#subjective morals

[moralfoundation]

BORN FROM ABOVE. JOHN 3:9-10

BORN FROM ABOVE. JOHN 3:9-10

9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?JOHN 3: 9-10 ESV 9 ἀπεκρίθη Νικόδημος καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Πῶς δύναται ταῦτα γενέσθαι; 10 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ταῦτα οὐ γινώσκεις;JOHN 3: 9-10 SBLGNT Nicodemus’ incredulous question, ‘How can this happen?’…

View On WordPress

#apologetics #christianity #english #god #Gospel of John #jesuschrist #moralfoundation #morality #morallife #morals #objective morals #religion #shoriluke #subjective morals #worldview

[ravenkings]

i think we as a society have to become comfortable again with the idea that even the best of us are sometimes just petty little bitches who don’t like certain things for completely arbitrary and/or personal reasons

#like you don't need a moral imperative to dislike something #in fact most likes/dislikes are completely subjective and arbitrary and don't really have a moral dimension!! #like it's ok to just be a hater!!! #text

[milimeters-morales]

replace “cooler Miles G.” with “incoherent screaming and sobbing and fearing for his general well-being”

#i’ve been calling him Miles G. more instead of Miles-42 bc the numbers make him sound like a test subject personally. #miles morales #spiderman #spider man #prowler miles #atsv spoilers #across the spiderverse #across the spider verse #atsv #spiderman atsv #m&m posts

[canisalbus]

To me, Machete kind of has the energy of a secondary villain/coldhearted side character in someone else's story that a lot of fans latch onto, moreso than the protagonist. Question is, would he be the villain in anyone's story?

Why, thank you! I'm actually glad to hear he gives off that vibe. I don't think he set out to become a villain but a lot of people certainly view him as one.

#in the 16th century canon he starts out as an introverted but sincerely well meaning guy that never quite manages to find his social niche #he was a sensitive kid and when subjected to enough pressure #his insecurity fearfulness and powerlessness mutate into distrust resentment aggression suffocating repression and self-restraint #I don't think he's a bad person in fact he consistently tries very hard to do the right thing #do his job properly avoid letting people down and get through life with a sense of dignity #but he is supposed to come across kind of cold impersonable and difficult to be around if you don't know him personally (and very few do) #people can sense there's something wrong with him and are put off by it #Vatican is a nest of vipers and as the stakes rise he retreats deeper into his coldblooded untouchable work persona #he has no choice but to start lying scheming blackmailing and eliminating his enemies #in order to maintain his position keep Vasco safe their relationship under wraps and his own head above water #essentially playing by the same rules everyone else in the holy see has been playing with for centuries #eventually he loses his spot as the secretary of state and is manipulated/forced to take on a role in the roman inquisition #and if people were sort of iffy about him before being the authority overseeing trials torture excommunications and executions doesn't help #and since he has so few allies and such an infamous reputation he's an easy target for scapegoating whenever necessary #towards the end it dawns on him that he's become the kind of twisted cruel corrupt person he used to fear and despise #and the guilt moral injury and abject self-loathing had largely sapped him of his will to live by the time the final assassin gets him #answered #anonymous #Machete #Vaschete lore #he thought his dream of priesthood would make him a better person more worthy of admiration safety and love but he climbed too high #and got roped up in the dangerous games that take place under god's nose and slowly got strangled to death

[rawliverandgoronspice]

The Dondon Post (or: the bizarre TotK's side content counterpoints to its main quest's immuable binary morality)

Speaking of strange TotK Choices, I think I have one singe post left in me about this game; and it's about the Dondon quest, "The Beast and the Princess".

(and about other stuff too, you'll see, we'll get to them)

More specifically: about how... strange of a thematic point it feebly attemps to make in the larger context of the storyline, and how it seems to be yet another mark of a world that, perhaps, once tried to be more morally complex that it ended up becoming.

Buckle up: it's a long one, and it gets pretty conceptual.

(good gem boys notwhistanding)

The Princess and the Beast

So, a couple of things about the setup. We are investigating potential Princess sightings; but at this point, either because we have already completed a bunch and know the general gib, because we have met a couple of wild Fake Zelda shenanigans, or through the simple fact that we are completing a side quest, we know there's a good chance it won't lead to an actual Zelda information. So when we ask Penn about what is going on and he replies with the ominous "we saw the Princess riding some kind of beast --a frightening one with huge, brutal tusks-- that the princess seemed to control", we get Ideas. Then the sidequest is registered: "The Princess and the Beast".

