#again I don't think anyone is a bad person or morally bankrupt or going to hell or whatever

[rutadales]

I normally don't give Actually Opinions on drama, but seeing as some of these conversations are delving into the American politics side of things I wanted to give my two cents. to be incredibly clear I am in no way calling anyone a bad person, but im seeing what is, in my opinion, some misinterpretations of why Kick, and streamers joining the platform is a bad thing.

First things first I want to dismantle the idea that Twitch and Kick are equivalent to each other. They aren't. If Twitch goes down tomorrow, Amazon still is going to exist. If Kick goes down, then the crypto gambling website the streaming service exists to promote will have a lot less traffic.

Here's an excerpt talking about Stake.com playing a role in Kick.

and here's Stake promoting crypto.

Kick literally exists to promote crypto gambling. (If you don't know why crypto is bad watch Dan Olsen's video "The Line Goes Up" or if you don't have time to watch a 2 hour long video tldr crypto is horrible for the environment, is a more or less a scam, and functions to make the rich richer. the video explains it better and has sources I just don't have time to write a crypto manifesto here okay)

Not to mention Kick's poster boy is a transphobic pos who showed porn to his child audience.

Yes, Kick recognizes this is bad for PR but Adin is still on that platform and still making them money. By giving legitimacy to that platform we are putting more eyes on that kind of rhetoric.

I am not saying that every streamer on that platform is bad, or that Sapnap is bad and going to streamer hell or whatever. I am saying Kick, and Stake, is an unethical website. Yes, so is Twitch, and Amazon! But Twitch and Amazon are already legitimate websites with strong influence in the industry. Kick isn't, at least not nearly on the same scale, and what they're trying to do by adding content creators like Sapnap is add legitimacy to their, again, crypto gambling website. This is a bad thing.

And I think it is flat out wrong to compare the two websites. Just because one bad thing exists doesn't mean we try to make an even worse bad thing just because. Yes, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. This doesn't mean it's time to start buying oil drums and throw them into the Pacific, ya feel me?

[ramshacklefey]

Maybe it's just an allergic reaction from growing up in a cult, but I cannot help looking at some queers and would-be leftists and seeing the seeds of the exact social framework I grew up in. So, here are some questions to ask yourself about your social circle, online or offline:

Do people around me subscribe to a good-evil dichotomy, and is this dichotomy applied to people? There is no such thing as a "good" or "evil" person. In fact, I encourage everyone to ditch the entire concept of "evil." It's not a useful concept. The kind of thinking that creates good and evil as absolute categories, especially if it is then applied to humans, benefits no one. Learn to accept that morality can be vague in a lot of places, and that a person's actions may be judged right, supererogatory (going beyond moral requirements), less than ideal, wrong, misguided, or morally bankrupt without making any claims about that person's inherent nature.

Do the people around you un-person anyone? This flows out of the previous question, because declaring someone "evil" is usually enough to declare them not a person. And even if you've never consciously put it this way, we all "know" that we don't have the same moral duties to non-persons that we do to persons. There is no action a person can take that removes them from the category of "person." There is no group a person can belong to that removes them from the category of "person." And if the people around you are willing to act as if there were, there is nothing preventing them from doing the same to you.

Do the people around you accept the idea of social contagion? Do they support shunning/exile as punishment? Again, this comes from the idea of evil, but it goes another level down. The claim becomes not just that someone is evil, but that therefore only other evil people would associate with them. This is most apparent during cancel campaigns, when the mob is as happy to turn on the friends, coworkers, and relatives of the target as they are to attack their primary target. But even if someone has genuinely done some fucked up shit, there is nothing they can do that makes them unworthy of friendship. And associating, being friends with, and loving someone who has done wrong in the past doesn't have any moral bearing on you. Communities that act otherwise damage everyone. Fear of being associated with some who has fucked up means that people with maladaptive behavior patterns are cut off from positive relationships with those who could help them. And the threat of ruining lives in this way makes it harder for people to ask for help, whether they are the perpetrator or the victim of bad behavior.

Do the people around you assign moral weight to the media others enjoy? This is a concept straight outta the evangelical handbook. I cannot tell you how many youth group meetings I attended where we talked about the "danger" of Bad Media: it would poison your mind, it would make you drink and smoke, it would make you gay, it would make you have premarital sex. Horror films would make people violent. Angry music would let the devil into your soul. It was all a load of bunk. It remains a load of bunk no matter what it is that you object to, and people who are trying to control what media you have access to are way overstepping their boundaries.

