#just adding that tag to be safe

[gophergal]

boinga. boinga. boinga. boinga.

bonus heby weapon man:

[humming-fly]

The 2D vs 3D contrast of the sonic and shadow generation hubworlds cracks me up the more I think about it

Bonus:

[palettepainter]

Crocodile toy in 12th panel belongs to @ferahntics

Previous - Next

[vintrage]

fire cannot kill a dragon BITCH

[kiisaes]

I'm literally ill

[sokkastyles]

Zutara is a ship where both are badasses but can make each other weak by: Zuko doing the "little, domestic" things, and Katara "challenging the politics of the fire nation and standing her ground". Kataang&maiko who??

Zuko is like "my wife will attend the council meeting in my stead while I take care of the children," and this is how he de-stresses. This is also how Katara de-stresses. See, the people who go on about how horrible it would be for Katara to be embroiled in political conflicts always make me roll my eyes because Katara loves nothing more than to fight for a cause. She's an extrovert, not only does she enjoy fighting, but she enjoys battles of wit as well. Zuko is the one who doesn't like confrontation (but always seems to start one anyway because he can't keep his mouth shut) and would just prefer to do domestic chores all day.

[civetcider]

HII guys i have been playing lots of bloons td 6 lately, i do enjoy silly monkeys, i am now making the monkeys kiss, because my birthday is pretty much next week so i get to be a lil cringe

[qiu-yan]

one topic i've been interested in lately is the idea of moral luck.

let's start somewhere else. i was surprised to learn that the question of "do moral dilemmas exist" is actually debated upon in moral philosophy. broadly speaking, a "moral dilemma" is a situation in which the agent can only choose one of several mutually exclusive options, and yet the agent has moral reasons compelling them towards each option. some philosophers have argued that, given a sufficiently robust moral philosophy, a "genuine" moral dilemma cannot exist: the moral philosophy will organize the differing moral reasons for each course of action into a hierarchy, in which more important moral reasons override the others; thus, the moral philosophy will always be able to identify one or more correct courses of action.

based on my own analysis - if one takes a more moral-pluralistic point of view, though, this is no longer true. moral pluralism indicates the view that multiple different values can all be equally valuable and morally significant, even when they are contradictory. in this case, a moral reason may not be able to override another moral reason. in my opinion (which i am not sure if lines up with official ideas of moral pluralism), this entails the return of the moral dilemma. after all, if the agent can only choose one of several mutually-exclusive courses of action, and the agent has genuine moral reasons for each course of action, and these moral reasons also cannot override each other - then it seems the agent is doomed. no matter what the agent chooses to do, they will be violating some moral reason. they will be committing some moral wrongdoing.

the idea that someone is doomed to commit some moral wrongdoing is referred to as moral tragedy.

this is all kind of abstract, so let us consider a more concrete example. first, let's consider the trolley problem. from a deontological perspective, the perfect duty of not violating the categorical imperative by killing the 1 person comes before the imperfect duty of taking action to save 5 people from death; hence, the correct choice is to not pull the lever. from a utilitarian perspective, the outcome in which 5 people live and 1 person dies involves less harm than the outcome in which 1 person lives and 5 people die, so pulling the lever is the correct choice. however, from a more morally pluralistic point of view, both the choice of pulling the lever and not pulling the lever involve violating some moral duty. people have a moral duty to not kill people, and people also have a moral duty to not allow people to die through inaction. you can only either kill the 1 person to save the 5 people or allow the 5 people to die through inaction. no other choice exists. thus, no matter what choice you make, you will be violating one of those two moral duties; you are trapped in a moral tragedy.

now let's consider another example. suppose you are jiang cheng, and wei wuxian has just busted wen ning's wen remnants out of the jin labor camp at qiongqi pass. from a more morally pluralistic point of view, you are also caught in a moral tragedy: no matter what choice you make, you will be violating some moral duty.

if you choose not to stand by wei wuxian, then you are violating some of your moral duties. wei wuxian is your martial brother; you have a duty towards him. wen ning and wen qing helped you greatly in the past; by the virtue of reciprocity, you owe it to them to help them too. furthermore, as a human being, you have a moral duty to stand against the mistreatment of innocent people. choosing not to stand by wei wuxian entails violating all three of these moral duties.

however, if you choose to stand by wei wuxian, then you are also violating some of your moral duties. you are the leader of the yunmeng jiang sect, which is currently recovering from near-absolute annihilation and thus lacks the resources the other great sects have. as the leader of yunmeng jiang, you are its representative: thus, you standing by wei wuxian when he has alienated lanling jin means that you are making yunmeng jiang stand against lanling jin. and since the jin sect is tied to the other two great sects via the venerated triad, if yunmeng jiang stands against lanling jin, then the situation will become all three of the other great sects against your one weak recovering sect.

