#This is stuff that is considered common knowledge | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mycartoonmonster · 10 months ago

Text

With the context of the Book of Bill and the characterisation of Bill, I ended up finding that all the members of the Zodiac have a thing or two in common with Bill Cipher.

Six fingered hand-Stanford Pines

-Both have a genetic mutation which they got ostracized for but made them interested in the worlds beyond.

- Both are egocentric and smart.

-Both have a thirst for revenge to prove the people around them they were wrong about them.

-Both didn't mean to endanger their dimension (Ford wanted knowledge and Bill wanted to show them the stars)

-Animals aren't safe around them (Ford set a bird on fire by mistaking it as a Phoenix and Bill ripped out a deer's teeth in his debut and in the storyboards of Weirdmageddon P1 he uses a deer to forcibly kiss Ford's statue as if they were his Barbie and Ken)

-Both have a weird sense of humor

-Both are considered criminals in the multiverse (Theft in Ford's case and Manslaughther, Murder alongside other stuff like mass property destruction in Bill's case)

-Both project onto others they see as similar to themselves (Bill with Ford-and on a minor scale Pacifica-and Ford with Dipper)

-Both ended up getting tricked by a conman (Ford by Bill and Bill by Stanley)

-Both are authors! (The Journals and the Book Of Bill, which are essentially diaries that talked about what their lives were, a bit about themselves and the creatures they found through their life)

Crescent symbol/Fish-Stanley Pines

-Both are scammers

-Both share mannerisms, one of them being referring to Ford as Sixer(which led to people theorizing Stan was Bill's reincarnation)

-Bad relationship with their parents but seem closer with their mom (Bill's parents tried to make him blind to the 3rd dimension but it seems Bill genuinely loved his mama Scalene while Fildbrick didn't value Stan as much as Ford and Caryn was the only one worried about Stanley and was one of the 2 persons that assisted his fake funeral)

-Both were seen as a bad kid growing up (Bill by the people on his dimension due to his mutation and the habilities this granted him while Stan was seen as lesser than Ford due to the latter's gigantic IQ and his rebellious nature)

-Both made one mistake that heavily affected the course of their lives and can never return home because of it (Stan ruining Ford´s project and Bill setting his home ablaze)

-Both didn't mean to push Ford away from them nor put their families in any danger initially(Bill wanted Ford to continue with the portal and got sad after their fallout and Stan did what he did in a moment where he wasnt thinking rationally and it cost him 30 years of loneliness and guilt)

-Both went to jail on different occassions (Stan on Colombia and Bill after going on a rampage in the bar while drunk after the fallout with Ford and the Theraprism if you wanna add it)

-Both tend show only 1 eye to people as well as a cane (Bill only has 1-although he can shapeshift and have multiples as seen in his demon form- and he uses the cane mostly in Dreamscappers, a bit in Sock Opera and in the intro for Weirdmageddon while Stan uses a patch and an 8 ball cane for tourists during his mystery man persona)

-Both used their art to influence people (Stan with the Mystery Shack's attractions and Bill using animation and figurines which failed, unlike Stan's works, unless you count the Lil' Stanley comic)

-Both have used a red demon costume once (Bill in the book and Stan in a picture in Gideon Rises)

-Both wanted to set the journals on fire (with Bill actually doing it in Weirdmageddon Part 1)

-They find Dipper's disstress/fear and annoyance hilarious (Stan teasing him vs Bill terrorizing him)

Glasses-Fiddleford McGucket

-Both end up going insane after a traumatic event (The destruction of his home dimension in Bill's case and McGucket taking a peek into Bill eating his own exoskeleton after crossing the portal)

-The times they helped/aided people it ended bad for them (In McGucket's case, Dipper with his new voice and the Gideon Bot that ended up getting destroyed in the scuffle with Dipper and in Bill's case; Dipper became Bill's puppet and Gideon didn't get the Shack's signature hence he had to use dynamite as a plan B and Weirdmaggedon only lasted 4-5 days for the Henchmaniacs while in McGuckets case's Shacktron didn't survive against Bill as they didn't consider protecting the arms and legs the same way that the Shack was protected)

-Both played a part in the creation of secret societies (Fiddleford by creating The Societyvof the Blind Eye and Bill by the Ciphertologists and inderectly creating the Anti-Bill Cipher society by terrorizing 4 persons)

-Underneath all that insanity and very deep in that broken mind, there is one very smart broken guy.

-Both lost their families (At least Fiddleford could reconciliate with some of it but Bill doesn´t have the same chance anymore)

Bag of ice-Wendy Courdory

-Both are rebellious and dislike authority figures.

-They like to do what they want with no regard for rules

-Both abused their power on more than one occasion (Wendy by stealing snacks and throwing water balloons at the elderly when working at the pool and Bill throughout his deals and in Weirdmageddon)

-They've had guts to face powerfull creatures (Bill the Time Baby and Wendy stuff like the ShapeShifter, the Unicorns or the Eye Bats in Weirdmageddon)

-Both lost a mom when they were young.

Questioning Mark-Soos Ramírez

-Both are smarter than what they look like upon first sight.

-Both lack a dad (Bill's died while Soos's left him)

-They have a funny side to them (Bill more leaning to sadism though)

-Both had their eyes damaged by Mabel (Soos by getting attacked with glitter in Stan Is Not What He Seems and Bill by getting sprayed with graffiti paint in Weirdmageddon Part 3)

Stiched heart-Robbie Valentino

-Both had their relationships ruined by their own arrogance, negligence and dishonesty (Bill being an abusive partner while Robbie was immature).

-They did not take the fallout with their partner well (at least Robbie would never dare to do anything similar to what Bill did)

-They tried to pursue their partner after the break up but to no avail (Bill with threaths and later on with offers of power and Robbie by using music as seen in Gideon Rises and both actually using messanges-Bill wasting Ford's Post-it notes and Robbie sad emails and texts to Wendy)

-Both are good with music (Bill can play the piano and xylophone as seen in his apology video and Robbie can play the guitar and both can sing)

-Both insulted Soos or referred to him in condescending ways (Robbie called him Big Dude and Bill adressed him as "the fat one")

-Both had beef with a 12 year old and wanted to harm them (Robbie wanted to fist fight a child aka Dipper and Bill planned to commit suicide in Dipper's body, turn the mystery twins into corpses, disassamble their molecules and almost kills Mabel in the series finale)

'Both got turned to stone at one point in Weirdmageddon (Robbie when it started and Bill at the end of it)

One eyed Pentagram-Gideon Gleeful

-Having too much power that they acquired at a young age which heavily affected them and began their rise to villainy

-Both have a hatred towards Stanley Pines for meddling with their plans to obtain absolute power and ultimatetly ruining their plans which ended with them in prison.

-Both burnt a picture of the object of their affections; destroying the section with the rest of their family and leaving their faces untouched.

-Both planned to use Mabel and Dipper to get one of the original mystery twins to give them what they wanted

-Both left the Pines Twin they were interested on imprisoned during Weirdmageddon.

-Both deep down craved adoration and attention.

-Both lead a gang of criminals but dont treat them with a much respect as the one Pines Twin they are pining on while hating the other twins for thinking they turned them away from them when in reality it was their actions that did.

-Both got punched in the face by a Pines Twin in a season Finale inside someone´s head (Gideon Bot's and Stanley's)

-Both seem to care about their appearance (Gideon worrying about his hair the most and Bill about his bowtie, given the scream he lets out when Dipper blasts him and him readjusting it a couple of times during Weirdmageddon)

-Both ended up in prison after acquiring a position of absolute power where they do art therapy

-Both are snappy dressers and use their charm to trick people

Llama-Pacifica Northwest

-Both had messy childhoods that turned them into who they are now.

-Both are pretty good liars and can trick people very easily (Bill with his deals and Pacifica in the Lost Legends comic)

-Both look down on people they see as inferior to them(Bill with humans and Pacifica with the working class, hillbillies and the Pines before the events of The mystery of the Northwest mansion and Weirdmageddon)

-Both see themselves as monsters that cause havoc no matter where they go or what they do (Pacifica in dreams and Bill due to what he did in his home)

-Both were forced by their parents to act in a certain way (Bill´s at least loved him and were good intentioned)

-Both are fighters (Pacifica by defying her parents wishes, facing against the ghost and the face stealer in Lost Legends and refusing Bill's deal in her dream and Bill could stand a fight with Shacktron which he ended up defeating and in his book its implied he can fight easily against demons or ghosts)

-Both have wore a crown (Pacifica in her debut episode and Bill in his portrait in the Penthouse suite of the Fearamid)

Shooting Star-Mabel Pines

-Both are agents of Chaos (Mabel being Chaotic Good/Neutral and Bill Chaotic Evil).

-Both enjoy partying and to have fun.

-Both have a wild imagination and a sense of style.