So. You know me. And if you don't know me, here's what you should know: my brain immediately flared up with the thought there was no way in hell this wasn't some kind of wink towards Ganondorf's renowned boarish beast form, especially given tusks were given so much focus.

My first assumption was: that's a miniboss right? I will get to fight some small boar-like thing that Fake Zelda rides sometimes. Cool! I didn't hold too hard onto my hope that the relationship of Zelda and/or Ganondorf to the natural world, or to each other would be expanded upon, since I had already been burned before, but my interest was piqued.

You have to understand how starved I was for any hint of complexity or mystery or ambiguity at this point. I was extremely eager for the game to throw anything at me that would surprise me, enlighten something pre-established, make the exploration lead to a meaningful discovery or deepening of characters, world or themes (and not just slightly cooler loot, or a bossfight, or a puzzle devoid of emotional context --cohesion and depth is what motivates my play sessions, especially in an open world game that I want to believe is worth losing oneself into). This was about the most intriguing task on my to do list at the moment, and so I plunged in immediately.

After really REALLY misunderstanding what I was supposed to do (I stalked every corner of every forest surrounding the tropical area at night or during blood moons in hope to see something --which was very much the wrong call), I arrived to the other stable, then was guided to the other side of the river where Cima awaits and explains that these creatures are actually a new species discovered by Zelda; that they are gentle and kind and not at all scary ("Dondons aren't beastly, they're adorable!"), and even somehow digest luminous stones into gemstones. They like the company of people and liked Zelda in particular.

I was... I felt two different ways about this conclusion, and I think it's worth to explore both: disappointment and some sort of... "huh!" Hard to describe this emotion otherwise.

I'll get the disappointment out of the way first, because it's the least interesting of the two. While I think the little emotional arc I was taken on was not devoid of interest --I was indeed taken on by the rumor and intrigued by its implications-- I wanted, well. A little bit more. And if the creatures were to be Zelda's pet project, I would have loved for them to be actually terrifying and feisty, and for her to develop an interest for these creatures in particular regardless. It could have been very interesting characterization that veered out of the perfect princess loving the perfect world floundering around her, always bringing her clear, practical benefits from the interaction.

(I have made another post that speaks of my discomfort that Zelda does everything everywhere and everyone loves her for it --I get what they were trying to go for, but it either lacks conflict for me to buy into that dynamic at the scale of several regions, or they went on too hard for my taste, as she is, at once and in the span of a couple of years at most: a schoolteacher, a gardener, an animal researcher, a scholar, a traveler, a military expert, a knower of landscape, a painter, a horse rider, an infrastructure planner, a [...] princess --at some point it begins to sound made up, "Little Father of the people"-esque to rattle the hornet's nest a little bit, especially if it's not shown as either a clearly godly characteristic or, even more necessary imo, a negative trait; another expression of her killing herself at work to compensate for a perceived flaw she's trying to earn forgiveness for, like she did in BotW. But that's another topic, and the clumsiness of her character arc has been well threaded by basically everybody disappointed in the story already.)

But, if I decide to be a little graceful, I'd like to explore my "huh!" emotion, and take it apart a little bit.

I think there's something interesting to have such strong parallels to setting up a story about the relationship between Zelda and Ganondorf ("The Princess and the Beast", like come on guys that's the conflict of over half the series), or at least Zelda and the concept of Evil since Ganondorf pretty much represents it in this game, and then have it go: actually, there was a horrible monster that everyone was afraid of, but Zelda was wise and patient enough to approach it and realize its potential beyond the tusks, what beauty can be brought upon the world if one makes the effort to look for what exists underneath. It says something a bit deeper about the world and about Zelda in particular. It intrigues, at the very least.

Is it a reach? Probably! Is my first interpretation that the quest is actually about "eww you thought Zelda would be interested in *disgusting vile monsters* and not sweet and gentle and human-loving animals that literally shit jewlery when cared for? jokes on you, she never would feel any ounce of sympathy for anything that isn't Good and Deserving" uhhh definitively truer? Probably! But I also don't want to dismiss that the quest made me think about it. If I had completed it earlier, I might have even felt like it was (very clumsy, not gonna lie) setup about the main conflict.

But that's also a good segway into my next section: the arbitrary limitations between the animal and the creature, the monstrous and the human.

And the fact that TotK points directly at it.

A Monstrous Collection

(these two guys are just. doing So Much and being So Valid despite being massive weirdos the game wants us to be slightly repelled by. I, for one, respect the Monster kinning grind and their general Twilight Princess energy.)

So. These two guys. There is so much to say about these two guys. I don't think I have seen the Trans Perspective on Kolton on tumblr, and I would love to get it because. I feel like it's a worthwhile discussion (just, how gender and identity is handled in TotK overall, I feel like it's a very complicated conversation and I have not seen super deep dives and I'd be very interested in hearing more).