Do the people around you assign moral weight to identity categories? Do they engage in any kind of essentialism? Assigning this sort of weight is just as bad when it's a bunch of leftists saying that All Men Suck as it is when it's a right wing preacher saying that Gays Are Dangerous. Claiming that a person can be more or less virtuous based on their inherent qualities is wrong and dangerous.

Are the people around you as or more worried about appearing virtuous as they are about actually doing the right thing? I was told throughout my childhood to avoid even the appearance of sin. Keeping up a public face of virtuousness and purity was necessary in order to be accepted by the community. This includes things like using the "right" language, enjoying the "right" media, dressing and presenting yourself the "right" way, and many others.

Do the people around you divide the world into categories, defined on a black and white dichotomy of people who are "on your side" and people who are "out to get you"? Yeah, this one is tricky, because if you live under any kind of oppression, there are actually people who want to hurt you and have the structural power to do so. But the vast majority aren't those people. The vast majority of people are just trying to live their own lives, and most are unaware of the problems you're facing. When you're inside a social circle like this, it's easy to get caught up in the mentality that everyone knows what you know, so their actions speak to which "side" they're on. The reality is that most people are indifferent to you, but would object to you being badly treated if they actually understood the situation.

Do the people around you object to nuanced assessments of a situation or morality in general? Is there some kind of "canon" of acceptable beliefs and slogans? Is anything outside of this considered suspect if not outright bad? If your thoughts on mortality and politics can be summed up entirely in tweets and bumper stickers, and people around you get angry at nuance or new ideas, that's a bad sign.

These aren't all of them, and none of these are hard and fast. There are fuzzy edges on all of them. But they are all tactics that enforce social cohesion and Right Behavior at the expense of actual discussion or measured responses to situations. They rely on and grow out of living in a high surveillance culture.

You can push back against them by minding your own business, refusing to engage in surveiling others, and actively opposing judging anyone to be a non-person.

So many of us grew up in and have tried to claw our way out of this kind of social life. Don't just recreate it.

[keingleichgewicht]

like, ok. disco elysium is mostly about bigger things than personal morality, and it is too smart to be interested in asking whether kim and harry are "bad people," because people cannot be ontologically bad* even if being a cop is very close, and the distinction in itself is a carceral conceit, it's not worth talking about in any model worth talking about. and that's probably part of the point, and part of the point is that There Is No Ethical [PLAYTHROUGH OF DISCO ELYSIUM]; existing in a world like revachol, or ours, and getting to stay morally decent, let alone while in the kind of positions of power kim & harry inhabit, is impossible but more to the point it's also a dangerous fable. it is a dangerously incorrect way to approach the ideas that the narrative is offering you.

*or good!

& that said, insofar as disco has anything to say on personal morality, i think it's somewhere in the neighborhood of the next world mural:

it is too late for us, and it is also too late for these two mean-hearted cold-spirited, bullying old cops; we have seen too many ages of the world already, we have failed to rise too many times. it is too late for true love and it is too late for good men. it is too late to be forgiven. "you can never save anyone nor can you atone for your sins", &c, "you shall not go down twice to the same river, nor can you go home again."

WREAK HAVOC ON THE MIDDLE CLASS

it is too late to be good men. harry and kim are never going to be able to be good men, because you can't fix what they've each done to people, or the kind of trigger-happy control-hunger that leads them to bully and steal and coerce, or the various steam-kettle pressures (racialized, in kim's case) that pushed them to become these people (pressures which are unlikely to let up any time soon, either, and hence why it's so unconvincing to pretend they're ever going to stop being cops.) and yet, you know! and yet! you can't aim for "redemption" because it's a bankrupt concept, and you also cannot pretend that you can just walk away from any of these things; not in this world; maybe in the next, not in this one.

but that isn't a message of despair, any more than disco is ever doing a message of despair! be vigilant i love you. you can go home again, as long as you understand that home is a place where you have never been. kim and harry are really not the point although by definition it is true for them as well -- but IS THERE A CHANCE FOR THEM TO GET BETTER? is functionally equivalent to asking IS THERE A CHANCE FOR ANY OF US TO GET BETTER? or even more fundamentally WILL THE RETOUR EVER COME? and the only answer disco has for us on this front is, i don't know, well will it???