-Both like karaoke and have had a karaoke night with one of the original mystery twins

-Both have eaten stuff normal people shouldn't eat/gross things(Bill his exoskeleton and illegal punch and Mabel getting wasted with Smile Dip, a leaf, huge amounts of sugar that would end with her sick, Mabel juice and she once got hospitalized by eating sniff and scratch stickers)

-Both like makeovers (as seen in a part of the book of Bill where he talks about hiding the blood of his past)

-Both think highly of themselves (Bill's bottomless ego vs Mabel being secure about her talents, qualities and appearance)

-Both have social skills that made others attracted to them, mostly loners or freaks (Bill with his Henchmaniacs for their shared love of chaos and Ford with his smarts and cosmical knowledge and Mabel with Candy and Greta by being weirdos and not being as popular as Pacifica and her posse)

-Both adress Ford as "Fordsy"

-Both have rolled in the grass in Gravity Falls(Bill while possesing Ford during puppet hour and Mabel in Tourist Trapped)

-Both put their wants over other people's and/or their needs (Like in Sock Opera but even if Mabel is sometimes selfish at least apologizes and learns from her mistakes while Bill doesn't care who he hurts and would never apologize)

-Both use white out to exclude certain stuff they dont like from reading material to "fix it" or crayons/markers to cross them (Mabel with the dialog in the Comix Up story in Lost Legends or certain things such as her summer romances and in the Mabel´s guide to color with the picture and Bill with a section where part of The Great Gatsby is shown on his book where he mentions assigned reading or stuff like his exes and his former friend The Oracle/Seven eyes)

-Both became gods of destruction, first time by accident and the second with full intention(Mabel by accident with the rift and ending with MabelLand and Bill with the accidental destruction of his home and with Weirdmageddon)

-You could argue they're awfull when it comes to romance (Mabel's attempts always end in failure and Bill fumbled Ford so so hard)

Pine Tree-Dipper Mason Pines

-Both are good at decoding codes and solving mysteries and have good academic skills.

-Both didn't have many friends growing up and were picked on as kids (Bill for his mutation and Dipper for his birthmark)

-The times they wanted to prove themselves to others ended badly for them (Dipper caused a zombie apocalypse and Bill destroyed his dimension by accident)

-The names they use aren't their real names (Bill confirmed in an AMA years ago that Bill Cipher is just a name he picked so humans could converse with him without going bonkers upon first contact and Dipper's name is actually Mason but everyone refers to him as Dipper due to his birthmark)

-Has cloned himself (Bill's are a natural hability for him while Dipper made copies of himself via paper-rest in piece Tyrone)

-Both were adorable as babies.

-Both got obsessed with someone to the point of messing with their personal lifes (Dipper with Wendy during her relationship with Robbie and Bill with Ford and his relationship with McGucket)

-They changed hats at different points in their life; Dipper in Tourist Trapped changes from his green hat with a five point star to the classic blue pine tree while Bill sported a multicolor hat as a kid before changing into a tophat (if we take the theory that Bill's hat was originally his father's then both Dipper's and Bill's were owned by a family member before being passed on to them, Dipper's belonging to Stan)

I know this is probably just a coincidence (save the stuff with Ford as some were meant to highlight the bond these two had and establish parallels between the two, making them doomed soulmates and adding another layer of sadness over the toxic yaoi) but a fun one still.

Thanks for reading!

1K notes · View notes

moonlightcycle571 · 7 months ago

Text

So we’ve all agreed that Gotham is magically fucked, right? Like that place has ancient curses upon ancient curses like it’s nobodies business. The city was built on an evil magic swamp, a lot of people pissed off the wrong witches and all around, that shot mixed and did not age well.

It’s also common knowledge that Batman hates magic. So he doesn’t deal with that stuff. Which is as shame considering it could help deal with so much.

But do you know who’s job it is to take care it? The Champion of Magic. And who is the Champion of Magic? Billy freakin Batson aka Captain Marvel.

Problem. Billy is a hero, and people in the caped community tend to be pretty protective of their city. Batman especially when it comes to other heroes in Gotham.

Problem 2. Batman, again, doesn’t give a shit about Magic. And it’s not like Billy can hold an intervention. Cause what’s he going to say “oh by the way, your city is the magical equivalent of multiple stains that has grown into toxic mold and is in dire need of the equivalent of multiple bleaching sessions”

So now Cap is stuck. He’s also scared of getting adopted as Billy the second he enters the city.

#billy batson #shazam #Gotham is a magically fucked city #Billy holds the key to the bleach and has the power to actively help #it’s just that hero etiquette tells him not to interfere #and he doesn’t want to get adopted #it’s tough being a blue eyes black haired orphan kid in Gotham

488 notes · View notes

fractoluminescence · 24 days ago

Text

WAIT NO THERE ARE EUROPEANS THAT ARE ANTI-SCREENS?? STOP IT GUYS YOU'RE GIVING US A BAD REP 😭😭😭

I continue to run into people that are confused as to why Americans have screens on our windows and it’s really quite simple.

Bugs

Diseases carried by bugs

Other assorted wildlife such as dogs and teenagers

#we don't have screens at home but the worse that comes inside is stuff like mosquitoes and moths #sometimes wasps and stuff #we just guide them out by day #but to be clear we have considered buying screens before. we just never bothered #i just. get bitten by mosquitoes on loop #but the reason i'm saying this is because #HOW DO PEOPLE NOT KNOW HOW SCREENS WORK. OF -COURSE- YOU CAN PUSH THEM OUT OF THE WAY??#and obviously they are practical??#it's just wild to me because the use for them is rather obvious #also. do people not realize other places have warmer climates?? even little kids here associate bugs with heat. like---#(the reblog is in good fun but ngl this post did surprise me)#(didn't know some people had never used screens before)#but ig my family is used to travelling so maybe that's why idk #still though...come on #i thought this was as common knowledge as ticks giving you lyme sometimes ngl #je tombe des nues #fract thoughts

39K notes · View notes

catsvrsdogscatswin · 1 year ago

Text

Underutilized bit in LOTR, I feel, is how deeply out of his depth Boromir is within the Fellowship.

And by that I don't mean that he's the weakest or the stupidest or any of that, but rather that –against all appearances– he is the sole member of the Fellowship who is a Regular Normal Human, and he would have such a shocker slowly figuring all that out over the course of their journey. I mean:

Age. Legolas and Gimli wouldn't surprise him, since the lifespan of elves and dwarves seems commonly known to be way longer than humans, but Gandalf? The hobbits? None of these ages work as advertised and when he goes down to sit and commiserate with Aragorn about being the only Men in the company and how weird this all must be for them both Aragorn has to cough into his fist and mutter "Eighty-seven." "WHAT?!" (Yes, I know that Gondor keeps records of their Númenórean ancestors and said ancestors' extended lifespans, but consider this: the blood has thinned so much in Gondor that practically nobody lives longer than regular humans nowadays, and Boromir is canonically the jock in a family of scholars. He had to look up what/where Rivendell was after he got Faramir's Prophecy Dream, for god's sake.)

Bilbo. The entire Fellowship except Boromir has a personal relationship with Bilbo, and Boromir has neither seen nor heard of this creature in his life. Everyone else is starting off this quest with significant background knowledge of Bilbo's life and The Hobbit, whether having been told by Bilbo himself or having had family members personally involved at the time it occurred, and Boromir, again, has no clue what they're all on about.

Moria. Dwarves presumably have some built-in sensory adaptions for living underground, elf eye physics are bullshit, hobbits are stated to be far more comfortable/better navigating underground than most races, Gandalf is an Istar, and Aragorn has been hunting and tracking in various ungodly locations for most of his eighty-seven years. This means that, once again, Boromir is the only Normal Person trying to Normally Navigate a mostly-pitch-black cave system while everyone else side-eyes him for bumping into walls all the time.

Elves can sleep with their eyes open. This is admittedly not the most common thing among the Fellowship, but please imagine Boromir, still struggling to understand the fact that he's surrounded by nonhuman beings who have no shared concept of the passing of time, rolling over at 2AM to see Legolas bluescreening contentedly up at the sky, and then everyone acts like he's the weird one when he starts freaking out about it because all of them are used to traveling with/know more about elves than he does.

Even just remembering stuff off the top of my head, Boromir must have had such a weird time adjusting to being the only normal human being among the Fellowship before he, y'know. Died.

(Plus I can totally imagine Merry and Pippin giving him shit for "Well, if you're the only normal one amongst nearly a dozen people, then that's not very 'normal', is it? Maybe Men are the odd ones out and everybody else is normal.")

#LOTR #lord of the rings #Boromir

3K notes · View notes

bambisafe · 2 months ago

Text

re characters with a bookworm s/o

pairings : leon kennedy / gn!reader | carlos oliveira / gn!reader | jill valentine / gn!reader | chris redfield / gn!reader

cw : established relationship among all characters, reader reads an assortment of different genres (fantasy, sci-fi, classics, thrillers, historical fic), kissing, touching, hugging, cuddling, tooth-rotting fluff.

word count : 1.2k

author's note : yes i'm projecting. look away.

part 2

leon

leon is a reader himself. not quite to the degree as you but he still dabbles in reading when he has free time.

he'd enjoy crime thrillers whether non-fiction or fiction. he sees himself in the characters, especially the tragic heroes. even when it hits close to home, he still enjoys it. that's why he likes it.

is the type to crack open a popcorn thriller, maybe one about a group of teens exploring an abandoned house and he predicts every awful thing that happens to them.

tuts, shakes his head, and sighs when they don't do what's considered common sense in his eyes, like checking the perimeter before entering the house.

“gonna get themselves killed.”

the type to find you reading an 800 page fantasy book on the couch and leans over the back.