Beyond the throughline of voluntary consumption of magical objects to turn into less human creatures being a weirdly prevalent plot point in TotK (Zelda, Kolton and Ganondorf casually transing their entire species for funsies --Ganondorf being particularly relentless with Fake Zelda, mummy/phantom shenanigans, Demon King and then literal dragon), I want to focus on Kilton a little bit.

Kilton is genuinely the only NPC in the game willing to acknowledge the inherent personhood that monsters have (the game does showcase them picking up fruits, mourning their boss if you kill them, being cutesy and happy to identify you as one of their own if you wear the appropriate mask --and that's not even getting into creatures like the Lynels, who seem to really edge on the limit of being a conscious creature with a system of honor and property and many other things). He does encourage us to think of monsters as more than a species whose only worth lie in how fun it is to eradicate them; even more, gameplay-wise, he does give us a reason to interact with them in other ways than just our sword with his museum. He does encourage us to see that beauty for ourselves and then select what we think is coolest/most intimidating/cutest/eight billion ganondorfs in every pose imaginable

The fact that Ganondorf is considered a monster was a great win for this feature in particular, and is very funny, but it's also... A lot, if we dig at it a little more than warranted. Beyond all of the Implications and all of the things of representation and political conflict and values already discussed ad nauseum: when did he stop being considered a human? What does that mean about the flimsiness of what is a monster and what is a creature and what is an animal and what is a person and what is even a hylian, as sheikahs got absorbed into the definition in this game? Especially with the stones taken into account, how profound changes in nature are a huge part of the plot (even when reversed and ultimately pretty meaningless): how easy it is, to make that slip? Who decides when that slip has been made? What is acceptable to hurt without remorse? What is beautiful and worth preserving? What is both at once? What is neither?

And again, in a classic Zelda conundrum (appreciative(?)): who the fuck gets to decide that, when, and why?

The Bargainers and the Horned God

(major shoutout to these big guys for being the sole and only providers of actual depth to the Depths, and for looking cool as heck)

So. Let's move the conversation to the Depths.

Conceptually: what an interesting idea!! And so well executed (initially)!! A mirror world to the surface, dark and hushed and full of unknown creatures; haunted by gloom and sickness and the unknown. Not a first in the series, far from it: from ALTTP to ALBW, and even taking the Twilight world of TP into account, this idea of a Dark World acting as a deforming mirror to Hyrule and revealing many interesting aspects as we get to explore both is always a very interesting take on corruption and envy and fear/weakness and/or some sense of darkness looming under the perfect exterior. I'd argue even the Lens of Truth of both OoT and MM's serve a similar function, both gameplay-wise, but also in terms of theme: not everything is as it seems. In the world of Light, darkness must hide itself; but darkness also possess its own beauty, its own hardships, and will stare back at you without blinking if you go seek for it. It's, in my opinion, one of the series' most compelling conversation about the cyclical nature of fate, the coldness of godhood, and how small one feels in the face of a universe that is more complicated than it initially appears --which is why Courage must be invoked to push forward regardless.

The Depth's otherworldly ambiance is truy wonderful, whether in the plays of light and shadows, the creatures native to the environment we meet there (wish we met more!), the soundtrack, the strange aquatic/primordial plants, the fact that the dragons visit this place and connect them to the outside --invoking ideas of balance and interconnectivity, that the tree branches look like veins. The coliseums, the mines, the zonai facilities and the prisons do seem to poke at many things about what the relationship to the past was to this place; was it ever truly a place? Did it look like this back then? Why was it buried? Why did it come back? But in spite of it all, I think the Depths struggle overall to question or reveal anything about the surface that we couldn't already assume going in (that the only thing congealing there is Ganondorf's gloom, his lonely domain of Wrongness, only shared by Kohga and the yiga --the only naysayers of Goodness and Light, contemptful and blinded by self-importance and rage). The zonite is mined by gloomy monsters --why, what for?-- so any notion of greed and over-expansion that could have been associated to the zonai is now reabsorbed into Ganondorf's general evilness, since it needs to be reminded he is everything and anything bad with the world: darkness and conquest and greed and capitalism and pollution and bad weather and sickness and darkness and violence and war and death and betrayal and fakeness and lies and patriarchy and exploitation. No matter that he never does a single thing with zonite in the game; rather set up elements of conflict that never go anywhere than, for a second, let the foundations of absolute goodness and absolute evil risk becoming shaky --and you coming to this unwelcoming dark place that hates you, killing the miners and taking their resources for yourself is, on the other holy, royal fur-covered hand, utterly legitimate. The resources were once Rauru's after all, were they not?