you are the leader of the people in yunmeng jiang. those people just fought a war for you. as their leader - or even simply as someone for whom these people bled and suffered - you owe it to them to put them first. as a leader you exist for your people. if you act in violation of what is best for your people's safety and happiness, if you actively choose to put them in danger, then you have broken the social contract by which they gave you authority. then you have failed your duty. and since choosing to stand by wei wuxian puts everyone under your protection in danger, choosing to stand by wei wuxian entails violating your moral duty as a leader.

so. no matter what choice you as jiang cheng make, you will be violating some moral duty. you will be committing some moral transgression. you are caught in a moral tragedy.

from a morally pluralistic point of view, any choice in a moral tragedy entails some moral wrongdoing. so what determines whether you end up in a moral tragedy or not?

luck.

it's commonly said that a person's moral character can be determined from the choices they've made in their life - judge a man by his actions and all that. in other words, we look at what moral violations he has committed, as well as what morally upstanding acts. and yet! if he's ended up in a moral tragedy before - then he had no choice but to commit a moral violation, because all of the available choices were moral violations! does that mean that a person's moral character is subject not just to his own choices, but to luck as well? whether or not you can be called a good person or a bad person is affected also by merely how lucky or unlucky you were?

i do not personally use the framework of "good person" vs "bad person" very often; the utilitarianism i favor cannot be used to judge entire moral characters. however, it certainly is the case that other people will judge an individual's entire moral character by the choices they've made. and yet, it seems that - again and again - the concept of moral luck is not considered.

who did not have moral luck? who ended up in a moral tragedy?

wei wuxian. jiang cheng. lan xichen. jin guangyao. nie mingjue. and many others.

who did have moral luck? who avoided all the moral tragedies?

lan wangji.

[catonaxis]

Alright guys, don't maul me for this one, please 🙏🙏

This might be slightly suggestive, just a lil warning!!!

(Used the first image as a ref and inspiration)

[chaimachi]

Lowkey wanna write a Sebskully fic that is just the Diasomnia fam realizing Sebek has been spending a lot of time over at Ramshackle with Skully instead of their own dorm. Lilia being the absolute troll (and dad) he is suggests they want privacy, and has to imply maybe they're doing the good old horizontal tango and since Sebek is typically so loud they're doing it over at Ramshackle for privacy so a whole dorm doesn't know they're fuckin. (Give me old man Lilia being "well he is at that age you know.") At first everyone is "oh makes sense," then with horror Malleus realizes no wait Yuu/the prefect is there and being bothered. Cue one very awkward lunch conversation of them trying to figure out if Sebek is doing uncouth things at Ramshackle and disturbing Yuu. Malleus says he will make Sebek pay for any damage done to Skully's property, poor Yuu has to come right out and ask if they think Sebskully are having sex upstairs and laughs at everyone.

Turns out the two idiots are actually very good house guests and spend most of their time curled up on one of the couches next to the fireplace in the guest room reading and being quiet, just enjoying each other's company. The degree of cuddling varies because Skully is actually a restless/fidgety person so he'll just be in whatever position he finds comfortable, sometimes you'll find him sitting upside down on the couch instead of like a gentleman. Either way Yuu just points and is, "Yeah no you can't have them. Their date nights will remain here." Every time Sebek comes over Skully makes lots of snacks and Yuu is not giving up on that toffee, butterscotch, and pumpkiny goodness. Hey, they like snacks okay?

[coinsaint]

︴ TransProfessor

︴TransProfessor : A TransID (Transoccupation?) where someone wants to be or believes they should be a professor.

︴Simple brown flag with a book and glasses on it. Brown because it reminds us of books which by proxy reminds of us professors and schools. :>

︴Another self-indulgent one, this time for our Anaxa. We haven't seen a flag for this yet, so we made one!

[thirdeyeblue]

“Nine would have treated Martha better than Ten did”

I need to talk about this argument that never seems to stop circulating.

Note: Not a venomous/anti post. There’s more than enough of that across fandom spaces as is, and this is supposed to be a place for ✨sweet, blissful escapism✨

When making this argument, people seem to envision a scenario in which Nine never met Rose.

While I can appreciate a good hypothetical, recognizing Rose's significance to the Doctor (Nine and Ten) is essential to understanding why things with Martha played out the way they did in the first place.

In the third series, the Doctor is grieving. This grief is deliberately threaded into nearly every script, whether spoken aloud or not (and these are just a few examples):

He's burning in Rose’s wake the entire time Martha travels with him, which is why it’s so frequently called upon: It’s 100% deliberate in framing his grief. He grieved as Nine too, of course— having been fresh on the heels of the Time War — but then he met Rose, which changed everything.