“whatcha readin’?”

he'll start reading along with you from over your shoulder and suddenly he's been hovering over you for fifteen minutes.

he’ll ask about it later. will finally dip his toes into fantasy.

he’ll take you to the library when you have a book to return or to a bookstore for one you want to buy.

sometimes he'll wait in the car while you go in, in complete silence aside from the constant whir of the air conditioning.

“find what you wanted?” he'll ask when you occupy the passenger seat again.

or sometimes he’ll join and browse the thriller/mystery section.

he leaves with books stacked in his elbow too.

you’ll introduce him to the concept of cozy reading: blanket over the lap, warm drink in hand, maybe an audiobook to read along.

doesn't understand why this is necessary but you insist.

feels awkward at first but slowly warms up to it.

now you'll find him in the low-lit living room with a darcy coates book open in his lap, black coffee in hand.

carlos

annoying.

categorizes everyone that reads as a “nerd.”

maybe you are, no shame in being knowledgeable in a subject you're passionate about.

and carlos knows this. finds it to be an endearing trait of yours.

but he's going to tease.

already grinning as he approaches you at the kitchen island where you've got a science fiction book open.

“you like that stuff?”

you have to explain to him that science fiction is more than just about speculating the future of technology.

calls you a nerd with a grin, already walking over to kiss the back of your neck.

doesn’t read in his free time. hasn’t picked up a book since high school.

when you ask him what the last book he read was, it was of mice and men, which he had enjoyed.

“not bad,” you nodded approvingly. “east of eden is better though.”

this sparks a conversation on all of the best books you’ve ever read, all the way down to your top ten.

somehow, this conversation motivates carlos to pick up a book for the first time in many years.

you recommend a modern classic, considering he seemed to enjoy those.

it goes well.

he finishes fight club in two sittings. loves it.

“when did books get this good?” he asks with unbridled confidence.

you blink. “they’ve always been good. you just have to find something that fits your reading style.”

he starts to warm up to reading after that, joins you on the couch, arm around your shoulder as he reads along.

initially pretends he doesn’t care, eyes glossing over the words. claims he’s not interested but continues to sit there and read with you.

“what’s this?” he nudges your arm with a single finger.

“the idiot,” you snicker, like you’re in on a joke he isn’t.

he nods slowly, most definitely having no idea what this book is about, but based on his expression something tells you he likes it.

“not bad.”

jill

absolutely is a reader.

loves crime thrillers, like leon, and detective novels.

big agatha christie fan but is very low-key about it.

also enjoys non-fiction. anything political or true crime.

she’ll share books with you, leave sticky notes with her thoughts and reactions inside the pages.

will trade recommendations with you.

loves to spend an evening off duty with you, under a blanket, warm drinks in your hands, as you read together.

reading is her way to escape her mind.

and so is being in your presence.

those two things meshed together? the epitome of a perfect evening.

there’s definitely been nights where you two stayed glued to a breakneck pace thriller, losing track of time as you two race to the end.

“do you think that girl’s gonna live?” you muse, turning another page.

“if someone answers her damn calls, then maybe.” jill would grumble back, sipping a lukewarm coffee.

bookstore trips together.

you’ll both leave said bookstore with three books each.

sometimes you two go in just to pick out books the other might like.

“have you read death on the nile yet?”

jill cracks a grin when you hold up the book once you get back to the car.

she devours it in one night, glued to the pages, sleep nearly pulling her under.

when she finally comes to bed, her weight making the bed dip waking you, you welcome her, wrapping the comforter around you.

“good?” you croak, a slight grin tugging at your sleep-laden face.

“oh yeah.” jill sighs, nose pressed against your collarbone.

chris

also not a reader.

he doesn’t read for fun, only ever reads when it involves work.

will only read if it’s a mission report, tactical guide, or a survival manual.

so imagine his surprise when he finds you reading in bed when he comes home from an assignment one late evening.

“you’re cute,” he scans you with an analytical eye, tugging off fingerless gloves. “but what are you reading that for?”

can’t seem to grasp the fact that some people read for enjoyment.

“it’s good?”

you can’t help but chuckle. “yes, very.”

he’ll sit at the end of the bed as you dive into a brief synopsis of the historical fiction book in your hands.

“sounds complicated.” he notes, staring a hole through the mattress.

“don’t act like you can’t understand it,” you laugh, wagging a finger at him. “you’re smart. you do… things.”

it’s chris’ turn to laugh, dragging a hand down his chin.

“this is a little different from my usual reading material.”

the topic of books doesn’t come up again until a week later when you hand chris a copy of billy summers over breakfast. “the main character reminds me of you.”

“should i be concerned?”

you roll your eyes fondly, shaking your head. “give it a chance. you’ll see.”

“give it a chance?” did he hear that right?

“yes!” you chuckle. “try reading it.”

he does, but it takes a while for him to get through 500 pages.

he reads a chapter a day, one before bedtime.

months pass and when he finally closes the book, sets the worn copy on thr nightstand, he rolls over, winds an arm around your waist.

“pretty good,” he whispers. he was being incredibly vague. it was really good.

“yeah?” you turn, facing him.

your eyes meet, he presses a kiss between your eyebrows.

“yeah,” he concedes. “you got another for me?”

324 notes · View notes

mellosdrawings · 3 months ago

Note

what's Leverage (this is an invite to infodump)

Hohoho ok ok ok. Wiki-level infodump incoming!

So, Leverage is a 5 seasons TV show from the early 2010s that has come back in 2021 with a follow-up show called Leverage: Redemption. It is a Robin Hood kind of series in which a group of thieves help poor/honest citizens get back at the rich/powerful who wronged them/stole from them/abused them.

Despite most episodes following the same format, it manages to stay interesting and attention grabbing thanks to its peak attention to details. Everything you see in the episode is a hint for how they get the bad guy, which should be a staple of the police genre but which is particularly well done here.

It's a character focused series, with very interesting development and overarching themes and plots. It also does an amazing work at blurring the line between "good" people and "bad" people. Some good guys are absolute pieces of shit, some bad guys are just down on their luck. Several episodes have the main gang changing plans totally because the "bad" guy they were trying to scam ended up being just another victim, so instead they started offering their help to fight the actual bad guys. Many times the bad guy is a piece of shit but when there needs to be nuance, the job is done incredibly well.

There's also a very purposeful Found Family Trope that's just... great. It's awesome.

Now, I just said it's a very character focused show so I'll have to dive in more into the actual characters. I'll be trying to keep it to the very first episode and remain vague on the rest but there will be some spoilers ahead! Especially so since every single in-show introduction is a masterpiece that I must talk about.

The Mastermind: Nathan "Nate" Ford is the brain of the group. He's an ex-Insurance employee who got fucked over by said insurance company when they refused to pay for his son's medical fees (something I'm sure many US citizens can relate to). He ends up having to work with criminals he has previously hunted down before, which gives him a good overall knowledge of how they all work while his time in the insurance company explains why he knows so many scams.

Despite being the "token good guy" in the first season, I'd say he's the most interesting at first. He's a self destructive genius with a terrible alcohol problem, and that alcohol storyline is just so beautifully handled in the first 2 seasons, I was completely hooked. Starting season 3 the line between honest man and criminal blurs though, as it should considering his activities for the past couple years, so he lost my interest just a bit. Still a very strong character with amazing storylines and a terrible personality.

Among the Found Family Trope, he is the depressed alcoholic father who pushes his kids too far but would still do everything to make sure they come home safe. His arc is literally going from deadbeat dad to the dad that steps up.

The Hacker: Alec Hardison is an early 20 years old sassy chatty black kid who, not content of being one hell of a hacker, is also an amazing grifter who picks up skills on the fly. While the sassy chatty hacker who is the comic relief of the show is a common trope, he's one hell of a charming character who will weaponise everything he has underhand to get away with stuff. Absolute kudos to his actor who was also in his early 20s at the time who regularly offer some of the best performances ever seen on TV. I swear that guy is too good.

His introduction depicts all that in seconds. He's the first thief to appear, already talking his head off and giving his opinion on the technology he's been given for the job. His introductory flashback is interesting as it doesn't show him in the middle of hacking, but instead getting caught by police having fun in a hotel room he stole and giving a Star Wars reference. Just from both of those you flag him as a young easy-going guy who still messes up a bunch.

In the Found Family Trope, he is the youngest child who messes up a lot. He has the most obvious father/child undertone with Nate, and an equally obvious bigger/younger sibling undertone with Eliot.

The Hitter: Eliot Spencer is a thirty something years old man whose job is keeping the rest of the gang safe. When it comes to the hardened ex-military trope, you expect scary brooding man who always avoids being hit while getting rid of his opponents in seconds. That's not quite the case with Eliot. Yes, he gives off scary and brooding vibes, but he actually has the biggest heart of the gang. He's regularly shown being the one who worries the most for others, and there's an ongoing thing about him being the defacto person to go to get help help when you're 18 and under. Eliot has an incredible amount of screentime being soft and helping/protecting children.

Not only that, Eliot isn't some kind of super soldier. He gets hit. A lot. But the point is that he always gets back on his feet to continue the fight. His hitter prowesses come more from the fact that he has a lot of knowledge in the matter, rather than from being a perfect fighter. He also has an underlying theme with self-control and anger issues. Eliot is a character that is constantly annoyed/angry, and who uses fighting as a self-regulating tool.