And this is what I would say, except... except for the dead. The fallen warriors, the poes, and, most important of all: the Bargainer statues.

The Bargainers are, in-universe, godly creatures guiding the fallen to a place of final respite, regardless of moral alignment. The poes are all, fundamentally, cleansed of judgement: they are lost souls whose past reality does not matter anymore, and all deserve that peace regardless. In spite of the heavy paradise/hell parallels drawn in that game, with Rauru/Zelda/Sonia as the guardians of Light where Ganondorf gets to become a Devil-like figure, it is confirmed here that no such thing exists when you actually die in this universe.

It almost feels as if the fabric of Hyrule itself, in a brief moment that refuses to elaborate on its own point, goes: "yeah, whatever is happening here between Light and Darkness, it doesn't actually matter. This conflict is futile and doesn't understand the real nature of being alive, dead, a god, a person, a monster, an animal. The truth lies elsewhere --but you will never be told what it is."

It's: wild.

One of the game's most striking traits of narrative brilliance in my opinion --to the point where I'm wondering whether it's there on purpose or was effectively an oversight since every other aspect of reality breaks its own back trying to reassure us that everything is at its correct place, receiving the appropriate treatment by the universe in a way that is never to be questioned.

Another case of that ambiguity being allowed to exist without being immediately crushed and repressed is the case of the Horned God (interesting parallel to Ganon's actual horns that he develops in this game in case the hellish parallels weren't clear enough already): a demon Hylia sealed into stone and pushed far from humans in a clear case of questionable behavior since, while the Horned God isn't exactly nice, does propose a different philosophy you are not punished for exploring; and yet, a proposal that has seen itself persecuted in a very real sense by the goddess of absolute goodness, patron of hylians, Zelda, and many more. Pushed away from view.

Interesting.

And Yet, Light Must Prevail

Okay, so, after all of this, we're left to ask... What the fuck is up with morality in Tears of the Kingdom?!

What do we trust? These half-breaths in the occasional sidequests that Light and Darkness is just the wrong frame of reference, that nature cannot be this simple, is ever-shifting and can be recalled or reaffirmed by arbitrary forces, and might even not matter at all in the universe's fabric, despite having so much of its lore soaking in the dychotomy? Or... everything else about the game, this insistence that Good must not only be assumed as whatever tradition the kingdom has passed down for thousands upon thousands of years, but remain utterly unquestioned the entire time? That Bad is without cause, graceless and unworthy of investment?

Are the Bargainer's statues the only thing worth listening to, that morality is a fable the living tells themselves --or should we be moved when Darkness destroys Light, when Light suffers to preserve itself and the world --but not when the Other is rightfully slain?

Was Kilton correct to see beauty in the monstrous? Was Kolton onto something when he let go of his previous form because there is no clear distinction between what should receive an arrow to the face and what shouldn't? Or should we rather focus on Zelda losing her human form as a beautiful and tragic sacrifice --but something that never actually altered her nature as a hylian, the descendant of a lineage of Good Kings meant to rule forever?

Is the Dondon good because it always was, or was it worth Zelda's love in spite of the fear it initially provoked?

Either way, at the end of the game, evil is slain. Ganondorf is, not killed, but --like his angry BotW boar counterpart-- destroyed, as monsters tend to be. He explodes over the lands of Hyrule, freed from Darkness; freed from everything wrong, since the foreign menace that embodied it all was wiped out in one fateful sweep of a holy blade cradled in sacrificial love. Nothing wrong remains. The Sages reaffirm their vows to protect the kingdom forward, and a very human --hylian-- Zelda smiles: Hyrule now forever and ever basked in eternal Light.

#totk #thoughts #tloz #totk critical #when will my brain return from the imprisoning war... #ganondorf #zelda #rauru #bargainer statue #kilton #kolton #dondon #this one gets a bit conceptual but #morality in totk is SUCH a headscratcher #I think this ambiguity is genuinely the only thing that keeps my brain interested in the subject #I am of the opinion that there was a big rewrite at some point #that severely simplified the conflict #and that morality was initially more a topic in TotK because.... the traces do seem to remain #it could also 100% be a case of developers not caring about themes at all whatsoever #and not realizing what they are saying or putting into question #but #worth pondering upon

[effervescentdragon]

i think a lot of people should google datenschutz/gdpr and how it protects people who bring in a complaint to their workplace/place of study before you start calling for the investigation to be published

