#i just think it's wrong to frame it as an altruistic vs selfish thing when imo there's no unselfish choice here

[sel-jpg]

[ pls don't rb; i am purposefully not putting this in the tag bc i know i currently just cannot do the "rb after rb with big paragraphs of text" kinda discussion. feel absolutely free to send a reply or an ask if u want to comment on this but i just want to put the disclaimer of "this is kind of a figuring out my own thoughts/rambling about a pet peeve kind of post rather than a proper invitation for discussion" on this ]

honestly i am kinda sick of seeing points like "melanie, georgie, basira and martin are robbing jon of his agency by not wanting to do what he wants to do" like. sorry but this is not a dilemma about jon's life alone. it's about all of them, all of the people in their world and people in other universes.

the people robbed of their agency in this dilemma are in fact the people currently suffering in domains and also the people in other universes bc they cannot even take part and argue their point in this discussion. they in fact do not even know it's happening.

yes, lack of agency is a central theme in jon's story and my heart breaks for him because truly no one deserves to go through even a fraction of what he went through but giving him back his agency means giving him control over his own life back, not letting him decide over countless lives in multiple universes (including! basira's , martin's, melanie's and georgie's. like, they are allowed to argue against their own death, right? RIGHT?)

yes jon's been wronged by the others before. yes he's honestly still owed a bit more of an apology by some of them. no that does not mean he gets to decide about this alone.

#also let's not act like jonös motives are completely unselfish and therefore his choice is better #like. on the question of 'can i live with my choices yes/no' he is very much on the no side imo #so like. all choices available are unbearable so of course he'd want to go with the one where he doesn't have to live on with even more #guilt afterwards and can maybe even die feeling like he managed to prevent future suffering in other worlds #and i absolutely do not blame him for that at all #i just think it's wrong to frame it as an altruistic vs selfish thing when imo there's no unselfish choice here #and in the end whether they choose something for selfish or altruistic reasons doesn't really matter to the big picture does it #whoops that was supposed to be *jon's in the first tag #anyways just. hm. much to think about #sel.txt #it's shitty from every angle that they're the ones who have to make this choice at all tbh #damn this post took me long to write almost an hour i think

[fandom-pardes]

Christian normativity and Lovecraft Country

Reposted from my personal blog.

Here’s something you need to wrap your head around. If you were brought up in an environment dominated by Christian culture, Christian norms have shaped the way you conceptualize how the world works, human nature, ethics, religion (even the term religion is Christian-normative), and so on.

It doesn’t matter if you actively practice or believe. IMO, unless you deliberately and consistently expose yourself to different frameworks, you are generally operating from a Christian lens. That’s just how socialization works.

In the case of media and media criticism, the Christian framework shows up in a deeply puritanical streak where good and evil are not actions and choices, but states of being. When a character does something beneficial, it’s because they are good. If they do something harmful, it’s because they are bad.

It also shows up in the ways that fandom discourse seems preoccupied with whether a character’s thoughts, feelings, or actions are morally justified or not, as opposed to understanding where those thoughts, feelings, and actions come from.

Consider Montrose. He does some horrible stuff in this show, and many viewers were upset by the way the narrative went out of its way to explore where those horrific actions come from rather than condemn him for them. Meanwhile, I’m sitting here thinking, “Of course he does that, considering what his experiences have taught him.” But at the time the show was airing, if I’d expressed that openly, I’d have gotten a lot of, “Why are you trying to justify all the bad things Montrose has done?”

*smh*

In Lovecraft Country, the Christian normativity also shows up in the way it tries to shoehorn the plot (especially the finale) into a typical Good vs. Evil (or God vs. Satan—more on this in a bit) narrative even though the characters themselves are too complex for that. Then the show Goes There with the hamfisted way it links Tic with Jesus, all the way down to his martyred blood being the source of salvation, and Christina with Satan or the Antichrist, a morally corrupt enemy of goodness/God who tempts humans to embrace forbidden knowledge (magic) and forbidden pleasures (non-cishet sex).

(IMO, the show did Christina a disservice by making her the ultimate villain because she’s a lot more fun as a wild card. Also, her character is more akin to the tricksters of myth and folklore than the villains of contemporary media. /tangent)

Then there’s the way that, in the US, the legacy of slavery, and later Jim Crow, is seen as a kind of Original Sin, which the show reinforces rather than challenges. In very simplistic terms, Original Sin means that you are automatically morally corrupt from birth, and nothing you do can undo that except faith in Jesus. In other words, you are born bad and condemned to damnation unless you think, feel, and believe the right thing.

This insinuation of Original Sin is most pronounced with how the narrative frames Christina and how viewers respond to her. I’ve seen a lot of people judge her for having the “wrong” thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and attitudes, using that as an argument against her capacity to change and grow. Even the ways she helps and empowers others become automatically suspect because of this “taint.”

*siiiiigh*

Y’all, you have to understand how weird this looks to my Jewish self.

Imagine this rich heiress who kills a bunch of Nazis. She does it for her own reasons that aren’t the least bit altruistic. That’s still fewer Nazis for me to worry about. We can argue about her motives when there are no more Nazis. But for now: Thanks, lady!