[honesty-my-policy]

Oh, and I don't think you're evil. Morally bankrupt, maybe. But more likely just gullible, ignorant, and uninformed.

I wasn't going to respond to anymore of these but I'm in a better headspace and rereading this makes me just laugh. Especially when I follow up with the following asks - all on anon. So, let me properly educate you and prove that you are just regurgitating shit you've read on social media or surface level researched.

I'm going to break this down because so much of what you've said is wrong. Including, millions of jews.

Displacement of Palestinian people comparatively to Jews? Okay, lets go there.

North Africa Jewish Population Estimates 1948: 500,000 1972: 40,000 2021: 3,000

Middle East (excluding Palestine/Israel) Estimates 1948: 300,000 1972: 7,500 2021: 400

Non-Arab Muslim Countries Estimates 1948: 150,000 1972: 100,000 2021: 24,000

Of the 900,000 Jewish immigrants, around 650,000 emigrated to Israel, and 235,000 to France. The remainder went to other countries in Europe as well as to the Americas.

Operation Ezra and Nehemiah airlifted between 120,000 and 130,000 Iraqi Jews to Israel during the massive Jewish exodus from the Muslim World started - thanks to the violent dispossession against the recently almost completely wiped from the earth Jews in Baghdad, Iraq from the Pro-Nazi Government. It took place on a Jewish holiday as well.

also for reference - https://www.docdroid.net/BZHplSm/the-complete-list-of-the-1030-jewish-expulsions-in-human-history-pdf#page=2

So if you are going to TRY and play the "this person is worse off card." fuck right off.

"Occupation" - you make me want to laugh and throw up at the same time from how ignorant you are. Let us break down this word yes?

Occupation (noun) - the act of controlling a foreign country or region by armed force.

Control (verb) -  to exercise restraining or directing influence over 

Regulate (verb) - to bring under the control of law or constituted authority

So, before this all happened, Israel had check-points set up, that is what you are referencing correct?

In 2000 Palestinian leaders launched the 2nd Intifada, which if you think that word is something nice, you really are just vomiting words back you've heard because a campaign of suicide bombings and terrorism killed over 1,000 Israeli citizens. So, to counter this Israel put up checkpoints in the West Bank instead of just starting a war. Nice of them huh? 1

Stolen their land? Eh? It wasn't their land to start with? Jews are native to Israel? Everyone is now calling for a two state solution but HAMAS, even before HAMAS, the government of Palestine at the CONCEPTION REFUSED a two state solution by the UN. The "Nakba" or "displacement" was them getting their asses whooped after thinking they could run the Jews out of Israel with the help of their Arab states, so Palestine, Egypt, Transjordan known now as Joran, Iraq and Syria all ganged up on Israel even after the ZIONIST Jews accepted the agreement. 1

Why do you blame Israel for everything bad happening to Palestine in History when if you look at a fucking map

Look at all those Muslim/Arab Majority countries that have access to them that could be helping them? Also, the Gaza strip is connected to the sea, it's how the US Navy has built a dock just for aid! Where are the other Muslim countries? The West Bank is connected to the Jordan River. It passes by Jordan, Syria, Israel and the Palestinian trevorites. Again, if nothing else, crates of aid could be sent down this river.

If anyone is preventing them from being "self-determined" which do you know what that means?

1:  free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion 2: determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status

Palestinians are governed by HAMAS. I keep repeating this and it just never gets through to you people.

The Israeli, American, EU, UK, Japanese, and Canadian governments define Hamas as a terrorist group.

The last presidential election was in 2005, which Fatah won. The last legislative election was in 2006, which HAMAS won. Since 2007 HAMAS has taken over the Gaza Strip as a de facto government without any free elections. Freedom House is a website that ranked Gaza Strip's electoral process with the worst score.

Human rights groups and the Gazans themselves over the years have accused HAMAS of restricting the freedom of the press and forcefully suppressing dissent. 1, 2

In September of 2007 they disbanded the Gaza Strip branch of the pro-Fatah Union of Palestinian Journalists, which was criticized by Reporters Without Borders. In November of the same year they arrested a British journalist and for a time they cancelled all press cards in Gaza. In February of 2008, Hamas banned distribution of the pro-Fatah Al-Ayyam newspaper, and closed its offices in the Gaza Strip because it ran a caricature that mocked legislators loyal to Hamas, later the Gaza Strip Interior Ministry issued an arrest warrant for the editor.