#you stupid fucks #that law is in place to protect the fucking victims or alleged victims or accusers from retribution #its in place to ensure that whoever the accuser is doesnt face unfair consequence and retribution #having gone through something like this recently i cannot explain how fucking furious the stupid takes i see around are making me #like i cant even speak properly thats how furious i am #none of you stupid fucks care the least bit about the alleged victim and i am so fucking sick of all of this #as if her being doxxed and effectively blacklisted isnt enough. precisely BECAUSE the us isnt subject to gdpr #and because they have very little or no laws preventing sharing information from ongoing investigations into workplace misconduct of any ki #kind*. that and the public 'interest' or more like scavenging for fucking gossip so they could justify their moral wank which made it clear #to the absolute moral mudpit that is 'journalism' that they need to keep this shit up for clicks and views #i am sick and i am appalled and i am done. this is all i will say about it #f1

[fromtheseventhhell]

Very funny to me how Stansas present her character as being so interesting and complex because of her vulnerabilities, while simultaneously ignoring those same vulnerabilities in other characters. Dany is sold as a bridal slave and lacks agency throughout AGOT and after. Her dragons are either too young/small to utilize effectively or locked away for the majority of the story. They aren't some all-powerful trump card that protects her from harm. Arya is captured as a prisoner of war, forced to watch countless people tortured and murdered, and then essentially enslaved in Harrenhal with no way to fight back. She has an entire arc of feeling powerless, of being a "mouse", during ACOK. She doesn't have "kung-fu" or the ability to magically fight her way out of every situation, she's a young child lacking physical strength with only the most basic sword training.

Sansa isn't the only female character, she isn't the only young character, she isn't the only character who suffered, and no one is obligated to prioritize her. I'm so tired of Dany and Arya being mischaracterized and having their stories erased to prop Sansa up. "Sansa has kept her dignity" In other words, let's praise her for having a level of security that Dany and Arya don't have access to. She hasn't ever been forced to make a hard decision which of course means that she's morally superior to them. They can't even admit to themselves that her lack of action is due to her own passivity. If it doesn't fit their delusion, they erase it from the story and expect the rest of us to play along. Ask one of them what they like about her character without bringing up her being the ultimate victim, and I genuinely don't believe they'd be able to give you an answer. They belittle other characters more than they talk about her and these takes just scream insecurity/jealousy at the content and development other characters have in their POVs.

#arya stark #daenerys targaryen #anti arya bs #anti daenerys bs #asoiaf #anti sansa stans #these being comments on a video of a stansas /correcting/ a Dany stan...the jokes write themselves #/she's a break from the fantasy/ /people would be equally powerless in her situation/ like they aren't even pretending #that they don't use her as a boring every-man self-insert #okay she's subjectively /normal/...what is interesting or important about that in a fantasy novel? 😭 #Arya and Dany are so interesting because they have that complexity...vulnerability but also the strength to navigate their situations #and it isn't because they're /special/ it's because that's who they are as characters #Reducing Dany to her dragons or Arya to her combat abilities (which barely exist) is such a disservice to their arcs #but of course acknowledging that they're well-developed and empathetic doesn't square with their fantasy that #Sansa is the most pure important character who deserves everything because she suffered 🙄 #they really write entire fanfictions and then go /why don't people think like us?? 😔/ #/Sansa kept her dignity/ yeah that's why she's currently part of a plot to poison a disabled child #because she was told she'd benefit from it oh yeah she's sooooooo morally superior to Dany and Arya ��

[freesonaisant]

Light Punk

#across the spiderverse #spiderverse #miles molares #punkflower #my art #miles is a subjected #punk Miles Morales #hobie brown #atsv #atsv fanart #spider punk #spiderman

[drawnfamiliarfaces]

i've never even seen the show First is from and yet i love your First x Chase Young ship so i have to ask. If anything did HAPPEN between the two of them what sort of emotions would they be dealing with afterwards?

Wow, this is such an unexpectedly nice compliment for me? Cause it means, you are a Chase/XS fan, who saw my crack ship and went 'I don't know what's going on, but I enjoy your silly little ship, funny crossover shipper.' and you know what? It's very nice and made me happy. ;) Thank you!

And well who said nothing ever happened between them lol IF anything happened between those two (be it emotional or physical ;3), their default way of dealing it would be DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL, in similar but also in slightly different ways.