On top of all that, he's also a good grifter who, when not there to hit people, is there to hit on girls. He's regularly used as eye candy to keep the attention away from the others. He's also (not so) surprisingly low key. Eliot is often described as "hiding his game well", his opponents often underestimating him.

Eliot is the second thief to appear on screen, being asked by Hardison what exactly was his job here and not answering, nailing in the "low key" aspect of him that confuses his opponents. It's reinforced by his introductory flashback which has him sipping coffee while having guns pointed at him, then cutting to the outside of the room so we don't see his skill in action, then back to the room where he's still sipping his coffee, unfazed, while everybody else is K.O. The last part of his introduction comes when he finally shows what he is capable of, appearing out of nowhere to put out of commission several guards who hold Hardison at gunpoint, to which he finally answer to Hardison earlier question of what exactly he was here for, with a smile. That's where you start getting a glimpse of his softer side that is entirely focused on keeping his team safe.

In the Found Family Trope, he is the eldest son. He bullies Hardison at least once per episode (and Hardison fucks him over about as many times too), and is the one who, with Sophie, keeps Nate in check so that he doesn't go overboard. Nate and Eliot have a lot in common and while they are rarely clashing, there is definitely a tension between them.

The Thief: Parker is a (most likely autistic (edit: she is indeed autistic, it's canon)) young woman who loves money and throwing herself off of buildings. She starts off as quirky/weird/off putting until we (and the main gang) start to understand her. She is both the most obvious and the most complex character of the bunch, who unabashedly loves what she does and has a lot of fun with her new partners, all the while having absolutely no idea how to handle interpersonal relationships.

She is the one that grows the most during the show, picking up skills left and right (fighting from Eliot, grifting from Sophie, etc), developing her interpersonal skills and empathy, learning to rely on others and falling in love. Her evolution is just the best and she never gives up her whimsy while developing.

She's the third thief to appear on screen, but she's actually the first one being mentioned! Nate tells his client that "Parker is crazy" before agreeing to take the job. She appears hanging upside down from a rafter, interrupting the boys to ask playfully if she can have an earpiece too, and finally jumping off the building with a joyful yell before Nate can give the go. Then in her introductory flashback, we see her as a young kid, with a terrible family situation, literally blowing up her house after her "father" dared her to become a better thief to get the bunny plushie she wanted. And so you know Parker is the wild card of the team who is actually pretty forthright once you've pinpointed her interests.

In the Found Family Trope, she's the middle child who has... whatever is going on with Hardison and Eliot. While the boys have more obvious family interactions with Nate (the father), Parker mainly has them with Sophie (the mom) who teaches her the most out of everybody. Nate still regularly is there to explain things to her when she's confused, and Eliot teaches her how to bully Hardison (lovingly of course).

The Grifter: Sophie Devereaux is an actress that the gang fetches when their client fucks them over. It's a bit hard to depict her personality like the others because her whole theme is that she has identity issues. As a grifter she has many identities, and she plays them so often that she comes to forget who she even is in the first place. She's a quick witted, caring person who helps tempering Nate and coming up with plans, she's a femme fatale who either seduces or instills fear in her preys, she's the one who puts at ease the clients who come ask the group for help, she's the one who comes up with on the spot solutions when something goes awry and needs an immediate fix, she's the one always at the forefront of the plans keeping the attention on her so the others can do their jobs, etc etc. Sophie is everything and nothing all at once, which makes her a fascinating character that is difficult to explain properly.

She's the last thief to appear on screen, being brought by Nate. She's introduced as a terrible actress, all three thieves being appalled by her prestation on stage while Nate is smiling wildly. Then we get a glimpse of the romantic tension between her and Nate when he asks her for help, and another glimpse at their closeness when the three thieves turn to her when Nate confuses them, only for Sophie to tell them he really hasn't changed. Her introductory flashback focuses on her stealing a painting, being intercepted by Nate, and them both firing at each other. Finally the last part of her introduction comes when she shows off her actual acting talents while grifting the bad guy, startling Hardison who was still worried about her acting skills.

Sophie is introduced with her acting skills and her relationship with Nate instead of her personality or quirks like the other (the only quirk here being that she's a terrible actress on stage but an excellent one when she's grifting), which keeps nailing down her identity crisis.

Since we're on Sophie, I'd like to point out how well the writing team handled the actress being pregnant and needing to stay away from the show for a while. Her reason for being away tapped into her identity crisis, but she still was there to give advices to the others, mainly the "kids". While it was obvious in one episode that they placed the characters and angled the camera to avoid showing she was pregnant, the rest was handled beautifully well.

The show seems very respectful of its actors, to the point it lets them showcase their skills in season 3 like Hardison and Eliot's actors' music prowesses. It also allows them to shine in the filler episodes by having them play other roles, to which they deliver amazing performances (especially Hardison's actor. I'll never shut up about him, he's just perfect).

And yes, that was the time when we still had filler episodes! And they are GREAT! Some of my favorite episodes are filler episodes, like one where the whole gang go over a theft they all accidentally did together years ago, constantly fucking each other over without realising, all from their own perspectives. There are jabs at each other, like Sophie's accent or Eliot being a ladykiller and a terrifying psychopath, but there's also an insane amount of details scattered. One of my favorite being that everybody else saw the head of security carrying a rifle while Eliot was the only one (save Nate) to see it as only a box. It's a minor background detail that the show doesn't even point out, but when I caught it I got super invested in the episode. At first I believed it was because Eliot hates guns and sees them as sticks to beat people up with, but with the last perspective being shown with the "truth", it turned out Eliot was the only one seeing it as a box because it was a box. Eliot would be attuned to the amount of danger the objects around him would pose, and so wouldn't mix up a box for a gun. Once more, it's a background detail but it just ended convincing me that the showrunners care a lot about this show.

Ok I'm officially out of fumes. I think I could go into more if I dove into the actual episodes but I don't want to spoil more than I already did. All in all, great show, handles heavy stuff like addiction and grief and neurodivergency incredibly well without being condescending, scratches a hitch by fucking over powerful people in the most horrendous ways, makes you aware of the kind of scams there are around, etc etc.

It's just one hell of a good show. 10/10 would recommend. I only wish the 5 seasons box set wasn't so expensive, I can't throw that much money in it ToT

ONE LAST THING! If you wanna watch, the seasons are all available on Youtube (US only, get your VPN ready if you're not from there) in the RIGHT ORDER! The first season was aired out of order by the network so you will probably find it in the wrong order online too. It's not much since each episode is mostly contained, but it did make me pause at one point because of consistency issues.

Season 1 link

Season 2 link

Season 3 link

Season 4 link (careful, the Playlist starts with the last episode and finishes with the first. You gotta reverse the order of the Playlist!)

Season 5 link (careful, the Playlist starts with the last episode and finishes with the first. You gotta reverse the order of the Playlist!)

Redemption S1 link (careful, the Playlist starts with the last episode and finishes with the first. You gotta reverse the order of the Playlist!)

You're welcome 😘

#Leverage #Leverage (2008)#Leverage TV #nathan ford #nate ford #alec hardison #eliot spencer #parker leverage #sophie devereaux #analysis

273 notes · View notes

jinuaei · 3 months ago

Text

Yandere Tarn x human Reader

Warning: OOC! NOT COMIC ACCURATE I ONLY KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE LORE ALSO IGNORE THE TIME DIFF I KNOW ITS LIKE MILLIONS OF YEARS BETWEEN PRE WAR AND POST WAR. Spoilers for Tarn lore?

Imagine being Tarn’s first ever human he has met when he was still Damus, you being a cute human Liaison that follows around Senator Shockwave who also brings you around the Academy. You are an adorable, curious little thing, always so eager to see the different bots’ outlier abilities and wanting to know how it works, and Damus’ ability was the one that caught your eye. And he too is smitten with you from the very first time he laid optics on you, but he respects the Senator so much that he tends to shy away from actively seeking you out.

However, you don’t seem to fear the large bots that could squish you with one of their pedes considering you’ve been persistently seeking him out even when he tries to hide away from you. In the end, he could not escape the temptation that is you.How could he? When you are so persistent in getting to know him, even to the point where you would sneak off to find him —He feels honoured whenever you do so, so special that you chose him out of all the students to befriend— He cannot do much to entertain you, but you seem to enjoy seeing him use his abilities to annoy bots by shutting their stuff off, mostly datapads and what not.

Both of you enjoy each other's company so much, sharing stories and knowledge. He finds himself especially invested in human arts, mainly music, it’s much different than Cybertronian music, it’s softer, less robotic, more organic, it’s so…you. He likes to hear you sing, even when you are humble with your abilities, he thinks of it as perfect. He cannot help but adore music that comes out from your mouth. Ah yes, your mouth, your language’s equivalent to the word ‘intake’. He remembers you saying something about kisses and how humans do it to show affection, but Cybertonians never had something similar to that so he does not pay mind to it. But he cannot deny how much he wants you to do it to him, especially when you mentioned something about it can be ‘intimate’ at times.

His days are always bright whenever you come to visit, your small body tucked close to the Senators frame, so talkative and friendly. He also notices the matching colours of your drapes with that of Shockwaves colour of the week, he observes that he enjoys seeing you in purple more than that of any other colour. Gifts seem to be common for you, as you seem to give him lots of small trinkets, but his favourite is a purple scarf that you gave him after he expressed how much he likes that colour on you.

