Tumgik
#the greater good
lesbianelsas · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
I used to wonder whether I’d ever make it back, and now I know that, one way or another, I’m going home one day. Thank you.
Xena: Warrior Princess - 1x21 "The Greater Good"
276 notes · View notes
the-random-hamlet · 4 months
Text
Tumblr media
Not Mine. Thought to Share.
271 notes · View notes
piratesleeves · 1 year
Text
“I’m not gonna do it again or it’ll be all over the internet”
Tumblr media
Rhys Montague Darby you’re literally doing it right now
200 notes · View notes
renegadesstuff · 4 days
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
“Castle, I love you, but I will not marry you on a ride, or up in space, or on a slide.” 🫠
S6E19, “The Greater Good” aired 10 years ago (March 24, 2014) 💜
19 notes · View notes
inkedlemon · 11 months
Text
A tau that brings the greater good. Whether you like it or not...
Tumblr media
92 notes · View notes
billyengland · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media
No Masters.
50 notes · View notes
cartoonlover87-2 · 6 months
Text
Cringetober Day 9: Crossover ship/Rarepair
Tumblr media
I'm about to go to Hell for this.. I've made this ship as a crackship at first, but it grew on me.
Extras under the cut:
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
23 notes · View notes
holy-ships-x-red-lips · 6 months
Text
With me, it will always be somewhat messier.
-Dr. Lucien Blake to his future wife
26 notes · View notes
cultofthewyrm · 10 months
Text
Tumblr media
Tau Battle Suit by William Liu
28 notes · View notes
daemonstalley · 10 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Ok, this is the third attempt at this, hopefully it works this time!
Since you all like the Kroot so much, here’s the last bit of detail & full assembly! Still needs basing & cleanup, but got the next 4 primed & washed.
Oh, and there’s my first (very red) kroot for comparison!
27 notes · View notes
jencsi · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Finlay Friday
13 notes · View notes
lesbianelsas · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
I used to wonder whether I’d ever make it back, and now I know that, one way or another, I’m going home one day. Thank you.
Xena: Warrior Princess - 1x21 "The Greater Good"
381 notes · View notes
rastronomicals · 5 months
Photo
Tumblr media
5:29 AM EST November 9, 2023:
Nine Inch Nails - "The Greater Good" From the album Year Zero (April 13, 2007)
Last song scrobbled from iTunes at Last.fm
--
Tumblr media
9 notes · View notes
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Abstract
Scientific and organizational interventions often involve trade-offs whereby they benefit some but entail costs to others (i.e., instrumental harm; IH). We hypothesized that the gender of the persons incurring those costs would influence intervention endorsement, such that people would more readily support interventions inflicting IH onto men than onto women. We also hypothesized that women would exhibit greater asymmetries in their acceptance of IH to men versus women. Three experimental studies (two pre-registered) tested these hypotheses. Studies 1 and 2 granted support for these predictions using a variety of interventions and contexts. Study 3 tested a possible boundary condition of these asymmetries using contexts in which women have traditionally been expected to sacrifice more than men: caring for infants, children, the elderly, and the ill. Even in these traditionally female contexts, participants still more readily accepted IH to men than women. Findings indicate people (especially women) are less willing to accept instrumental harm befalling women (vs. men). We discuss the theoretical and practical implications and limitations of our findings.
Introduction
The promise of achieving “the greater good” has inspired numerous interventions designed to move society toward presumably desirable ends. Companies develop and market products to improve quality of life, organizations introduce policies to improve employees’ workplace experiences, and educators implement practices to improve learning outcomes. These interventions are frequently justified by claims that the benefits to many outweigh the potential harms to a few—a moral argument consistent with a utilitarian ethical framework.Footnote1
A utilitarian approach to morality accepts inflicting harm onto some people if doing so increases the sum total of human happiness and well-being (e.g., Mill, 1861/2010; Singer, 1981, 2020). Guided by the classic tenets, Kahane et al. (2018) identified two elements that reflect the negative and positive features of utilitarian reasoning. The negative dimension—instrumental harm (colloquially known as collateral damage)—gives a moral agent permission to “instrumentally use, severely harm, or even kill innocent people to promote the greater good” (Kahane et al., 2018, p. 132). Impartial beneficence reflects the positive aspect of utilitarianism, requiring prioritization of the greater good above all else. In its purest form, this element demands people ignore personal ties, family loyalties, group memberships, special preferences, and emotional impulses that compromise impartiality and achieving this greater good (e.g., Hughes, 2017).
However, people frequently depart from such prescriptive moralities (Hughes, 2017; Kern & Chugh, 2009), seldom approaching the level of impartiality required to practice utilitarianism and accept sacrifices that may contribute to the greater good. Indeed, judgments about benefit and harm are highly subjective (Schein & Gray, 2018) and even malleable (Haslam, 2016; Rozin, 1999). This subjectivity, coupled with the difficulty of achieving consensus on what constitutes the greater good, undermines impartial calculi of costs and benefits requisite for upholding utilitarian principles.
