#uncharitable post

[susanoos-wife]

There's something deeply ironic about the fact that the losers who call people who wear masks "sheep" are the most bland, boring, conformist assholes in the world who all look like shitty AI-generated clones.

[st-just]

Fundamentally if someone looks out on the whole span of humanity today and complains that life is too convenient and easy I can't help but feel a real contempt? Even beyond the total selfish myopia, it's not like the world lacks for edifying struggles and productive challenges for someone with some free time and capital to take on. You're just terminally incurious and lazy and want to make it technology's fault.

[artbyblastweave]

Funniest thing I've seen recently, and not funny in a ha-ha way, more funny in a "the endless entropic void gnawing at my will to live" way, was somebody asking around for alternatives to Neil Gaiman, in the light of Neil Gaiman's ongoing fall from grace. As though what we're currently sitting through isn't the collapse of the carefully curated "Good Guy Neil" image that caused people to parade Gaiman as the same kind of preferred progressive alternative to, say, Rowling. As though we won't be in the same goddamn situation in a few years or months, with some number of the new progressive sci-fi/fantasy darlings- not all of them, to be clear, but at least some of them- when their impeccably-curated marketing implodes in on itself and they're revealed to be the same kind of sex pest or abuser. Can you not see the wheel to which you are strapped. The game of human pinball you are condemning yourself to with this mindset. Maybe you do see, and you're just resigned to taking it one soul-crushing disappointment at a time, one "I never would have guessed" after another. I mean I think we all need to get resigned to that one way or another, sun's gonna go out before it stops happening

[nateconnolly]

This is oversimplifying but I really do feel like if you look at all the most famous European post-Enlightenment atheist philosophers... Sartre and Beauvoir were like "If there's no God, then we get to make our own meaning of life" and that goes hard. Camus was like "If there's no God, then there is no meaning of life, but I'm going to be kind anyway" and that goes hard. Then Nietzsche was like "Don't masturbate! You have to keep the semen inside your body so that your blood can absorb it!"

[momentomori24]

[This has been sitting in my draft for a while lol]

When it comes to Curly's failings, I always see people bring up his obvious failure to protect Anya and him prioritising Jimmy, who was the rapist in that situation. Which is completely valid btw and we should rake him through the coals for that alone even more. But I also see too many people saying that Curly "didn't enable Jimmy" or playing softball for his actions. And I could maybe see where that comes from if that incident was the only thing we had to point to-- but that wasn't all he did, is it? Curly being indifferent or not taking Jimmy's mistreatment and belittlement of Anya seriously was hinted at so much earlier than that.

Namely, the very first time we play from Curly's point of view. Let's just skip the fact that Curly was putting everyone in danger by not taking his psych evals seriously and simply giving the same answers to pass them even tho he was shown literal minutes after this scene being clearly not-sane, and go straight to the point I actually wanna get into. Which is this:

These scenes in isolation wouldn't be that bad. From his pov, it's played off as comical and it is. Jimmy being a brony (not really lmao) and getting playfully dragged over it is funny. But unfortunately this is the first example out of many for Curly's complacency. Anya is complaining about Jimmy not taking his psych evals or her seriously, which is easy to believe considering how much he rags on her for "not being a good nurse" (she kept Curly alive on hopes and dreams how dare you). So he keeps making her do silly and inappropriate reports she clearly doesn't wanna do, which is kinda shitty (also borders on harassment). But rather than actually saying something about Jimmy's behaviour or even acknowledging how it sucks he says this:

Mate, that's not a good thing 💀 He's clearly aware that the problem is Jimmy's lack of respect for Anya specifically. He knows that if he, his friend and a man in power, were the one doing the evals Jimmy wouldn't try that disrespect. But it's Anya, a meek woman who ranks lower than him so he thinks he can get away with it (which he DOES), and Curly's shown as comfortable in knowing that. He doesn't chew Jimmy out for making Anya uncomfortable nor does he reassure her that he will do something about it. All he does is take it off her hands this once and helps Jimmy power through it to get a good diagnosis (even tho we know he's DEFINITELY not sane either). He doesn't even mention Anya's discomfort or confront him on his inappropriate behaviour, just teases Jimmy in good fun instead because he doesn't think of it as anything serious. It's subtle and pretty minor in comparison to everything else, but I think it's worth pointing out. Especially because this convo takes place after Jimmy had assaulted her, which makes this so much worse.