Chase Young is a man who seemingly doesn't do softer emotions. Any possible feelings and reactions who could be attributed to him actually caring about First Ninja, are re-labeled in his head into him doing all of this because he is trying to manipulate First on his side (and he totally still is, but he also now wants to feed that man, talk with him during long evenings and perhaps take a nap with him, you know, disgusting cute domestic stuff amidst oh i dunno- taking over the world and being evil together. >;))

First Ninja on the other hand, is very much aware that for things to go this far means that he is absolutely having emotions about Chase. But he is also in denial, because how can he betray all of his moral standing and beliefs, if he starting to care about someone like Chase Young? So he shoves it so far deep, he is in denial about denial, and turns completely blind to anything even resembling them being something more than opponents who tentavely respect one another.

#que? #ninja showdown #my immortal soul #is it strange that out of those two i absolutely view Chase is the one who would voice out his wishes& feelings first #if only because Chase Young isn't one to deny himself things he really wants #(of course he has to realize that he wants them in that way first and that might take awhile) #and First Ninja is the one who WOULD deny himself anything just because it doesnt line up with his responsibilities and morals #even if he most likely will be the one to realize his emotions first. he also would have hard time believing sincerity of Chase's feelings #a very strange juxtaposition between the one who puts himself first and the one who never puts himself first #also not gonna lie. I wrote out. like several paragraphs about my headcanons about physical intimacy between those two &how they view it #but than I realized that its probably TMI for an anon ask that didnt ask for that xD so i decided not to subject you to my rants &deletedit #but still sorry

[bluastro-yellow]

I thought Kim's portrait looking a little like the Rising Moon Hanafuda card was just a neat coincidence but I actually like the idea of Kim symbolising a moonrise instead of a sunrise. the Sun is the brightest star in the sky and when it's gone the Moon keeps reflecting its light. what if (if you play him as a huge communard) Harry dies just like Mazov and Kim becomes the "echo maker", the one who spreads his message

#I'm just saying words and blathering because I'm waiting for something and I need to distract myself #I like putting ideas out I don't know if they make sense #in the hanafuda card the moon is rising at sunset 🎴. they meet for a moment #disco elysium #pointless microblogging #if moralism is the blue sky communism is the night sky no? #disco elysium spoilers #sort of #let kim fix the fucking tiptop analysis he needs to do it #even if it's right because he might love machines but you can't deny he craves violence in some complex way #he needs to sit down and write his thoughts on the subject so he can think about it

[alexis-royce]

Would Diegesis and Pages get along? What about Liam and the Academic?

Diegesis, maybe go ask a Spirifer for something to eat before you try that again.

[Bonus Panel with Lee and The Academic over here.]

#nonplatonic forms #Fallen London #Diegesis #Mr Pages #comics #Either this is the most widely requested question #or one person is going to be very happy with this week's comic. #Anyway gods kind of work in the reverse in Fallen London #Their gaze shapes reality #But in NPF gods are subject to the human gaze as they are aggregate concepts #Anyway I think it makes sense that I had to break my two-panel rule for these windbags #You're all just lucky that this comic isn't a 10k word essay #But yeah Diegesis would try to put the fear of god in Pages #His morals may be questionable but he's falling for Lee so #yeah the guy loves weird little art with all his inhuman heart #He'd rip Censorship apart with his teeth if the concept was left alone in a room with him

[humming-fly]

Meta Knight’s number one motto is “Be prepared”, and his number two motto is “If I get possessed again I better get something cool out of it”

Originally I was gonna put this poster in the background but it got cluttered so here it is on its own cause I still think it’s funny:

#I know everyone loves discussing how dark robobot’s plotline is in particular concerning MK’s forced cybernetics but please consider #he’s feral and would probably leap at the chance #he has several lists depending on what manner of abduction he's being subjected to this time #not one for looking a gift horse in the mouth #what doesn’t kill him should’ve tried harder cause now he’s got a lightsaber and even less morals than before #susie #susie haltmann #meta knight #kirby #kirby planet robobot #he probably already had like 3 emo playlists on hand for this type of shit this is the best thing that’s happened to him in years #susie is hard to draw it took me forever to figure out how the hell her hair worked in that helmet #given the bonus i could almost tag this as star trek als;kdfjklsdj #i Could wait till monday to post this for the meme but consider also: i crave instant validation and have no patience #doodles #my art #edit: whoops forgot susie's shadow in that last panel

[boysnberriespie]

Truly you can’t simultaneously say “this queer media is important and meaningful in real life” and then simultaneously say that anyone critiquing it for its handling of certain subjects and the messages that sends is just applying morality to media where it doesn’t belong