Somehow, you managed to put in a good word about yours and Damus’ excursions considering Senator Shockwave has approached him himself to entrust your safety to the student whenever he is too busy to show you around. And of course, Damus has taken that role seriously, so seriously in fact that the other students you are also close with seem to avoid you all together whenever he is there. Always watching, always looming over your small form.

But then Senator Shockwave got caught, forced to undergo through Empurata and Shadowplay, and he did not find you ever since. He did not find comfort from your presence when he woke up after being subjected to the same fate as his teacher, stripped from his identity as Damus, now Glitch. But even his faceplate has been replaced, forced to be faceless, to be a nobody, his processor still kept the memories of the only person that knows him, the true him, him as Damus and not Glitch. You…You, you, YOU. His dearest human.

He remembers a conversation about your world's religion, about how many there are that exist on your planet, and how anybody can create a religion by just believing in it. And he does, in you. Creating a religion where you are his god and he is your most devoted follower – a religion where only he is to worship you.

Perhaps if he prayed enough, devoted himself enough to you, you will return, just like how yours has 3 days after his death. But you never did. Still, he prays to you daily, even when under Optimus’ care he did not forget to call for you, and while he uses his spare time to read Megatron's manifesto, he always makes sure to pray to you every day, every hour, every minute, that he has.

He even made a small shrine for you that he carries around on his frame via a small box. Inside are everything that you have ever given him, especially the scarf, and a picture of you both that you took with your Instant camera. He keeps that locked tight, like it’s his most valuable treasure — which as a bot who has close to nothing, is.

That habit of praying to you has persisted even when he adapted the persona of Tarn, even after he has stayed with Decepticons, he does not forget to pray to you every chance he gets. The items that he so carefully took care of are slowly degrading, piece by piece, thread by thread, all the cherished objects are turning into dust. Time does not spare anything from its cruel grasp, the picture that showcased you and him as Damus is slowly fading, his claws scraping off its print bit by bit. He fears that he will destroy the remaining memories of you, just like how he destroys every mech that he encounters. So after the scarf has turned into scraps, your face scraped off, he finally kept that box containing everything that you are close to his spark where it would stay until his end.

However, there is one thing that he cannot destroy no matter how much he has desecrated it, using it during his hunts to please him and his comrades. Music. His love of music is also a show of his devotion towards you, to say that yes, he remembers your music and your voice. And at times, when he is especially in a good mood, he would sing the same songs that he learnt from you to one of his victims. Though he would become aggressive right after the last note – realizing that they do not deserve to hear your song. In that case, he does not talk to them to death, instead he would pummel them into scraps, spilling energon all over him.

Millions of years have passed and his devotion only grew stronger, and oh how his prayers have finally been answered! You have returned! Though it was not 3 days but millions of years, he still rejoices as you are now back! His god! His beloved! And now he does not have to stay loyal to the Decepticons as you are now back with him! But the only problem is… he can see you on the other side of the battlefield, with the Lost Light, with Rodimus, with him– Megatron.

And now he realizes why Megatron has betrayed the Decepticon cause, perhaps like him, he has found his true purpose on the side of the good. But Tarn can never be good, he has done so much in the name of the Decepticons, in the name of righteousness, in your name.

Even so, he can repent, renounce his identity as a Decepticon and come crawling back to you if you so wish. He can start his redemption by killing all of the DJD members right in front of you, or maybe you would want him stripped off of his armour, being laid bare for everyone to see. Whatever you want, he will do it.

So he crosses the field with new found focus, optics trained on you. He ignores all of the weapons trained on him and keeps his pedes from shaking in nervousness. The more neurotic bots shoot at him, but he did not raise his blaster to shoot back nor did he try to defend himself. He only had one goal, and it was to get to you.

Once he finds himself in front of you, being guarded by Megatron and Rodimus, he kneels, unable to hold himself above you, his chassis lowered until his helm presses against the rough terrain. Energon pooled under him from the wounds he sustained.

When he utters your name, you seem perplexed, as if surprised at how this large bot knows you. And he spills everything, about who he is now, his prayers, his shrine, his millions of years of devotion. As he looks up at you from the floor, your face twists into confusion, baffled at this obsessed mech that you have never met in your human life.

Perhaps it was years of not seeing each other, but you looked…different somehow, still similar to his memories of you, but oddly different, it's small, but noticeable to him who has been so devoted to you and made sure to memorize every single part of your face. Nonetheless he did not care what so ever, what matters is he can finally serve you again, he might not be your Damus anymore, but he can be your Tarn.

The mask that he has worn for so long slipped off from his faceplate, and he drops it unceremoniously right next to him. He does not care if the bots think of him as an embarrassment or weak, all he knows is that you need to know about how much he adores you.

His faceplate lowers towards your pedes– feet, as you have taught him ages ago, and kisses it, just as you told him how one would do it, again and again until you can feel his love for you, his longing, his adoration, and his years and years of worship.

Until he repents, until you accept him back into your life. Until all that he has, and all that he is, is finally yours.

________________________________________________________

Uhhh uhhh I don't know if this is coherent.

#yandere x reader #tarn x reader #yandere tarn x reader #tarn idw #yandere tarn #tf tarn #transformers x reader #yandere #yandere transformers #transformers #idw tarn #Yandere transformers x reader

375 notes · View notes

neroushalvaus · 2 years ago

Text

Okay I am going to use the Somerton situation to talk about something that is very important to me. Following the discussion I have seen former Somerton fans being disappointed in themselves and questioning how they can ever trust another video essayist again. I have also seen some people being smug because to them Somerton was obviously unreliable from the start. As a person who also saw the "red flags" in Somerton, I would like to skip the smugness and talk a bit about what the red flags were to me.

Someone else has probably posted something similar and Hbomberguy's & Todd in the Shadows's videos touched a few of these points, but they didn't focus on them or how to spot these things. I think it is a good thing: I think it would have reinforced the idea that Somerton's fans were to blame for being lied to, and these youtubers didn't want to pin any blame on the fans. Also, some of the things I'm going to talk about were not by any means proof of him being unreliable, they were common tropes I personally associate with people who are bullshitting on internet. Think of it as something like spotting terfs: If you consider following a tumblr user and find out they have at some point posted "males will always be a danger to females no matter what they say", it is very possible that they are not a terf. Maybe they were having a bad day and were just wording their post badly – But you should probably search "trans" from their blog before following them, just to be sure.

So, the tropes in James Somerton's content that I consider red flags:

Lack of sources. This one may seem obvious and Hbomb talked about this in his video, but the lack of sources in his videos was outrageous. Video essays are called essays for a reason, they are not supposed to be just a guy talking about whatever comes to his mind, they should be well researched essays. Obviously video essays should contain one's own thoughts and interpretations and those do not need citations. But James Somerton didn't come out of the womb knowing everything about LGBT history, Disney and film theory, if he actually knew something about all this stuff, he should have learnt it from somewhere. There should be sources he could point to. It is very common that even when a video essayist doesn't tell you where they got all their information, they open their video by saying stuff like "when I prepared for this video I read the book Also sprach Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche and this one thrilling blog post about lesbian cruising in 1960s Sweden". From what I've seen, James does not really do this. From watching his videos you could arrive to the conclusion that James Somerton does not read any books, he just knows everything. There are situations where people don't feel the need to add sources, like when the information is considered common knowledge or when the topic relates heavily to the essayist's actual academic field or profession. This is okay and very understandable, but can sometimes be dangerous, since if the video essayist markets himself as a marketing specialist, people are more likely to take his word for stuff that has to do with marketing, even without sources. It is understandable that in many situations an essayist may think "why should I cite a source? I know this thing!", but doing your research well is partly about checking if the information you are certain of is actually true. Also, as Hbomb pointed out, if you can cite a source, your audience can go learn more about the subject. It's not about anyone doubting you know your stuff, it's about learning. That's why well-respected video essayists usually cite their sources very clearly.

Lack of pictures and screenshots. This is about different kinds of sources again, many things on this list are kind of about sources. An example: When James Somerton made a video about JKR, he mentioned something about Rowling at one time saying that trans students in 30-50Feralhogs (or whatever the wizard school is called) could use magic to present as their gender. If this was any other video essayist, you'd expect a tweet to pop up, or something else confirming Rowling ever said this. Nothing pops up, obviously because Rowling didn't say this, but you can't see anything fishy in that because things rarely pop up in Somerton's videos. He doesn't show you court documents when speaking about a court case, he doesn't show you the comments apparently mad at him for implying the gay anime is gay when he is complaining about people being mad at him. There is a reason people show screenshots and tweets in video essays. When a good video essayist says JK Rowling has tweeted that all people who menstruate should be referred to as women, the video essayist shows the tweet so people know they are not making it up. If there were hoards of annoying bitc-- I mean, angry white women whining about gay sex in HuffPost articles or Somerton's youtube comments, he should have no trouble showing you those. Remember that you should not trust someone just because they show you pictures or screenshots. Pictures can be photoshopped, screenshots can be doctored. Many youtubers are aware that you listen to their videos while cleaning or while walking your dog and don't actually see the screen all the time, and some may take advantage of that by saying something like "and here she threatened to kill me" while showing a text message where someone said "die mad about it". A screenshot alone isn't much but you should demand to see the screenshot.

