#topic: morality

[tayfabe75]

"You have to pride everything on its own merits. I think that to have an almost like a moral position, or like a freedom-of-speech-esque kind of position on interpersonal relationships which are so dynamic and kind of emotional, which is a realm that isn't, you know, that objective, and I don't think should be kind of judged in the way that you could legislate. So for me, yeah, I think that art is great - like this great, this is all fucking cool - but if it hurts people… It's like the Burroughs thing, you know, like when he shot his wife. Like yeah, the lore is great and it makes Burroughs more interesting, but I'd rather her have lived than had cool books for me to read. And I'd rather people and children be like, happy."

March 2023: Matty expresses his disinterest in pushing moral boundaries for the sake of art. (published July 30) (source)

[kooldewd123]

there's something to be said about the choice to use "prince" as the main signifier of military rank for the andalites. because it kinda obscures the truth of the situation, doesn't it? a group of kids getting magic powers from an alien prince sounds whimsical and delightful. a group of kids getting pulled into a war by an alien colonel sounds tragic and horrible. the slow reveal of what "prince" actually means over the course of the early books is perhaps the most underrated twist of the entire series, because it fundamentally recontextualizes the entire premise of the series without the reader even consciously realizing it.

[thechekhov]

Did you seriously reblog a post defending the sanctity of life of pedophiles?

You did not read that post.

I understand that it might be difficult, because of the knee-jerk reaction we all have when it comes to this topic. I admit I also had the emotional first-response of disgust. But I urge you to go back and try to read it again, when you are cool-headed.

Stating that 'murdering people we find disgusting is not the moral high ground it feels like', is not the same thing as 'defending the sanctity of life' of anyone.

And while it feels good to emotionally say 'we should kill all (people who do bad things that cause harm to others)' this does not actually accomplish what our brains think it does.

From the post:

denying the humanity of people who do horrible things accomplishes exactly three things:

give cover to people who haven't been caught yet by allowing them to use their humanity as "proof" of their innocence

silence any criticism of societal structures and institutions that facilitate those horrible things by putting the focus on individuals who are assumed to be so uniquely monstrous that the ways it was made easy for them are irrelevant

provide a shortcut to dehumanize anyone you feel like killing: simply accuse them of doing a horrible thing

Listen, to me, listen:

I know that we are all human and when we see someone committing evil things, we feel justified and good, and we want to use our teeth and claws to rip them to shreds. I KNOW it feels incredible to reply to pain and harm with equal violence.

But on an ideological level, if you EVER hope to understand how emotional manipulation and dehumanization on a social level works, you NEED to be prepared to unwrap this delicious i-can-murder-that-person-and-feel-rightous burrito.

You need to understand why it is not the swiss knife of justice that it feels like.

You need to know that it can and will be used to kill innocent people who don't deserve it, and you will not even notice.

Because if you can justify murder with a simple 'if you fit into this category you automatically don't deserve to live' then you are supporting an authoritarian regime, who can and WILL happily take the easier job of convincing you that some person that they need dead fits the description (of a person you've already agreed doesn't deserve anything but a swift and unquestionable death).

This is why, when they needed the gays to be feared and hunted, they labeled them 'pedophiles'. This is why they're now doing this to trans people. This is why dehumanization is a tool of oppression, not justice.

There is way to fix injustice in the world and protect children without becoming easier to manipulate and trick.

[moyazaika]

hmm

[hoolyelina]

did you know pangi was the first to join g- hey wait a second

( yellow faction trpangi au tehe )

[distressedwalnut]

Anyone down for a Moral Orel post?

[katabay]

PAGLUIB

way back in like. march?? I took a stab at writing some kind of kabitserye type of story but it was a mess: it kept veering off into murder mystery drama territory because I was reading a lot of murder mystery novels around then and it Wasn't Good because I hadn't tried writing mysteries, let alone murder mysteries, before lmao

I did write a handful of short mystery stories since then, so next year I might take a stab at this idea again now that I'm no longer jumping head first into a genre pool I don't know how to swim in :)

[st-hedge]

MGSV sketch dump. The brainrot is thriving

[bsptourist]

gm_waters

created by saline

[strangestcase]

Let it be known that it’s perfectly possible to be pro-choice re:abortion AND against eugenics. Abortion shouldn’t be about getting the perfect child, it HAS to be about preserving the health of both the pregnant person and their child, and that includes choosing to abort simply because you don’t want to be pregnant. It doesn’t include aborting a perfectly viable child because they just happen to have a disability.

[jiangwanyinscatmom]

“You shouldn’t have rushed to the forefront, and you shouldn’t have bothered with this crap! If you hadn’t started it in the first place…”

"Jiang Cheng,” Jiang Fengmian suddenly interrupted.

Realizing he’d gone too far, Jiang Cheng froze for a moment and quickly quieted. Jiang Fengmian did not appear reproachful, but his expression had turned from calm to solemn.

"Do you understand exactly how you went astray with your words?”

Jiang Cheng hung his head. “Yes.”

Wei Wuxian tried to defuse the situation. “He’s just letting off some steam, nothing serious.”

Seeing that Jiang Cheng’s words didn’t really match what was in his heart, and that he still looked rather indignant, Jiang Fengmian shook his head.

I'm going to point out this scene right here again as to why trying to call Jiang Cheng "morally ambiguous" doesn't work. Because he knows exactly what he said and it was cruel not just to Wei Wuxian but his supposed allies who have protected him and each other. Jiang Fengmian outright calls this out as being wrong, Jiang Cheng doesn't see this as a problem, and reasons this as his father reprimanding him because he doesn't like him and "picking at his flaws that are like his mother".