The current investigation examined one factor that might compromise the impartial evaluation of social interventions: the gender of the person who experiences instrumental harm (Instrumental Harm). Based on prior research on perceptions of harm to women and men, we hypothesized that people asymmetrically support interventions inflicting collateral harm to men versus women. Such a bias violates the principle of impartial beneficence, potentially compromising the evidence-based advancement of men and women alike. As detailed below, our predictions are rooted in extant work on gender and moral decision-making and are extended to contexts depicting low-level harm.
[...]
General Discussion
The current investigation sought to examine whether people were more willing to endorse interventions when IH was borne by men than women. Our first two studies supported this premise. Importantly, however, our results showed that this asymmetry was driven primarily by women, but not men, being more likely to accept IH to men than to women across a variety of contexts (i.e., supporting Hypothesis 2). Study 3 tested a boundary condition to this gender bias in harm tolerance: stereotypically female caregiving contexts. When instrumental harm benefitted vulnerable individuals (e.g., infants, young children, sick, or the elderly), both men and women exhibited a bias in their willingness to accept IH to men versus women (i.e., supporting Hypothesis 1; not supporting Hypothesis 3). That is, contrary to what might be expected by historical gender roles (Eagly & Wood, 1999), people believed men ought to bear greater costs, even in traditionally female sacrificial domains.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
Our findings offer four contributions. First, we extended the literature on gender and harm endorsement, which has primarily emphasized high-conflict sacrificial dilemmas involving questions of life or death (e.g., FeldmanHall et al., 2016; Skulmowski et al., 2014). The current findings revealed this gender bias persists in highly consequential, yet understudied domains: assessments of beneficial interventions carrying negative externalities across a variety of contexts: medical, psychological, educational, sexual, and caregiving. Second, we demonstrated that when evaluating interventions, female participants were more likely than male participants to accept IH borne by men than women. This pattern lends further support to the well-documented finding that women have a stronger in-group bias than men (e.g., Glick et al., 2004; Rudman & Goodwin, 2004) and are more likely to perceive one another as victims than perpetrators (Reynolds et al., 2020). This disparity suggests women may prioritize one another’s welfare over men’s in the construction or approval of social, educational, medical, and occupational interventions. If so, female policymakers might be especially wary of advancing policies or initiatives risking harm to other women, but less so when they risk harming men.
Third, we tested a boundary condition to this gender bias by investigating contexts previously unstudied in sacrificial dilemmas: stereotypically female caregiving roles. Although consideration of gender stereotypes and role congruence (Eagly & Wood, 1999) might predict a greater tolerance for female sacrifice in such contexts, men and women alike were more tolerant of IH incurred by men (versus women). These patterns suggest that although women traditionally fill and sacrifice in these roles, people may not necessarily endorse that ought to be the case. Rather, our results align with emerging evidence documenting diminished concern for men’s suffering due to a greater tendency to stereotype men as perpetrators rather than victims (Reynolds et al., 2020).
Fourth, our findings identified individual-level factors that contribute to asymmetries in harm tolerance. Namely, Studies 2 and 3 revealed that individuals more strongly endorsing egalitarian, feminist, or liberal ideologies exhibited greater disparities in their acceptance of instrumental harm, such that they more readily tolerated instrumental harm borne by men. These patterns suggest those most concerned about rectify- ing historical injustices might most ardently oppose explora- tory interventions potentially providing long-term benefits to women.
[ Via: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02571-0 ]
==
Must be all their male privilege.
21 notes · View notes
renegadesstuff · 11 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
-You stopped writing.-
-So did you.- 🤭
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Love that scene so so much 🥹🤍
84 notes · View notes
bbakizz · 7 months
Text
i cant bretahe iv never been so unhappy for it to be friday [well its almkst friday who gives a shit] IN EED I TK BE WEDNESY NOW I CANT BERATHE IM NKT GONNA SLEEP FOR THE NECT LIKE 6 DAYS I NEED ANSWERS BONES PLEAAAAAAAAAAAAASE ATLEAST PUT CHUUYA IN IT FOR MY SANITY I BEG YOU 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
okay so ahyways.... what are u guyss opinions on the new ep???? what do yoh want it to be / what do you think it will be???? i wish the episode was like 3 hours long so i could atleast have hope for sb animated but i reas skmewhere that its only gonna be 21 minutes so theres no hope of that. OR OR OR ITS A SKK EPSIDOE AND AT THE END THEY RVEREMVE THE BEGINNING OF STORMBRINGER SO THEY CAN RELESE THE MOVJE AFTER AND ITLL MAKE SENSE I GUESS OR WHATEVER IDK I JUST REALLY WANT STORMBRINGER OR ANYTHJNG SKK RELATED REALLY. ESP WITH A NAME LIKE TWILIGHT FAREWELL.
Ngl im fine aslong as chuuya makes a 2 second appearance
even if hes just in the opening ill live
bones if chuuyas nkt in the ep and you take out the opening you better sleep with 3 eyes open tonight.
10 notes · View notes