate who I am to their very bones. Nor am I more deserving of aid than them, even if I hate them right back. The concept of withholding aid or hesitating to help particular regions because of what their government officials believe is heinous. Hell, even if regular civilians believe it too, it’s still wrong and morally reprehensible. Similarly, providing aid with the caveat of “converting those stubborn hicks” to the cause is downright evangelical and fucking evil. This is a humanitarian crisis, and people need help. And truly if you think it would be better if the south couldn’t vote, or that we collectively deserve this on some moral or karmic basis, I really need you to think critically about those exact talking points because they should sound shockingly familiar. Governments should help their people, and that should be a bipartisan priority. I don’t give a fuck what anyone says- people who are ignoring this because of where it’s happening are vile and need to get themselves sorted out. And the people who do think this is some sort of universal comeuppance for this part of the country can- and I mean this truly deeply, from my heart of hearts- go straight to hell.

I’m going to be posting resources to help those in need in the Appalachia region, as well as Florida. I’ll include shelters, food banks, etc. I’ll have them out soon. I don’t use this blog really anymore but this is the least I can do.

[weirdmarioenemies]

Name: Barrel Bomb

Debut: Mario Kart Tour

I gotta be honest, all this time I thought this thing was just called Obstacle. That was much funnier to me. Is it ok if I start this post over and you all pretend its official name is Obstacle? Thank you so much.

Name: Obstacle

Debut: Mario Kart Tour

Yep. That sure is an Obstacle if I've ever seen one! They really named this thing Obstacle. I can't say I disagree! It has a bright red Bowser face, and best of all, its metal rims have spikes like the spiked bands Bowser wears. This barrel isn't just designed that way, it's wearing accessories! It's wearing spiked bands, and technically, it has a face, so I think Obstacle counts as a member of the Koopa Troop. It hangs out with them, and one day, hopes to maybe even drive a kart of its own...!

Obstacle is like the evil version of the DK Barrel. Donkey Kong? Now that guy is my funny friend. If one of HIS barrels is in the way, it's probably not too intrusive, and might even have goodies inside! It might also have him inside! Remember the recent confirmation that Kongs are not apes? That makes it more likely that wooden barrels are their eggs, and they are full of albumin. Be careful breaking them... you might be in for a Wet Surprise! Don't act like it's weird, Yoshi's whole brand is eggs and we let that happen!

Don't even think about crashing into Obstacle. You'll be obstructed if you do! Maybe you'd think "This obstacle is a bad guy and I should kill it by running it over with my car" (and you would have a point because this barrel is clearly the moral scum of the earth, quite frankly), but impact with Obstacle will cause you to Explode. It will also explode if it from afar with something such as a shell, which is utilized in some challenges to defeat large groups of Goombas. You might think Obstacle was just trying to hang out with the Goombas, but remember what an utterly reprehensible villain Obstacle is. I bet it stationed itself there on purpose, so that it could sacrifice itself to destroy its supposed friends. Irredeemable!

My favorite thing about Obstacle is that they are Bowser-branded at all, here in this game where Bowser and his cronies are playable. A Bowser face to communicate "Bad! Stay away!" when you could easily be playing as Bowser. It makes sense from a game design standpoint, but it's still silly! Obstacle will make no exception for its boss. Maybe the Koopa Kingdom is the most notable exporter of obstacles in the Mushroom World, and Bowser provides the Obstacles like BaNaNa Boy provides the bananas! He should have given them a better name, though. "Obstacle"? That's so vague!