If you need any more evidence of Curly being an enabler you need not look further than Anya herself. And I'm not just talking about the way he failed her here-- I'm talking about Anya's own view of Curly and the way said view influences her actions.

Just look at her choice of wording. "What would you have done". This is in response to him saying that she could've come to him if she were feeling stressed, which she-- in his eyes-- didn't. The question itself implies that she had no faith in Curly to actually help despite his insistence that he would've, which I think is significant because it shows that she's very much aware of Curly's shortcomings when it comes to her situation AND it's one of the first (or the first time) she actually verbalised her lack of trust towards him or anyone directly. Prior to this scene she had told him about her rape and the rapist, presumably because she trusted him to handle it. And he dismissed her because the rapist was his best friend, and that evidently deeply scarred her. Enough so that she secretly took the gun and hid it someplace else and didn't even tell Curly were that was, because she knows that if Curly has access to it there's a so much greater chance Jimmy will have too, insinuated by the line "the least I can do is make sure he never gets it either". Speaking about the gun:

It sucks so bad that this perception of him isn't even inaccurate nor unjustified. That despite everything Jimmy had done to her and everything he could still do to her, he'd very likely still not allow her access to the gun for protection. Because that's exactly what he didn't do anyway. He didn't attempt to keep her safe from Jimmy, instead he just pretended that nothing was wrong and still let Jimmy's belittlement of her pass. He didn't give her the gun after the incident, because she wouldn't have hid the case if he had. Despite his desperate reassurance that he'd do anything, he did nothing but make it worse for her and she KNOWS that. It's so frustrating knowing he entrusted the axe to Swansea when he needed it but not the gun to Anya when she needed it too. Also this:

The fact that his knee-jerk reaction to her admitting that she's pregnant was "Who would you--" is so fucked, especially considering she's already told him what happened. "Who would you" what? Who would you fuck? Who would you have sex with? That choice of wording drives me up a wall-- SHE wouldn't and didn't do anything or anyone. That was JIMMY. The potential sentence implies that she had any choice or agency in her pregnancy. She didn't. And the fact that Curly had to ask "who" insinuates that he's been putting Jimmy's action out of sight and out of mind the whole time, choosing to not think about them or what happened to Anya at all. And considering he still made her do Jimmy's evaluations despite being able to do them himself and literally didn't even think of making sure she gets psych evals done too--especially AFTER getting sexually assaulted--that might actually be the case (I haven't seen anyone make a stink about that piece of info so I'm going to because what kinda colossal fuck up IS that??).

I vaguely had a post like this in mind but seeing so many people be like "well Anya did some wrong stuff too like leaving Curly alone with Jimmy but you don't get mad at HER for that so why is Curly not doing anything about Jimmy being alone with Anya so different??" actually makes me want to blow some people up. Jimmy's an abuser, sure, but Anya has no real reason to believe that he'd actually harm Curly. From her perspective, they were close, close enough that Curly would not only let Jimmy continuously disrespect her but also get away with assaulting her too. That, and she knows that Jimmy was closer to Curly than anyone and more likely to be civil around him than he ever was to her. She has barely any reasons to suspect Jimmy would harm Curly when they're alone. Curly, on the other hand, has every fucking reason on the planet to think Jimmy would harm her when they're alone. He knows he raped her (likely in her room at night too). He knows that he sexually harasses her. He knows that he doesn't respect her at all. And that was BEFORE the crash. Anya tried insisting on giving Curly his medicine, only for Jimmy to keep aggressively insisting that he'll take care of it despite her protests. Curly didn't try to keep them separate at all even though he was the Captain and had the power to do so. And this should go without saying, but leaving your rapist alone with his best friend that he was close to and enabled/protected him and leaving your friend alone with the woman he raped (and might have repeatedly assaulted given his free access to her) is NOT THE SAME and I'm going to start chucking some people down a waterfall because what the fuck is that argument 💀 Actually leave it to the fandom of the game where the rape of a woman is the catalyst for the events that unfold to use her trauma to defend the guy that enabled it in the first place. Bloody hell.