Passive voice. I am once again bitching about this. Somerton repeatedly says things like "it's been said that" or "it was common knowledge that" or "a legend says that" or "according to most interpretations". He doesn't say who says it, making it very hard to fact check and that seems to be his goal in some cases.

Relying heavily on anecdotes. Writing a dense, analytical video about film theory or history can be exhausting and you may want to pepper in little fun facts. However Somerton seemed to rely on these heavily; he can't just talk about how he has totally bought every lie told by The Pink Swastika, he also needs to tell a cute little anecdote about SS men forcing sexual favours out of men. He can't just tell a story about a court case, he needs to add in ridiculous stuff about the jury booing. This is what I mean by not all the things on this list being necessarily proof of someone being unreliable. Many people use anecdotes and little stories in their storytelling, it makes the videos flow better and it's hard to decide which anecdotes are valid and which are not. A source obviously makes an anecdote a bit more believable, but here are some things that instantly make me fact check an anecdote:

It's a bit too convenient, poetic or ironic. Sometimes real life is weirder than fiction but if an anecdote is "perfect" and has an amazing punchline and you could write twelve poems about it, there is a possibility it was invented by pop science books.

It assumes your political enemies are stupid. Dunking on conservatives, MRAs and transphobes is always fun and after you've seen a lot of this kind of content it's easy to believe anything about these people. You must resist the impulse to believe everything that may make your opponents look stupid.

The person telling the anecdote implies it is an example of a larger, systemic problem. You know what's worse than taking a random happenstance from human history or internet and basing an entire political theory on it? The said random happenstance being made up. You should in general be wary of people telling one story and explaining why it's an example of everything that's wrong in the world. We live in a huge world. You can always find a white woman who loves cute gays but hates the idea of Nick Heartstopper and Charlie Heartstopper getting nasty but that doesn't mean it's an indicator of a larger issue.

Simplifying complex issues. We all know that "only the boring gays survived the AIDS crisis, and that's why gays started to only care about marriage equality and military" is a horrible, insensitive thing to say, but you also have to think about it for like two seconds to realize that it can't be correct. It kind of reminds me of the "roe v wade caused the crime drop of 1990s" claim in Freakonomics. It sounds logical and simple, like a basic math calculation. Societal issues rarely are like that, though. You should never believe anyone who tells you about a huge societal shift and says it happened because of one thing and one thing only.

These were some of the things I noticed in Somerton's content that caused me to distrust him. I hope these were helpful to you and feel free to add your own "red flags" if you feel like it!

#phew. maybe that's enough salt for one day.#james somerton #hbomberguy #todd in the shadows #edit:// embarrassingly many mistakes in the original post. in my defence i have a fever and english isn't my first language. forgive me #edit2:// made the text bigger!

2K notes · View notes

glitter-stained · 5 months ago

Text

Damasio, The Trolley Problem and Batman: Under the Hood

Okay so @bestangelofall asked me to elaborate on what I meant by "Damasio's theories on emotions in moral decision-making add another level of depth to the analysis of UTH as a moral dilemma" and I thought this deserved its own post so let's talk about this.

So, idk where everyone is at here (philosophy was mandatory in highschool in my country but apparently that's not the case everywhere so i genuinely have no clue what's common knowledge here, i don't want to like state the obvious but also we should recap some stuff. Also if I'm mentioning a philosopher's or scientist's name without detailing, that means it's just a passing thought/recommendation if you want to read more on the topic.)

First thing first is I've seen said, about jason and the no killing rule, that "killing is always bad that's not up for debate". And I would like to say, that's factually untrue. Like, no matter which side of the debate you are on, there is very much a debate. Historically a big thing even. So if that's not something you're open to hear about, if you're convinced your position is the only correct one and even considering other options is wrong and/or a waste of time... I recommend stopping here, because this only going to make you upset, and you have better stuff to do with your life than getting upset over an essay. In any case please stay civil and remember that this post is not about me debating ethics with the whole bat-tumblr, it's me describing a debate other people have been voicing for a long time, explaining the position Damasio's neuropsychology and philosophy holds in this debate, and analyzing the ethics discussed in Batman: Under the Red Hood in that light. So while I might talk about my personal position in here (because I have an opinion in this debate), this isn't a philosophy post; this is a literature analysis that just so happens to exist within the context of a neuropsychological position on a philosophical debate. Do not try to convince me that my philosophy of ethics is wrong, because that's not the point, that's not what the post is about, I find it very frustrating and you will be blocked. I don't have the energy to defend my personal opinions against everybody who disagrees with me.

Now, let's start with Bruce. Bruce, in Under The Hood and wrt the no kill rule (not necessarily all of his ethics, i'm talking specifically about the no kill rule), is defending a deontological position. Deontology is a philosophy of ethics coined by christian🧷 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The philosophy of ethics asks this question: what does it mean to do a good action? And deontology answers "it means to do things following a set of principles". Basically Kant describes what are "absolute imperatives" which are rules that hold inherent moral values: some things are fundamentally wrong and others are bad. Batman's no-kill rule is thus a categorical imperative: "Though Shall not Kill"🧷, it is always wrong to kill. (Note that I am not saying Bruce is kantian just because he has a deontology: Kant explained the concept of deontological ethics, and then went up to theorize his own very specific and odd brand of deontology, which banned anything that if generalized would cause the collapse of society as well as, inexplicably, masturbation. Bruce is not Kantian, he's just, regarding the no kill rule, deontological. Batman is still allowed to wank, don't worry.)

In this debate, deontological ethics are often pit up against teleological ethics, the most famous group of which being consequentialism, the most famous of consequentialisms being utilitarism. As the name indicates, consequentialist theories posit that the intended consequences of your actions determine if those actions were good or not. Utilitarism claims that to do good, your actions should aim to maximise happiness for the most people possible. So Jason, when he says "one should kill the Joker to prevent the thousands of victims he is going to harm if one does not kill him", is holding a utilitarian position.

The debate between deontology and utilitarism has held many forms, some fantastical and some with more realistic approaches to real life like "say you're hiding from soldiers and you're holding a baby that's gonna start crying, alerting the soldiers and getting everyone in your hideout massacred. Do you muffle the baby, knowing it will suffocate and kill it?" or "say there's a plague going on and people are dying and the hospital does not have enough ventilators, do you take the one off of the comatose patient with under 0.01% chance of ever waking up to give it to another patient? What about 1%?", etc, etc. The most famous derivative of this dilemma, of course, being the infamous trolley problem.

This is what is meant when we say "the UTH confrontation is a trolley problem." The final confrontation at the warehouse is a variation, a derivative of the utilitarian dilemma that goes as follows: "if someone was trying to kill someone in front of you, and that murder would prevent the murder of thousands, should you try to stop that murder or let it happen?"

Now, here's a question: why are there so many derivatives of the trolley problem? Why do philosophers spend time pondering different versions of the same question instead of solving it?

My opinion (and the one of much, much smarter people whose name i forgot oops) is that both systems fail at giving us a satisfying, clean-cut reply. Now, most people have a clean-cut answer to the trolley problem as presented here: me personally, I lean more towards utilitarianism, and I found it logical to pull the lever. But altering the exact situation makes me change my answer, and there is very often a point where people, no matter their deontological or utilitarian velleities, change their answer. And that's interesting to examine.

So let's talk about deontology. Now my first gripe with deontology it's that it posits a set of rules as absolute and I find that often quite arbitrary. 🧷 Like, it feels a little like mathematical axioms, you know? We build a whole worldview on the assumption that these rules are inherently correct and the best configuration because it feels like it makes sense, and accidentally close our mind to the world of non-euclidian ethics. In practice, here are some situations in which a deontologist might change their mind: self-defense killing, for example, is often cited as "an exception to the rule", making that rule de facto non-universal; and disqualifying it as an absolute imperative. Strangely enough, people will often try to solve the trolley problem by deciding to kill themselves by jumping on the tracks 🧷 which is actually a utilitarian solution: whether you're pulling the lever or you're jumping on the tracks, you are choosing to kill one person to stop the people from being run over. Why does it matter if it's you or someone else you're killing? You're still killing someone. Another situation where people may change their answer would be, like "what if you needed to save your children but to do so you had to kill the ceo of united healthcare?" Note that these are only examples for killing, but the biggest issue is that deontology preaches actions are always either good or wrong, and the issue with that lack of nuance is best illustrated with the kantian problem regarding the morality of lying: let's say it's the holocaust and a family of jews is hiding in your house. Let's say a nazi knocks on your door and asks if there are people hiding in your house. You know if you tell the truth, the jews in your house will be deported. In that situation, is it morally correct to lie? Now, Kant lived before the Holocaust, but in his time there was a similar version of this problem that had been verbalised (this formulation is the best-known derivative of this problem btw, I didn't invent it) and Kant's answer, I kid you not, was still "no it is not morally acceptable to lie in that situation".

And of course, there are variations of that problem that play with the definition of killing- what defines the act of killing and can the other circumstances (like if there's a person you need to save) alter that definition? => Conclusion: there is a lot more nuance to moral actions than what a purely deontological frame claims, and pushing deontology to its limits leads to situations that would feel absurd to us.