It can not both be a moral win and free from analysis of those morals

#the difference is that censorship is not the goal with the critique #and nor is ‘cancelling’ the creators #you can still critique!!! if all critique was a call for censorship and harassment #the entire literature department at every university would be fucking shut down #there IS a middle ground between ‘writing X subject makes you evil’ #and ‘no fictional work can be used as a 1 to 1 analysis of real life morals’ #because sometimes works do have an express moral and political dimension to them #and ignoring that is fucking dumb frankly #and sometimes works don’t have an expressed political dimension to them #but they still reflect some of reality and the current literature/TV/movie landscape

[emmavakarian-theirin]

hiiiiiii i've fallen back into dragon age hell (origins, specifically) if anyone wants to DISCUSS things i am here

#(twirls hair) i think i'm falling for alistair all over again (sickos meme) yes... ha ha ha... YES.... #and it's mostly through realising how there's lines that are just SO unprompted or have no build up with the context of the subject?? #but obviously not in a bad writing way it's just *alistair* like #leliana: oh how i enjoyed the quiet of the chantry so i could contemplate and be at peace 😌 what about you alistair? 😊 #alistair: i liked screaming #LIKE honestly why was the grand cleric trying to keep you #or even the dialogue when you're trying to talk to him about his history and he's like 'it's boring though :/' #so you tell him to make up interesting stuff and he suddenly says 'i have some interesting looking moles i can show you?' LIKE??? #you are a sad strange big man and you have my love #BUT ANYWAY i'm having a moral dilemma over the most minor quest and have been staring at the same screen for like 30 minutes #and i know it's hard to see but sten looks so GOOD i'm shocked and thrilled i managed to get every mod i wanted to work... work

[anistarrose]

what I mean when I say I'm tired of people making found families into nuclear families:

among other things, it's kind of annoying when people act like the romantic couple are automatically the "most obvious" candidates to adopt a kid; or act like a pair of people in a romantic relationship can't happily co-parent a kid with people outside of that romance

what I don't mean when I say I'm tired of people making found families into nuclear families:

people using "siblings" or "parent and child" as a shorthand (or even non-shorthand) for characters' relationships sometimes

#like yeah i've personally encountered instances of “these characters are siblings” that i feel are slight oversimplifications #but there's also not a great concise alternative word #and sometimes? characters CAN just be adopted siblings! #and also if i can be completely honest #sometimes i want a way to gently clarify that i'm interpreting the relationship of two characters in a non-shippy way #without having to put a big aggro “don't tag as ship!!!” disclaimer up #i actually we believe we need to decouple “i'd like to avoid mentions of this ship” from the implication of moral judgment #(or even like “i am judging you but only for your subjective taste and you don't deserve harassment”) #but in the meantime some people probably *will* interpret “don't tag as ship” as moral judgment #so i need a concise little way to bring up organically that i'm not into a ship!

[thedroloisms]

just an essay bc it's been on my mind but the way that victimhood becomes a weapon on social media is so fucking stupid and counterintuitive to actual advocacy. people wielding "im a victim" as a defense not only in situations actually involving their specific case but also in basically every damn situation in the world is so ???? even in cases involving dream, for example, i will see people using his history as a means of defending him (it's really fucked up that you would accuse a victim of ___, he's an abuse victim i'm sure he won't defend ___ and that he'll ___) and while i understand where that sentiment comes from, the base assumption it's making is...nakedly untrue. and assuming its truthfulness can hurt victims moreso than it helps them.

being a victim isn't moralizing. being a victim doesn't make you a good person. suffering isn't absolution, and going through fucked up shit doesn't make someone "good." people equate abuser = bad person and victim = good person, and then assume that victims are incapable of abusive behavior or "problematic" internalized ideas. an abuser can't be neurodivergent, or mentally ill, or part of a marginalized group, and most importantly an abuser can't be a victim. the boxes of victim and abuser are strictly defined with no overlap. once you've been through something truly, verifiably, Fucked Up (tm), congrats! you get a certificate of eternal victimhood that prevents you from ever being a Real Bad Person ever for the rest of your life.

only that's not how real life works! it's just not! generational trauma leads to cycles of abuse that perpetuate themselves over whole generations of people! the kids that think that it's perfectly fine and a-okay for a parent to physically punish their children don't tend to be the ones with parents that don't lay a finger on them! and you know, it sucks. it sucks that you get nothing out of being hurt, that there's no fucking prize, that there are no suffering vouchers for you to cash in because of the abuse you suffered that can give you good-person-points. it sucks to endure all that shit for nothing. but the opposite idea of suffering making you a good person is the exact reason why some people preach about the miles they walked to school in the driving rain to excuse taking out their shitty temper on their small children.