The reason why this whole Curly discourse pisses me off is because it-- from what I can see-- ONLY brings up his failures 1-0 days before the crash and the Dead Pixel scene (or all the discussion around other points are drowned out by those two). Those scenes, while important to talk about, are not the only things he's done, and focussing on those as the only things is a mistake that comes short of understanding the issue. When it comes to Curly the main defences I see for him are "he was trying not to escalate the situation" and "he was trying to keep things under control the best he can" and "he was waiting for the right time to help Anya", but those don't work when you look at the bigger picture of everything he's done.

He half-assed through his psych eval despite clearly not being sane (and KNOWING he's barely sane, he literally admits it to Jimmy's face). He still continued to task her with Jimmy's psych evals. He brushed over Jimmy's sexual harassment of her as a joke. He didn't think about making sure she got psych evals done herself after being raped. He gave Swansea the axe but didn't give Anya the gun despite it being for "unrest amongst the crew" (whatever the hell THAT means). He let her assault slip his mind that she had to remind him. He's literally a blond man. He took no action to hold Jimmy responsible for anything, and prioritised how his violation of Anya would affect him rather than her. He ignored her demands for him to get rid of Jimmy. He still allowed Jimmy free reign of the ship as co-pilot even after he was openly fantasising about killing everyone and had a major motive and the means to do just that. He was potentially thinking of making her miscarry to cover up what happened. He was so accustomed to her sucking up being disrespected and disturbed that he didn't even notice a difference in her behaviour until she hid the fucking gun. There's so much other shit he's done and hasn't done, and not talking about them or glossing over them makes it so easy for people to argue that he isn't actually an enabler or just minimise the severity of his neglect.

And while I'm already dragging Curly through the mud, I might as well just drag Swansea too. I've seen too many people being like "Anya should've told Swansea instead" and "Swansea was the one that actually took responsibility". Like, y'all realise he's not that much better than Curly, right? He already knew about what happened to Anya-- he admits it to Jimmy's face-- but he didn't do shit. He knew, but he still got completely shitfaced for months despite her earlier protestation to that (for very understandable reasons). He knew, but he still let Jimmy have the axe AND be alone with Anya while having it. He knew, but when Anya locked herself in the Medical and Daisuke and Jimmy asked for his help he didn't budge nor really showed any care. He knew, but the reason he finally decided to do something about Jimmy wasn't Anya, it was Daisuke. Her suffering and her eventual death weren't enough for him to take action either.

This game, on top of everything else, is a great depiction of rape culture. It doesn't just include the rapists, but the people (mostly men) that stay silent, do nothing, make excuses for and protect the perpetrator for whatever reason, and Swansea and Curly (Curly way more so than Swansea) are both active contributors to the environment that allowed for evil to flourish and continue unhindered until it destroyed them all. And while that arguably doesn't make them evil themselves or as bad as Jimmy, they are so much more a part of the bigger problem than the fandom likes to admit.

[Ok since this is kinda gaining a bit of traction please consider helping these guys out here, here and here. Thanks!]

[mirrorofliterature]

if I make a post criticising the jedi, the institution, please do not bring up: 'ah, yes, anakin, the only jedi that exists apparently, and certainly the only jedi that could possibly fuck up'

It's tiresome. anakin has no institutional power in the jedi, really. a recently promoted knight.

if I'm critiquing the jedi council, can y'all just focus on the council and not anakin?

sincerely,

stop making my posts about systemic failure of jedi about the individual failures of anakin skywalker.... it's frankly quite annoying.

[mousegirlheart]

i feel like even if somebody has done bad things in the past we should allow them an opportunity to become better people rather than just be stuck in the "nope callout post you're evil forever" mentality years after they stopped doing bad things.

[ali3nboyfriend]

whyyyy do so few people actually put consideration into their dog's breed when assessing unwanted behaviors

[javob]

Part of the problem in arguing with word-cel lib adjacent midwits is that their opinions are outcome determinative, but they simultaneously don’t have the brain capacity to model certain outcomes, which leads to these crazy circular arguments where they’re convinced they are very smart when in reality they’ve argued themselves into a hole.

It’s made me realize why certain morals were paramount for society at one point, because these types literally cannot see past like a one event causal chain.

Here’s an illustrative example: Liberals are pro-immigration. Why? Immigrants deserve a better life. That’s their argument, with nothing beyond it. It doesn’t matter how badly immigration would hurt you or people you know or your community, that is the nexus of their moral belief on immigration.