Now let's take utilitarianism to its own limits. Say you live in a world where healthcare has never been better. Now say this system is so because there is a whole small caste of people who have been cloned and genetically optimized and conditioned since birth so that their organs could be harvested at any given moment to heal someone. Let's say this system is so performant it has optimised this world's humanity's general well-being and health, leading to an undeniable, unparalleled positive net-worth for humanity. Here's the question: is this world a utopia or a dystopia? Aka, is raising a caste of people as organ cattle morally acceptable in that situation? (Note: Because people's limits on utilitarianism vary greatly from one person to another, I chose the most extreme example I could remember, but of course there are far more nuanced ones. Again, I wasn't the one to come up with this example. If you're looking for examples of this in fiction, i think the limits of utilitarianism are explored pretty interestingly in the videogame The Last of Us).

=> Conclusion: there is a lot more nuance to moral actions than what a purely utilitarian frame claims, and pushing utilitarism to its limits leads to situations that would feel absurd to us.

This leads us back to Under the Hood. Now because UTH includes a scathing criticism of Batman's no kill rule deontology, but Jason is also presented as a villain in this one, my analysis of the whole comic is based on the confrontation between both of these philosophies and their failures, culminating in a trolley dilemma type situation. So this is why it makes sense to have Bruce get mad at Jason for killing Captain Nazi in self-defense: rejecting self-defense, even against nazis, is the logical absurd conclusion of deontology. Winick is simply taking Bruce's no-kill rule to the limit.

And that's part of what gets me about Jason killing goons (aside from the willis todd thing that should definitely have been addressed in such a plot point.) It's that it feels to me like Jason's philosophy is presented as wrong because it leads to unacceptable decisions, but killing goons is not the logical absurd conclusion of utilitarianism. It's a. a side-effect of Jason's plot against Bruce and/or, depending on how charitable you are to either Jason's intelligence or his morals, b. a miscalculation. Assuming Jason's actions in killing goons are a reflection of his moral code (which is already a great assumption, because people not following their own morals is actually the norm, we are not paragons of virtue), then this means that 1) he has calculated that those goons dying would induce an increase in general global human happiness and thus 2) based on this premise, he follows the utilitarian framework and thus believes it's moral to kill the goons. It's the association of (1) and (2) that leads to an absurd and blatantly immoral consequence, but since the premise (1) is a clear miscalculation, the fact that (1) & (2) leads to something wrong does not count as a valid criticism of (2): to put it differently, since the premise is wrong, the conclusion being wrong does not give me any additional info on the value of the reasoning. This is a little like saying "Since 1+ 3= 5 and 2+2=4, then 1+3+2+2 = 9". The conclusion is wrong, but because the first part (1+3=5) is false, the conclusion being wrong does not mean that the second part (2+2 =4) is wrong. So that's what frustrates me so much when people bring up Jason killing goons as a gotcha for criticizing his utilitarian philosophy, because it is not!! It looks like it from afar but it isn't, which is so frustrating because, as stated previously, there are indeed real limits to utilitarianism that could have been explored instead to truly level the moral playing field between Jason and Bruce.

Now that all of this is said and done, let's talk about what in utilitarianism and deontology makes them flawed and, you guessed it, talk some about neuropsychology (and how that leads to what's imo maybe the most interesting thing about the philosophy in Under the Hood.)

In Green Arrow (2001), in an arc also written by Judd Winick, Mia Dearden meets a tortured man who begs her to kill him to save Star City (which is being massacred), and she kills him, then starts to cry and begs Ollie for confirmation that this was the right thing to do. Does this make Mia a utilitarian? If so, then why did she doubt and cry? Is she instead a deontologist, who made a mistake?

In any case, the reason why Mia's decision was so difficult for her to make and live with, and the reason why all of these trolley-adjacent dilemmas are so hard, is pretty clear. Mia's actions were driven by fear and empathy. It's harder to tolerate sacrificing our own child to avoid killing, it's harder to decide to sacrifice a child than an adult, a world where people are raised to harvest their organs feels horrible because these are real humans we can have empathy towards and putting ourselves in their shoes is terrifying... So we have two "perfectly logical" rational systems toppled by our emotions. But which is wrong: should we try to shut down our empathy and emotions so as to always be righteous? Are they a parasite stopping us from being true moral beings?

Classically, we (at least in my culture in western civilization) have historically separated emotions from cognition (cognition being the domain of thought, reasoning, intelligence, etc.) Descartes, for example, was a philosopher who highlighted a dualist separation of emotion and rationality. For a long time this was the position in psychology, with even nowadays some people who think normal psychologists are for helping with emotions and neuropsychologists are for helping with cognition.(I will fight these people with a stick.) Anyway, that position was the predominant one in psychology up until Damasio (not the famous writer, the neuropsychologist) wrote a book named Descartes' Error. (A fundamental of neuropsychology and a classic that conjugates neurology, psychology and philosophy: what more could you ask for?)

Damasio's book's title speaks for itself: you cannot separate emotion from intelligence. For centuries we have considered emotions to be parasitic towards reasoning, (which even had implications on social themes and constructs through the centuries 📌): you're being emotional, you're letting emotions cloud your judgement, you're emotionally compromised, you're not thinking clearly... (Which is pretty pertinent to consider from the angle of A Death in the Family, because this is literally the reproach Bruce makes to Jason). Damasio based the book on the Damasio couple's (him and his wife) study of Phineas Gage, a very, very famous case of frontal syndrome (damage to the part of the brain just behind the forehead associated with executive functions issues, behavioural issues and emotional regulation). The couple's research on Gage lead Damasio, in his book, to this conclusion: emotions are as much of a part of reasoning and moral decision-making as "cold cognition" (non emotional functioning). Think of it differently: emotional intelligence is a skill. Emotions are tools. On an evolutionary level, it is good that we as people have this skill to try and figure out what others might think and do. That's useful. Of course, that doesn't mean that struggling with empathy makes you immoral, but we people who struggle with empathy have stories of moments where that issue has made us hurt someone's feelings on accident, and it made us sad, because we didn't want to hurt their feelings. On an evolutionary level (and this is where social Darwinism fundamentally fails) humanity has been able to evolve in group and in a transgenerational group (passing knowledge from our ancestors long after their death, belonging to a community spread over a time longer than our lifetime) thanks to social cognition (see Tomasello's position on the evolution of language for more detail on that), and emotions, and "emotional intelligence" is a fundamental part of how that great system works across the ages.

And that's what makes Batman: Under the Hood brilliant on that regard. If I have to make a hypothesis on the state of Winick's knowledge on that stuff, I would say I'm pretty sure he knew about the utilitarism vs deontology issue; much harder to say about the Damasio part, but whether he's well-read in neuropsychology classics or just followed a similar line of reasoning, this is a phenomenally fun framework to consider UTH under.

Because UTH, and Jason's character for the matter, refuse to disregard emotions. Bruce says "we mustn't let ourselves get clouded by our emotions" and Jason, says "maybe you should." I don't necessarily think he has an ethical philosophy framework for that, I still do believe he's a utilitarian, but he's very emotion-driven and struggling to understand a mindframe that doesn't give the same space to emotions in decision-making. And as such, Jason says "it should matter. If the emotion was there, if you loved me so much, then it should matter in your decision of whether or not to let the Joker die, that it wasn't just a random person that he killed, but that he killed your son."

And Bruce is very much doubling down on this mindset of "I must be stronger than my feelings". He is an emotionally repressed character. He says "You don't understand. I don't think you've ever understood", and it's true, Jason can't seem to understand Bruce's position, there's something very "if that person doesn't show love in my perspective and understanding of what love is then they do not love me" about his character that I really appreciate. But Bruce certainly doesn't understand either, because while Jason is constantly asking Bruce for an explanation, for a "why do you not see things the way I do" that could never satisfy him, Bruce doesn't necessarily try to see things the way Jason does. And that's logical, since Jason is a 16 years old having a mental breakdown, and Bruce is a grown man carrying on the mission he has devoted himself to for years, the foundation he has built his life over. He can't allow himself to doubt, and why would he? He's the adult, he's the hero, he is, honestly, a pretty stubborn and set-in-his-ways character. So, instead of rising to the demand of emotional decision-making, Bruce doubles down on trying to ignore his feelings. And Jason, and the story doesn't let him. Bludheaven explodes. This induces extremely intense feelings in Bruce (his son just got exploded), which Jason didn't allow him to deal with, to handle with action or do anything about; Jason says no you stay right there, with me, with those emotions you're living right now, and you're making a decision. And there's the fact Bruce had a mini-heart attack just before thinking Jason was dead again. And there's the fact he mourned Jason for so long, and Stephanie just died, and Tim, Cass and Oracle all left, and the Joker is right there, and Jason puts a gun in his hands (like the gun that killed his parents)... All of that makes it impossible for Bruce to disregard his emotions. The same way Jason, who was spilling utilitarian rhetoric the whole time, is suddenly not talking about the Joker's mass murder victims but about he himself. The same way Jason acts against his own morals in Lost Days by sparing the Joker so they can have this confrontation later. That's part of why it's so important to me that Jason is crying in that confrontation.

Bruce's action at the end of the story can be understood two ways:

-he decides to maim/kill Jason to stop the insupportable influx of emotions, and him turning around is his refusal to look at his decision (looking away as a symbol of shame): Bruce has lost, in so that he cannot escape the dilemma, he succumbs to his emotions and acts against his morals.