being abused generally doesn't make one "better." if anything, trauma tends to fuck you up in ways that hurt you...and others. going through shit tends to make people worse. working to get better is something that requires actual conscious effort, not something that you are given as a side effect of going through hell. over and over again, traumatized individuals who are made to feel powerless and given little freedom and ability to change their circumstances, when in a situation where they are given power to some degree over some person, may choose to abuse that power while they're in their own abusive situation or after. part of being a victim of abuse often means having a distorted view of the abuse you've been through! it can mean normalizing fucked up behavior! looking at shit and treating it lightly because you've been taught that it's "not that bad," if you've been taught that it's bad at all! victims aren't granted perfect ideologies from god because they walked through flames--cult survivors usually have to unlearn all sorts of messed up beliefs that were drilled into them--beliefs that many people on twitter would then damn them for, because obviously if you've thought something like that in the past then you're a bigoted hateful individual.

i can only speak from my own experience, but i can't fucking count the number of people i've heard of or met or known personally who have been through some kind of trauma in the past, who are undoubtably victims of abuse, who then go on to act in toxic, manipulative, and abusive ways to others. oftentimes, these people are aware of the fact that they were in abusive situations in the past and make quite a big deal about the fact that they care about victims, as a victim, and want to advocate for them. they're the same people who react extremely negatively to anyone alluding to the idea that they could be abusive--they're not like that, they've been abused, how could anyone accuse them of abusing another person, don't they know how much that hurts with their history. and so on and so forth.

and...i have a lot of sympathy for these individuals, generally speaking. because as mentioned above, being abused in the past doesn't necessarily make it harder for you to be a perpetrator in the future. sometimes--oftentimes, even--it's the opposite. and i feel for them, because going through trauma and being hurt makes you scramble for ways to not be hurt again, and oftentimes the easiest answer for that (and the ways of solving problems as modeled to them in the past!) is control, and controlling another party can very easily slip into manipulative, abusive behavior. especially if you still have internalized ideas mixed in with the fear that surviving abuse entails, internalized ideas that are often left unexamined by people who believe that their victimhood absolves them from any further responsibility. i feel for people who are deathly afraid of ever being seen as terrible people, oftentimes because of the shit that they went through, who seek explanations for their abusers' behavior that make it so much easier to simplify the matter into "they're something separate from me, something that i can never become." i sympathize with the anger and fear and frustration and grief that might never had had a healthy outlet while in a past situation that ends up poured out into places where it shouldn't be in the present, i sympathize with the desire to find reason in being hurt where it doesn't exist, to want there to be something to make the whole damn thing worth it instead of having nothing to take with you but your pain.

but at the end of the day, that's not how life works. that's not how abuse works. yeah, there are abusers who are cruel for cruelty's sake, who are aware of the harm they do and desire to cause more--and there are just as many who genuinely believe that they're doing the right thing, that they're doing good, that they care for the one that they're hurting unselfishly and wholeheartedly. there are many, many people who hurt others because they have been hurt before, and this isn't an excuse--of course not--but refusing to acknowledge the ways that pain can perpetuate itself and blinding oneself to the possibility of their own actions ever being abusive can literally be how this pain continues. it's good to be self aware, it's good to want to do the right thing, but assuming that victims are good people because of the suffering they went through not only means that so-called "bad victims" (or anyone that's not yet Acceptably untangled the thought patterns and actions that have been normalized to them, or anyone who lashes out in quote-unquote appropriate ways as judged by whatever social media council is handing out social justice tickets for the week) get overlooked and ignored, but abusive patterns of behavior are allowed to continue to exist, just in a repackaged form with different language. it's not fair to victims to nail them to this standard of so-called righteousness that is also inextricably connected to their experiences, allowed to be revoked if they're too "abuser" to be "victim" anymore, or to overlook the victims of their behavior because their inherent suffering-borne righteousness keeps them from crossing the line into bad behavior.

at the end of the day, no one deserves abuse, victims deserve to be advocated for, and people who have been through horrific shit didn't deserve to go through horrific shit. but you don't get handed get-out-of-jail-free cards for being treated badly, you know?

#abuse #like ugh it's complicated #but i need people to stop using victimhood as a catchall excuse #and this isn't criticism of like. dr eam btw #who really hasn't ever used anything re: his experiences as an excuse as far as i can remember #it's one thing to say that 'these situations affected my actions' which is half of what this essay is abt #because yeah. going through shit affects your actions ... and not always for the better. #now the other ccs whose opinions ive been unwillingly subjected to over the last few weeks ? lol. lmao. #like look this idea of victimhood earning anyone anything is inherently damaging and completely untrue #sympathy and understanding extended towards abuse victims shouldn't be dependent on the morality points that they falsely earn #as a result of going through fucked up shit