Righties have seen this position, and have now come to realize there is nothing behind the drywall. It’s a full-stop moral position with no real ideology other than platitudes scraped off of PBS and Twitter. So Righties have taken the logical stance that to get Libs to stop immigration, they must stop immigrants from having a better life when coming to America. By not having a spine (or real leadership) when it comes to the immigration question, Libs have forced their ideological opponents into a very bad position for future lib-adjacent ideology.

Will Libs learn from this? Probably no.

Will Libs continue to be gullible saps who can be easily led by the nose into hating their neighbors and loving complete strangers for some reason? Probably yes.

[captainjonnitkessler]

Lol I'm so confused why we've decided to ban everyone from the word "wendigo" when we would've laughed in other religious people's faces when they ask you not to say to speak a name. And why is it just wendigo. It's so weird but it's EVERYWHERE, like people getting canceled left and right because they said the word or liked the design and based a character off of it. I can understand if the argument is against non-natives mischaracterizing their stories, but seriously, a word

First, a disclaimer: I do think what's happened with the wendigo culturally is really shitty. To take the existing legend of a cannibalistic humanoid monster, which is often used to represent rapacious greed, colonialism, and exploitation, and turn it into "scary deer skull monster eat people" and then plaster it everywhere because it got popular is both shitty and dreadfully ironic.

But the idea of the word itself being a taboo I have to respect sucks. For one thing, as far as I can tell it's straight up not true. Plenty of native writers, Algonquin and otherwise, have spoken and written about it in academic and fictional contexts. The "it's disrespectful to say its name!" thing seems to just be something someone said on the internet and everyone took it as an excuse to play More Woke Than You.

I read a twitter thread that posited that someone got it confused with skinwalkers, which IS something you're supposed to avoid naming in Navajo belief. And if you personally don't want to say it, that's fine! If you don't like the idea of non-Navajo people talking about them because you think they'll be disrespectful or they won't get it, that's perfectly understandable!

But if you tell me that I can't even say the word because it will draw a skinwalker's attention, I reserve the right to roll my eyes the same way I do when people tell me that using a ouija board is going to invite demonic spirits into my house. It's not disrespectful for someone to not follow *your* religion.

[artbyblastweave]

The thing about Superman, for me, is that by virtue of existing he rules the world. Anything any government does, they're able to do because Superman didn't show up and make them do something else. And when he makes the choice to hang back from politics proper to avoid coercing everyone, well, that's what we refer to as delegation.

Many, many Superman works bring this up, in passing, as a thing an obvious villain says that we clearly aren't supposed to engage with seriously. And this makes me want to wring something

[hellishfig]

me: everyone is entitled to their opinion on media and people having a different view than mine is not inherently wrong

also me: *sees people talking shit about fantasy high: sophomore year* the lord is testing me

[iteratedextras]

[ right-wing anon ]

[...] But they're not based, they're just evil; they aren't enacting a considered plan to conquer an enemy civilization and advance their own culture's values, they're just flailing around lacking both moral scruples and impulse control. God, I wish we had noble barbarians at the gate instead of these low-IQ lowlives.

"At least Genghis Khan actually knew what the fuck he was doing," writes far-right anon.

Occasionally we get people arguing that the people of Britain or France or what-have-you deserve to suffer through terrorist attacks "as repayment for colonialism." Usually this is phrased as a negation - someone will assert that France has a right to enforce its borders after a terrorist attack, and then someone will say, "How dare you say that after the evils of colonialism the French perpetrated. 😠"

Okay, so you've touched on what's actually an important point here, which is that the revenge model of immigration is just...

It doesn't fucking work.

I suspect what bothers people about colonialism over the longer term is not actually the deaths, but a feeling of humiliation. I suspect that there's this feeling of a loss of dignity and respect, a feeling of a loss of control, of not measuring up, and a kind of resentment or envy...

And, well... the leadership of a developed country allowing harms to come to the powerless members of their own country, either less severe such as increased competition for wages (which may be temporary) and a changing cultural environment, or much more severe...

If you're allowed to commit random crimes, people might fear you, but it's not really the same thing as being worthy of respect, is it?

Like if five men all get together to beat up on a teenage girl, that's not really impressive to anyone, is it? There's a temporary thrill of power, perhaps, but could someone who does that really gain more respect for himself from that act? Does it involve overcoming a challenge in a way that shows that he's actually capable?