-the batarang slicing Jason's throat is an accident: he is trying to find a way out of the dilemma, a solution that lets him save his principles, but his emotions cloud his judgement (maybe his hand trembles? Maybe his vision is blurry?). In any case, he kills his son, and it being an accident doesn't absolve him: his emotions hold more weight than his decision and he ends up acting against his morals anyway.

It's a very old story: a deontologist and a utilitarian try to solve the trolley problem, and everyone still loses. And who's laughing? The nihilist, of course. To him, nothing has sense, and so nothing matters. He's wrong though, always has been. That's the lesson I'm taking from Damasio's work. That's the prism through which I'm comparing empathy to ethics in Levinas' work and agape in Compté-Sponsville's intro to philosophy through.

It should matter. It's so essential that it matters. Love, emotions, empathy: those are fundamental in moral evaluation and decision making. They are a feature, not a bug. And the tragedy is when we try to force ourselves to make them not matter.

Anyway so that was my analysis of why Damasio's position on ethics is so fun to take in account when analysing UTH, hope you found this fun!

#dc #jason todd #dc comics #red hood #under the red hood #anti batman #anti bruce wayne #(< for filtering)#jason todd meta #neuropsychology meta #now with the philosophy extension!!#once again having very intense thoughts about Under The Hood #me talking about the “killing goons” part: this comic is so infuriating #me talking about the final confrontation: this is the greatest comic ever 😭😭#winick stop toying with my emotions challenge #anyway I put a couple of pins on some of the ideas in there don't worry about it #also i was told that color coding helped with clarity so hopefully that's still the case!

235 notes · View notes

raven-at-the-writing-desk · 3 months ago

Note

Raven I’m reading the Tapis Rouge event on eng server and I’ve noticed this weird pattern with Ace? He was asking us if we’ve ever heard of Beautiful Queen, despite the fact that he knows we wouldn’t since we’re from another world, and he did the same thing in the Wish Upon a Star Event where he asks us “have you really never heard of Wish Upon a Star?” It’s like ??? Dude? You know I’m not from here? That stuff doesn’t exist back home. I mean, I can get staying in Twisted Wonderland long enough to hear about a few things but he acts like us knowing this stuff should be common sense to us even though he’s very well aware it’s not. 😭

To be fair to Ace, he’s not the only character that does this! For example, Lilia and Kalim are surprised that Yuu and Grim are unfamiliar with how they celebrate Halloween and that they don’t know what the Scalding Sands Fireworks Festival is. In the case of Halloween, Lilia is later pleased to hear that Yuu also has this holiday in another world. (In case you’re confused, the dialogue littered across Twst implies that it is common knowledge among NRC students and even staff that Yuu is from another world.)

It is true that Ace is frequently guilty of being surprised at Yuu not knowing about various Twisted Wonderland things. If I had to guess, he probably does it the most of the characters in the main cast. Just off the top of my head, there’s the prologue, book 2, Happy Beans Day, Wish Upon a Star, and Tapis Rouge (Red Carpet Cadets in EN).

I don’t think it’s an issue of Ace getting convenient amnesia (as this is a consistent thing in the main story too, not just events which are non-canonical) or intentionally saying it to be annoying despite knowing better. To me, it reads as Ace genuinely being ignorant + not being able to imagine what it’s like to be from another world and/or expecting them to know better. He seems to assume Yuu’s world is like Twisted Wonderland, or he expects that Yuu should be able to quickly pick up on things that are commonly known in Twisted Wonderland like he has.

To my first point, Ace is portrayed as flippant and not taking things seriously. He’s often not paying attention in class or finding ways to dodge doing work. More importantly, he’s also shown to be ignorant and to not know a lot about things beyond his own interests and narrow understanding of the world. Two major examples are in Jack’s Ceremonial Robes vignettes, in which Ace assumes that Jack, a beastman, MUST come from Sunset Savanna, and also generalizes the people of the Shaftlands (despite being a massive plot of land) as being a certain way. Riddle has to correct his dorm member. This indicates to me that Ace would make similar assumptions of what Yuu’s world is like, based heavily on his own understanding of how the world works. And if Twisted Wonderland is all Ace knows, why wouldn’t he default to that as the “norm” for Yuu’s world too?

To my second point, Ace has a particular talent for mimicry in many things. He can pick up dance moves, do vocal impressions, and has a sharp memory that allows him to relay mole language after hearing it demonstrated just once. Ace is also an opportunist, quick to adapt to a situation in order to get his way. For example, he cozies up to Leona in Endless Halloween Night so that he’d be spared from Floyd’s antics and tries to sneak snacks when he believes Vil isn’t watching. At the dame time, Ace is known to tease others (mainly Deuce) for not being able to be as quick to pick up on the situation or on new skills as he is. Considering all of these points, it’s not too far of a stretch to think that Ace would tease Yuu for similar shortcomings.

Speaking of Deuce, he mentions in Wish Upon a Star that it makes sense that Yuu wouldn’t know the holiday, since they’re from another world:

This reaction makes sense for Deuce’s character. While Deuce is equally as clueless about certain things (math, his own hometown, etc.), he’s still overall the more grounded and considerate of the Adeuce duo. On top of that, he’s having his own problems developing into the honors student ideal he aims for, so he doesn’t hold it against others when they’re not aware of something. Deuce and Ace may both be a part of Yuu’s friend circle, but they are very different people and react in different ways as a result of that.

153 notes · View notes

darqx · 4 months ago

Text

Well i talk about it talk about it talk about it

The beginning of FUNKY TOWN is still stuck in my head.

❗️For commonly asked qs please see my BTD FAQ

Thanks, I'm glad my art improvement is noticeable :D I have actually KIND OF redrawn scenes before such as

and a bunch of frames from

so who knows i might do some more at some point lol!

YOU GUYS STILL SEND THEM TO ME :d

I don't actually get that many, i just tend to answer months worth all at once so it looks like a lot haha. I also don't answer a bunch of them if I've already answered something similar before or the answer is in my FAQ. Though I'm going to be honest some of the asks that get sent to me I don't think anyone expects me to actually answer, because they're just weird enough that if i turned off anon i'm pretty sure no one would be asking them.

My free time (...when I'm not procrastinating |D ) is trying to be spent on BP so I currently dont have any plans beyond the fun little doodles and animatics and stuff that I usually do. Gato is working on YKMET so if you guys like Strade then you have that to look forward to :)

(Why thank you!)

The armour follows his usual colour scheme which is gold on black.

You can tell this ask is from January lol.

Thanks haha my colouring style layers colour over colour so colour over grayscale always just looks oddly muddy in my POV |D ESPECIALLY LIGHT COLOURS LIKE YELLOW.

Demons can traditionally reproduce within the same species or with a compatible species.

Psychology, Law or Politics. I think these are the top normal majors you could take where the info you learn from them could be really useful in not getting fucked over and/or fucking someone else over.

I haven't been asked to make chibis for Gato this time around so you'll probably be getting something different for your finished runs!

Demon Commons.

All demons have some sort of specific mark that they are born with (anywhere on their body). The exact reason why has been lost to time, but it often gets used for identification. Here are some of the rest of my demon characs:

Hm, if I have to consider real life anatomy (nooooooo XD) the yellow is probably his iris.

Man i've answered so many asks i sometimes only remember saying something when another asks sounds familiar lmao 🤔 Ok; Rire, as a demon of station, has been captured in the background of some historical paintings and photographs, sometimes without his knowledge but always to his amusement later when he finds out. Like just imagine you are intensely studying art history and in those paintings of events with lots of people in it, suddenly your eye happens to catch upon a tall dark haired figure wearing sunglasses from that time period somehow blending in amongst everyone else there.

He has no particular preference in this regard.

Rire doesn't have like 🤔...a set criteria as it depends entirely on certain whims; like whether he is looking for business or pleasure, what he's feeling like at the time etc. If it's purely business then there are types of people he would approach that he wouldn't otherwise if it was for mainly entertainment.

They probably average out at about room temperature - they tend to reflect environment temp a bit and the main part that's closest to his back will always be a bit warmer than the rest of the ichor.

Probably not

They are evenly matched

Thanks very much! :D

Rire has been around for a while so yes he would have witnessed a bunch of things in human history. Who he met and who he made deals with is up for debate.

He is "polite" so he would thank you, at the very least. And yes they are his signature flower lol. It wouldnt be any special..er than receiving any other flowers though to him - we are the ones ascribing the meaning to it.

Two for the price of one 🤌🏻 Also this is an insanely old ask but yes you have permission to do fancomics or whatever with him |D

Anon, considering most people know him from a weird "dating sim", I dont think this is as startling an ask as you might think haha.

if it makes you happy.

Pick a nice smell that you particularly jive with and it would be that. This is individual specific so if a whole bunch of people are around Rire they may each perceive something different.

I get asked this question a lot |D I'm gonna be real with you guys - i haven't actively thought about a canon design for his parents because i'm kind of lazy to (since right now i dont need to know what they look like). Until that happens you guys will just have to go off the vague text descriptions i've given before :p

#boyfriend to death #rire answer dump #art #doodle #answer dump #long post

154 notes · View notes