Jiang Cheng morally doesn't see anything wrong with his cruel and callous view of abandoning people if they "cause trouble". When said trouble was protecting allies and Mianmian that was going to be killed for dismissing Wen Chao's sexual advances on her. He didn't see an issue with Mianmian being sexually exploited as long as attention was off of him and his "clan".

A lack of accountability is a lack of moral ethics and humanity.

[tayfabe75]

"I've always had very classic liberal values and what I would call now the 'morally obvious'."

November 2022: On The Ion Pack Podcast, Matty discusses his unusual upbringing and how it shaped his classic liberal values, explaining why he doesn't want to be used as a pawn in the culture war. (published August 2023: source)

[be-it-so]

I really don't like how people view Palamedes as a totally bad guy, while viewing Odysseus as maybe not completely but mostly good guy. Because, I think, the point is that they are very similar in their methods and that's what it is about.

I really like to think that Odysseus' hatred towards Palamedes was not motivated only by the fact that he put Telemachus in danger and forced Odysseus to leave his family. Don't get me wrong, it was motivated by this, but not only.

Odysseus hated Palamedes this much because Palamedes defeated him in his own field. He outwitted him, made him reveal his lies. And let's be honest, he did exactly the thing Odysseus would do if the positions were reversed.

That's also the reason why I prefer the version with Odysseus framing Palamedes for treason and not the version with drowning. Because framing Palamedes for treason was one of those Odysseus' grand plans, his big lie. He managed to trick all of the achaean camp, make them fall for his trickery, and in the end, Odysseus not only had Palamedes killed (in one of the most disgraceful, inglorious and painful ways possible) but also did it in a way of proving himself better at planning and scheming.

Odysseus did not simply kill Palamedes, but also did it in the way that is the straight-up revansh for their first meeting.

[storybookprincess]

this might sound painfully obvious, but the key to not wasting all your money on takeout is keeping food in your house that you like & is easy to prepare

to me, the two big draws of ordering takeout during the week are 1. it tastes good. and 2. it is very low effort. especially as someone who lives with a chronic illness, all of the good intentions to cook a healthy meal every evening are pretty meaningless when i come home exhausted or in pain. and it's an exercise in futility to keep attempting that & then getting frustrated with myself when i fail. eating at home needs to be both easy and appealing, or it's simply not going to happen. and i'm going to order takeout

for me, this boils down into two main practices. first, when i'm feeling up for it, i like to batch cook on the weekends. i make a big serving of something that will keep well in the fridge for several days, and then just reheat it in the evenings. and when i'm not well enough to cook, it means ensuring that i have pre-prepared food on hand that requires no effort beyond sticking it in the oven

the key to success with this method is the following: the food needs to be something i will genuinely enjoy eating. sure, it probably won't be quite as good as a meal made by a professional in a restaurant, but it does have to be tasty & satisfying. again, the first appeal of takeout is simply that it tastes good

and most important of all, we CANNOT let perfect be the enemy of good. "but liv! are you really just telling me to keep a package of dumplings in my freezer to eat during the week? is that really healthy or cost effective?" well, if your options are the frozen dumplings or takeout, then comparatively, yeah, it is probably healthier or cheaper or both. we don't live in an ideal world. we live in this one. and we need to work within the parameters of the real world rather than aspiring for an ultimately unreachable ideal and then getting mad at ourselves when we fail.

tl;dr: to stop overspending on takeout, keep food on hand that you want to eat and requires minimal effort to prepare. that's it. and don't let imaginary rules and standards sabotage you along the way.

[ckret2]

Do you think Bill has an other-species furniture kink, or is it just humans that look sitonable?

What we know canonically is:

he sits on humans

he seems to only sit on enemies or inferiors outside of his "in" group (like fangirls)

nearly all of the characters he interacts with are humans

almost all of non-human characters he interacts with are his Henchmaniacs, or else too powerful to subject like the Axolotl; so he hasn't interacted with any non-humans that meet his "enemies-or-inferior-outsiders" criteria for sitting-upon

So we don't have enough evidence to say definitively whether Bill only likes to sits on humans, or humans are just the only species we happen to see him interact with that he considers worth sitting on.

Personally? I think it's funnier if it's only humans. Like one of the more mediocre species from a mediocre planet just does it for him and nothing else does.

But more realistically, I figure it's not just humans; but he still has somewhat limited criteria for which species are worthy of being furniture. Because "he'll make ANYTHING a chair" isn't as weird as "he'll make SOME bizarre things into chairs but if you propose an equally-bizarre thing he might look at you like you're an idiot for thinking that could be a chair."

Part of it may be aesthetic considerations ("Vertebrates make the best chairs, all their support structures are in the middle and all the fat and flesh is on the outside! I can't sit on Kryptos, he doesn't have any natural cushioning!")

And part of it may be psychological. irl, people with actual real human furniture kinks are fascinated by the personhood of their furniture, and the revoking thereof—after all, the kink is about people being treated like footstools, not footstools carved to look like people.

Whether or not Bill has an actual literal kink for living furniture (I do think it's fun/funny to headcanon, but like, there isn't any real canon evidence that he's INTO it), I think that whatever's going on in his head is probably more complicated/bizarre than just the usual BDSM "strip a person of their personhood" power dynamics in normal human furniture kink.

[distressedwalnut]

Doodle of a completely straight Christian couple