Oh, also, Palestinian HEALTH OFFICIALS reported that the HAMAS government has been shutting down Gaza clinics in retaliation for doctor strikes. Which HAMAS confirmed and justified saying "in its view, they had incited other doctors to suspend services and go out on strike."

I can keep going and y'know what, I haven't addressed the "starving" part yet. So, here.

HAMAS government members are worth BILLIONS, yet, somehow their people have lived in poverty, people love to blame Israel, yet the leader Khaled is worth (allegedly) between 2-5 billion. Invested in Egyptian banks, Gulf countries and some real estate projects.

In 2017 Palestinian ministers' monthly salaries were increased from $3,000 to $5,000 (67% raise). All the while economic hardship was hitting their people, in March of the same year the government said they'd have to halve the wages of all but the lowest earning employees, or the 40% of the workforce that takes home only $555 or less a month.

In data from 2017 provided BY THE UNITED NATIONS, using the general barometer for a country's wealth, so they used, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the (sic) State of Palestine's per capita of $2,946 per capita (per person) far exceeds, say, South Sudan ($453) and Yemen ($990) and even their neighbor of Egypt ($2,000).

How does a countries GDP manage to be so high, yet the common man so poor? Uneven income distribution. Keeping the Palestinians poor serves to exploit them for the personal gain of HAMAS aka the uber-rich.

While Egypt’s GDP is lower than that of the Palestinians, description of the poor Egyptians and rallies for their support are non-existent.

As for the bombing. Palestine has been firing at Israel since 2001, even before they declared their second Intifada. 1

I'm not going to claim that Israel has not struck back but I will ask you again, why didn't HAMAS build a defense system for the citizens they are supposed to protect like Israel did with the Iron Dome? Why do they fire rockets from CIVILIAN ZONES/BUILDINGS? Like UNRWA schools? 1

Failed rocket launches and rockets falling short of their target are a COMMON occurrence. 1 , 2

But I think this has gone on long enough and I haven't even responded to the TWO OTHER things you sent to me. Keep coming at me. I'll break these down and explain how stupid you are for being the mouthpiece of a terrorist organization that has kept the people under its control brainwashed to hate Jews, to commit suicide bombings and think that is wonderful, that child soldiers are a good thing, that Islam should eradicate every other religion in the world.

Get your head out of your ass if you can. WAKE UP or come off of anon. I'll respond to the rest later.

Also, I'm going to once again beg you to learn READING COMPREHENSION. This hellsite lacks it entirely. There is a difference between reading words and comprehending.

I'll be helpful - https://www.readingrockets.org/reading-101/reading-and-writing-basics/reading-comprehension

[batsarebetterthanpeople]

dw i dont think the poll was that deep! i just really like talking about these things lmao, i really love ofmd and brba so its hard for me not to think about the comparison deeper. in response to your thoughts on the matter, i just wanted to say— jesse actually didnt snitch! it gets revealed by the police later that krazy8 actually snitched on his own cousin, and had been an informant for them for a long time. all the characters in the show are pretty morally bankrupt and jesse is the best of them tbh (excluding almost all of the women and all of the kids). selling meth is basically like murder in ofmd where its like, so many of the characters sell meth and are criminals or crooked cops that the scale of morality is skewed. like i wouldnt call ed a bad person in the scope of ofmd because he’s committed murder (not by his own hands ofc but like, thats semantics, hes caused a lot of death.) i also dont really mind him saying faggot because its funny lmfao but stops he does stop saying it eventually, which is an improvement. he may say faggot but he’s honestly one of the least toxically masculine characters in the show. any toxic masculinity he exhibits is really limited (imo, its mainly his casual homophobia in the beginning of s1) and it never hurts anyone, unlike izzy who hurts so many people because of his toxicity. a consistent theme in the show is jesse being walt’s foil. the meth business brings out the darkest of walt’s narcissism, apathy and disregard for others lives and wellbeing, which turns him into a monster. all the while jesse stays empathetic, and is good at heart even if he fucks up sometimes and commits crimes. i could list all of the things that jesse does that drive home this point and personally make my heart ache for him but this ask is already long enough!! idk TLDR basically ofmd’s narrative condemns izzy’s actions and used him as contrast to the goodness of the other characters, whereas brba’s married frames jesse as decent person who is used to contrast walt’s genuine psychopathy and machiavellianism. i dont really think the characters are comparable from a narrative perspective but tbh i get why you would compare them from a fandom perspective! they are both poor little meow meows in fanon, and thats more accurate to what your poll was measuring. sorry again for how long this is i just have so many thoughts T_T