But the way some viewers would have it, I’m supposed to be like…

Me: “I know you killed all these Nazis, but do you really care about my people?”

Her: “No.”

Me: “You horrible person! If you don’t care, don’t bother killing any Nazis at all!”

Haha. OK. Sure, Jan.

I’m not gonna go down the rabbit hole of Jewish ethics and moral development, but to summarize Jewish ethics while standing on one foot, the important thing is the Do The Thing. Even though it’s ideal to Do The Thing for the right reasons, whatever it takes to get you to Do The Thing is valid (some conditions about Doing The Other Things apply). Good intentions don’t absolve people of wrongdoing, nor do ulterior motives erase the good that people do.

Furthermore, sin is not a state of being in Jewish tradition. It’s an action or behavior akin to an arrow missing its target. Our job is to fix what we can and try again, failing better until we hit our target.

So Christina crashing her car into truckload of racists matters. Giving Leti enough money to pay for a house matters. Sharing magical secrets with Tic and Ruby matters. Keeping her promise not to harm Leti matters.

Now, if I really wanna get Jewish about this, I’d argue that Christina’s deep yearning for human connection, for family and for love, is what can give her the drive to learn better* and do better. This may strike some with deeply ingrained Christian norms as selfish, or at the very least, self-interested. However, Jewish tradition encourages us to perform mitzvot and other good deeds using both our yetzer hatov (our “good” impulse—think the Freudian** superego) and our yetzer hara (our “evil” impulse—think the Freudian id). Our job is not to suppress or deny the part that wants things for ourselves, but to refine it and channel it toward constructive purposes.

I think that’s about it.

Happy Hanukkah!

*Moral development through learning and study is a hallmark of Jewish ethics. No one is born knowing right from wrong. It has to be taught and cultivated.

**Freud was Jewish, BTW.

#lovecraft country meta #fandom meta #cultural christianity #christina braithwhite #montrose freeman

[ademonandherbentley]

Deceit is right. But he’s right for all the wrong reasons.

Ever since Selfishness Vs. Selflessness aired opinions have been flying about whether the Sanders Crew made the right decision about committing to the wedding. Personally I’m with the camp that sided (no pun intended) with Roman and Deceit - this is a massive opportunity for Thomas, and if Hitchcoppolucas has even half the clout of any of his namesakes from this Universe, then skipping the callback would be a self-destructive act of sheer madness. Deceit was right in saying he should take it.

However.

We’ve never heard of Lee and Mary-Lee before, so we have no real frame of reference for how close they are to Thomas or how much they want him at their wedding, but from everything everyone says it’s a fairly safe bet that they’d be pretty disappointed if he bailed on them.

Now Roman suggests several times that maybe Lee and Mary-Lee can be talked around to the idea, from a simple “Maybe Lee and Mary-Lee will understand!” to his (admittedly rather forced) conclusion to Patton’s Liza Minnelli hypothetical:

Roman: [Liza] being at the wedding is for me, and if I forced her to be there when she didn’t wanna go then I would be the selfish one.”

Roman’s point, like most of ours, is that sometimes you have to think of yourself before you’re friends, and if you’re friends are really your friends they’ll be open to the idea.

In contrast, Deceit doesn’t seem to consider the couple’s feelings at all. 

Deceit: This dilemma is actually between something that serves [Thomas] versus something else that serves him. Between looking and feeling like a good friend and a dream come true. If Thomas wanted to be seen as good friend more than he wanted the role of a lifetime, then I’m all for that. But I just don’t buy it.

Deceit’s line of persuasion hinges on the fact that Thomas is the only person relevant to the discussion, and that the only reason he would do something good for his friends is if it benefited him to do so. Not only does this contradict Thomas’s basic nature (it’s reiterated a number of times in this episode alone that his friends mean a great deal to him) but it’s advocating for an entirely self-centred way of living. Yes, in this instance Deceit is right that Thomas’s overabundance of empathy is holding him back, but his argument reaches far beyond this one scenario.

Deceit: You’re wearing a blindfold right now. You can keep playing with the blindfold on if you like the game better that way. But if you take it off it’s easier for you get that stuff you want!

Take off the blindfold: get rid of you’re empathy. Go through life with thought only to how your actions can serve you and you’ll be more successful (if there was any doubt about the meaning behind the metaphor Thomas himself reinforces it in his outtro: “Empathy is not a blindfold, it’s our ability to understand and share the feelings of others.”) If Deceit had his way Thomas would only ever think about Thomas, and would only ever do something altruistic if it served him to do so, either by advancing his position in life or boosting his reputation.

We’re all in agreement that sometimes a bit of selfishness is necessary, even a good thing. But selflessness is equally important, and that is a line of thinking so far completely absent from Deceit’s personal philosophy.

#sanders sides #ts spoilers #ss spoilers #ss svs #selfishness vs selflessness #janus sanders #ss meta #meta #my post #deceit negativity #kinda #thomas sanders #character!thomas