If wukong told (lied) to macaque that he never cared about him, do you think that would make macaque even more aggresive or like shut down/be the final straw that finally makes macaque let go of wukong
so, just like my answer for whether macky would willingly erase swk from his life, I think this answer also depends on when in the show swk told macky this, and what better way to explain this than by going through each outcome per season :)
UNO
looking at s1, we meet a Macaroni who is very hellbent on killing (or at the very least, heavily damaging) SWK because he feels like the guy never truly gave a shit about him (<- my interpretation). thus, it is safe to assume that if Wukong were to laugh off Marnolo's hurt and anger and tell the guy that he never cared, Mac&cheese will only feel that his current assumptions of SWK are correct and that the guy only cares about himself and his image.
would he feel hurt about it? oh absolutely. maybe punch a wall, destroy the "dojo" he allegedly lives in in an outburst of power and anger. maybe scream and cry but be mad at his own tears (begin to wipe them away but is too hash so he scars himself and then can't stop bc he's very self-destructive)
DOS
technically, Wukong is MIA so this would never happen. BUT! have you considered!!! Wukong telling MK that Macdonalds was just some guy from his past, nobody super important, basically a nobody he wronged in his long list of enemies. which MK might possibly parrot back to Macadoo in 2x07
heavens above Marconi would be pissed.
forget trying to be a dick to MK and "teaching" him that his path of emulating Wukong has already made him forget his friends (untrue, but this is what i assume was Macky's interpretation of MK's actions since the guy didn't actively search for his missing friends, who MK thought left him on purpose).
nah, Macky is hunting SWK down. he is out for blood because "did i serious mean so little to you? were our nights under that tree sharing secrets, dreams, peaches fucking nothing to you?" (and idk....maybe after the air clears out, possibly, macky would realize SWK's true reason for being MIA and....help out???? mayhaps???....yeah, yeah, i know only in my dreams T^T)
TRES
ok, so we could technically say this sort of happened in ep1 when Sun Wukong said, "i thought it was someone important," and, "so what, you're her puppet now? i mean, makes sense. you always did have a sidekick kind of vibe."
and that is basically Wukong implying that he viewed his relationship with Macaque as one where he didn't consider Macky to be important to him, or someone he saw as a close friend. however, this is also a tactic Wukong uses against nearly every villain he interacts with, simply to get a rise out of them. so, pin that down as Wukong being observant enough to know which words to use to hurt.
AND Macky's reaction to it is him jumping out of his cool-ass looking jet and body-slamming the monkey king to the floor. so, uh, it is safe to assume that Macky was pissed off at Wukong's comment.
THUS! with that in mind, we can say that in this context, Macackle will be upset enough to fight him; however, if we were to consider the end of s3 (like Samadhi Fire ritual to the end) i would go with the option of Mackarell shutting down and feeling like that comment is the nail in the coffin for their relationship.
CUATRO
in s4? absolutely not. he would be dragging Wukong by the ear, demanding that he repeat what he said, ordering Wukong to try and convince himself that their past meant nothing while Macky still lives and breathes. and especially after the s4 special.
you could argue that Macky could shut down in the beginning of s4, but i think he'd probably laugh it off because he knows now that Wukong is lying. he's being his old deflective self and probably doesn't know where to place Macanoli in his head now that they're technically on better terms with LBD done with.
but after all the drama of going through SWK's memories? nuh uh, Wukong can't get out of this, nope. you handed iMac a chocolate peach popsicle. it is too late for you turn back and lie about your feelings. you can dig your grave and lie about it, but he's just gonna hit you right back with your own medicine and make you understand that if y'all truly want to reconcile, you cannot continue lying to yourself that you don't care.
not anymore.
so, anyway, i hope this answers your question, anon! i had a lot of fun running this question around in me braincage :3
40 notes
·
View notes
Ah. "Animals rights" bullshit okay. Being animals that are not obligate herbivores and eating the flesh of other animals because of it is "oppressing" non-human animals. And they called out my comparing it to anti-choicers because "murder is different than death" okay well anti-choicers think abortion is murder. I don't happen to consider a human killing an animal for food murder any more than I consider an animal killing another animal for food murder, especially when as you pointed out yourself some people can't survive without meat.
Or is it a contract killing/hit on every animal You've ever eaten to survive? Are you just not a murderer because you paid not to get your hands dirty?
Like yeah it's fucking NATURAL. Humans aren't some wondrous ascended beings that don't crawl through the dirt. We fuck and fight and survive and yes, part of that survival for many is KILLING.
And it's good that you don't think people should be forced onto veganism because that would be as bad as the people who want to force all animals to eat synthetic meat and hunt via robots or whatever but my gods can you imagine telling someone who has been a vegetarian by choice for years for animal WELFARE purposes (not rights) who is vegan for disability reasons that they are "justifying the oppression of animals" and "killing animals for food is murder" when you literally can't go vegan for health reasons yourself? Okay murderer. Guess your life matters more than those oppressed animals.
Like sorry I'm going full "you're an asshole and I despise you and I'm genuinely sorry for myself that I thought we could be friends".
Like yeah the anti-choicer metaphor wasn't perfect. But it also got you to cut right to the heart of the matter. You are so divorced from humans as part of the ecosystem and food chain you genuinely believe we have some moral duty to not kill animals (but only animals, not plants or fungi, which are also living and have some measure of sentience) and to hold ourselves separate from the biosphere to the greatest extent possible.
That's just ecofascism 101. Are we gonna do the "any form of hunting or land management, even responsibly by indigenous stewards using traditional practices is bad" next? Or are we gonna avoid that one because you hopefully know better than THAT and simply think that removing humans from ONLY one part of the consumptive chain is ✨different✨?
For reference:
Also where does "choosing to die" come in to this? I wasn't talking about euthanasia, I was talking about withdrawing the life support provided by a human body if the owner of that body stops consenting to providing it, therefore depriving a fetus dependent on that life support for survival of said survival. I'm pretty sure the fetus doesn't have a choice in the matter. (Whether or not it's "alive" doesn't have much to do with anything since it's been made pretty clear that medical autonomy in terms of mandated use of your body's parts or resources is unethical at ANY point. Even if you ARE killing it, we've determined that's the most ethical option.)
Also if we're going to make bullshit oppression claims why don't we talk about transspecies people who are obligate carnivores?
13 notes
·
View notes