Back then, he was still a rude, traumatized pain in the ass, but we watch Rose soften more of those jagged edges with every episode as they grow closer; as he lets his guard down and forms a deep connection with her.

He falls in love (against his better judgment) and it's game over.

And yes: provided S1E1 had been titled 'Martha', one can realistically assume things might have unfolded similarly to how they did with Rose. However, it wouldn’t have been that way just because the Doctor was Nine and “Nine was different” — it would be because he wasn’t already in love with someone else. The same can't be said for the start of S3.

Think of it like this: if Rose AND Martha had been in that cellar — if Nine had taken both of them along with him in S1 — we’d eventually be looking at the most melodramatic love triangle ever, what with him living in close quarters with two brilliant, gorgeous, compassionate young women... But Doctor Who is plenty “soap opera” as is with just one woman in the TARDIS.

(I certainly wouldn’t object to reading that fic, though)

Now, regarding the unrequited elephant in the room…

His inability to be romantic with Martha isn’t because he thinks her lesser, nor is it for lack of compatibility. It isn't because Rose is any better than her. It certainly isn’t just because he’s Ten.

It’s really only for one reason, which can't be denied — and now I’m a broken record:

He is still in love with Rose.

(cut from a tenrosedaily gif)

Nine is Ten, and Ten is only such a mess in S3 because he’s just lost the love of his life. Martha merely got caught in the crosshairs of a volatile Time Lord in mourning, and yes — it sucks. Absolutely.

But it also feels dismissive to chalk Ten and Martha’s relationship up to little more than some sort of mindless dance of pining, jealousy, and toxicity.

Ten trusted Martha with his life over and over again — and hers, with him. He constantly praised her brilliance, happily carting her around time and space with no intention of letting her go. In the BBC’s extended universe of novels/comics/cartoons/etc, there’s so much depth to their relationship: love and trust and trauma and sacrifice. They had their own special bond as mates, their own complexities — so it’s a bummer that it's forever overshadowed by the other things.

I’m not denying that there was a lot of stuff that sucked/was for sure toxic about Ten's S3 behavior, but so many of the things I've seen him catching flak for can be directly attributed to being A Clueless Fucking Alien Idiot (not a trait that’s unique to Ten) — as well as his flat-out obliviousness to Martha’s feelings.

So yes, I agree: if Rose never existed, he would have treated Martha differently as Nine. He also would have treated her differently as Ten. Certainly.

But Rose did exist, and when discussing canon, it matters.

“He tells me that he absolutely, 100% loves Rose... He tells me how my daughter; my wonderful, beautiful, clever little girl saved him from himself before… And he says that’s all because of me! I made her into the Rose Tyler that saved him.”

-Jackie Tyler, Flight Into Hull!

Martha got the short end of the stick in S3. She came round at the wrong place and time, but that doesn't mean it was all bad. It doesn't mean the Doctor didn’t adore her. It certainly doesn't mean the time they spent together was wasted or worthless. They were brilliant!

Sure, he could be a twat, but let it be known that he was a twat with Rose as well, both as Nine and Ten. I’m sure Tentoo can be plenty infuriating, too. So while I'll defend Ten (and Tentoo) into the ground forever and ever and ever, I'll concede that he's fucked up.

The Doctor is a certified Pain In The Ass. It’s one of the things I love so much about this character — dynamics.

But never forget that Martha was goddamn tough as nails and overcame every bit of it. She moved on with her life, and the Doctor moved on with his. One can only pray that, when they inevitably drag her back onto the show (which feels inevitable if I'm honest), we see at once that she's been living her best life for all these years.

[mrmeepsmadmind]

traumatized dickweeds turn to torturing each other so they can distract from the fact that they both need therapy

[neko-chan-13]

Mono, give your girl a stimtoy goddamn....

[cottonbopp]

Hi guys guess who played isat and definitely didn't bawl their eyes out

[apostaterevolutionary]

The wildest thing about veilguard opinions is I see my fellow DA2 and similar fans of taste saying ‘I really wish these characters had more bite’ and I’m like. Yes, I agree, I would really like that. The characters having bite is a huge part of why I like DA2

And then I leave my bubble and I see someone be like ‘omg it’s so bullshit that certain characters get mad at me for making a choice in a no-win situation that negatively affects them’ and it’s got over 1500 likes and it’s like

As much as I, too, wish the characters had more bite (I actually wanted them to yell at me more for the above decision! People are irrational! Let them act like it and take out their grief on me for at least a second! Yell at me! Make me feel an emotion!), I think there’s a lot of people who say that’s what the want when in reality they absolutely do not. Those of us that genuinely want that seem to be in the minority and lbr, that’s probably why the companions are so pleasant - even this is too much bite for some people