In Rotherham, the police apparently actively prevented fathers from intervening. Thus someone involved in such acts was allowed to commit a crime, and a rather depraved one at that... as some sort of twisted act of charity.

"Sure, I may have achieved complete domination of the Earth, but I'll allow you to torture my neighbor's cat (that I don't even like)."

If you torture the cat, are you actually going to become a better person, or in the long-run, is it even more humiliating?

So the revenge model of immigration is absolute garbage. Torturing random rednecks will never in a thousand years make descendants of victims of colonialism more worthy of respect, and on some level, they must know this.

Any immigrant with a scrap of self-worth would spit on the idea as disgusting and humiliating. Presented with the opportunity to do something degrading by your former oppressor or master or his descendant, like torturing his neighbor's cat, you retain your dignity and show your superiority by refusing to do so.

So the whole revenge model of immigration needs to be melted down for scrap.

If the goal is to "heal the wounds of colonialism," then the approach needs to be finding ways to improve the strength and independence of "victims of colonialism," so that they are able to feel pride based on legitimate accomplishments.

Even with just a minute of thought, global commerce, international trade, and foreign direct investment are all better choices. If you work at a garment factory owned by foreigners making socks every day, sure the factory may be foreign-owned, but at least you can say that it's honest work, and it's likely that the native-owned capital front will expand over time.

[stonebutchery]

while medical transition may not a requirement for simply being trans, it is still absolutely essential for all trans people to be able to freely and easily access gender affirming care. it must always be an option for any trans person.

literally no one is saying that trans people who genuinely do not want to medically transition (or cannot medically transition for any reason) are not ‘real’ trans people because they aren’t medically transitioning. what people are saying, however, is that it is counterproductive to trans collective liberation to be telling other trans people, or normalizing cis people telling trans people, “you don’t have to medically transition to be trans” as a way of pacifying those of us whose focus and goal is to broaden access to gender affirming medical care and, ultimately, bodily autonomy.

it is not an “overreaction” for trans people to call it “fascist” when a sentiment like “you don’t need to medically transition to be trans” spreads, particularly within trans communities where some (often transmisogyny-exempt) trans people, in reaction to their fellow trans community members expressing their need to medically transition, whether that's needing to raise money or move across borders to access gender affirming care, pursue diy hormone replacement therapy, or the ordeal of being gatekept by cis psychiatrists and medical professionals who are actively impeding trans peoples' ability to medically transition how and when they want to. denial of bodily autonomy is fascist.

you may very well have 'good intentions' in thinking that what you are saying to another trans person, when you say "you don't need to medically transition to be trans", is helpful or otherwise benign but the trans person you are saying this to almost certainly already knows this. they don't need you telling them to, basically, cope. giving credence to the idea that trans people need to 'wait until we're certain' about wanting to medically transition, whatever form that takes, is dangerous.

like most other general medical care, gender affirming healthcare and reproductive autonomy are similarly linked in this regard. you wouldn't tell someone seeking an abortion that they need to wait until they're sure they don't want to be pregnant, would you? no. you would not, not unless you're a fascist. you know who literally does this? the fucking fascist natalists who work at those 'crisis pregnancy centers' and whose job it is to shame and bully people who need abortions out of getting abortions and the spineless so-called medical professionals working in healthcare who prioritize their anti-choice religious convictions or fascist beliefs over their duties as a doctor and gatekeep necessary medical care from their pregnant patients seeking abortions, not to mention the many powerful anti-choice fascist lawmakers and politicians.

i am begging you all to please get serious about this. use your heads. it is not your place, even as a trans person, to tell other trans people unsolicited advice about what to do with our bodies. if you are getting along just fine as a trans person who isn't medically transitioning, i'm happy for you. but you need to remember that this is about bodily autonomy and it always has been. no one is taking away your right to not medically transition.

[welcometogrouchland]

Noticing that TV and film will often have a character either have had an abortion in the past that isn't showcased on screen (and just used as part of the character's ~fucked up and twisted backstory~) OR contemplate getting an abortion in the present day but not to through with it. Just once I want to see someone delete that fetus within the events of the plot and not be like. Extremely majorly punished for it and/or be in the wrong

[samwinchesterstan]

sam is a destiny-pilled johncel who thinks dean is stupid and girly #facts