oh ok werk. It really seemed like he was lying about not being the informant when he was called on it but I suppose that'll come up soon enough. Like, that man is not very good at not coming off suspicious. I agree tho about your point on the homophobia. Like if a real guy like Jessie was coming at me with the f slur like that I would feel very unsafe, but the way it reads in the show is like him calling the very heterosexual Walter White a homo as he, Jessie "t-boy swag" Pinkman, zooms in on his ass with a camera so it's like the homophobia is so undercut, dude. Like homie you are coming off so fruity for a guy who uses faggot as an insult.

But yeah Like I said in the first ask I don't consider selling meth evil, an argument could be made to me about "well they profit off of people's addictions" to which I would respond "So you agree? Selling things that people need to continue functioning is evil? Which means selling food is evil and it should instead be free." To me drug dealing is not that bad in a society where we let people die of no money all the time. We're all doing what we gotta do to get by. I'm just using dealing meth as a morality argument because I don't expect mainstream television shows to share my rather libertarian(Leftist) views on drugs and I assume any meth dealer on my screen is going to do other things that I am against, like, idk murder. I have no beef with the real life Walts and Jessies of the world, although you would do well to stop cutting your drugs. Jessie, Jessie, I'm begging you not to synthesize baphomet's dandruff (Meth + cHiLi PoWdEr) my nostrils are burning just thinking about that shit.

[butwhatifidothis]

I don't think Edelgard is comparable to a slasher villain. If she were, there'd not be anyone going about how she's morally right. Honestly? I think it's just that the writers couldn't decide on "do we make her a darker shade of morally grey/an antivillain or do we just go full villain?", and those waters got MORE mudied when they decided to make Crimson Flower at the last minute. Like, her actions and words are all over the place depending on the route. CF She's all "let us build a better future and make the world better etc etc equal society", meanwhile her fallen alt from blue lions is all "The strong shall rule! The weak shall no longer remain weak if they lose any help!"

Like, clearly all the shit that can be considered good isn't her lying or being hypocritical, since the devs LIKED Edelgard enough to make her a protag/hero of a route. If it were JUST her being a lying hypocritical scumbag, they wouldn't have potrayed her positively in CF and shit. Hell, you can include the random and stupid assassination bandit plan that lead to people making theories to make sense of it.

Her writing is just plain inconsistent, so she just seems like a complete idiot who has no idea what she's talking about. She talks about the "crest/nobility system" yet the devs never show us what this "crest system" shit she's talking about is like. They try to make her look more heroic in crimson flower, but never make the church of seiros look morally grey enough to WARRANT anything Edelgard does. Hell, they even have seteth go "edelgard seized the throne from her father" when in CF he basically gives up willingly. This isn't even something only Edelgard suffers from: ALL the black eagles join the empire, so either they're all morally bankrupt and stupid or Edelgard was meant to not be a complete and utter villain.

I said it before and I'll say it again: Three houses was fucking half baked and needed more time in the oven.

Ehhh that depends. Especially the “clearly all the shit that can be considered good isn't her lying or being hypocritical, since the devs LIKED Edelgard enough to make her a protag/hero of a route” bit, it’s entirely possible for a writer/group of writers to have a lying hypocrite be the protagonist of a story, especially since that story in and of itself goes against the base world-building of 3H’s story (aka it goes against SS). It’s a neat path to try and go down, honestly!

But otherwise yeah, I do agree that they weren’t committed to the bit enough to have Edelgard be bad imo. If she were allowed to be seen as morally bad by the cast without attempts at trying to lift her character, then CF would work way better. Like, if the other routes didn’t pull stuff like ”She can’t be this heartless tyrant, her men are fighting so hard for her on Myrddin” except yes she can and yes she is, “Really, me (Claude) and Edelgard’s ideologies aren’t that different in the end” except Claude wants to foster more openness with everyone and tries to achieve things in as peaceful and nonviolent ways as possible and Edelgard full on rejects the notion of people coming together for strength and forces her ideas on the people with violent force, that kind of stuff. 

If more thought was put into the other character’s reactions to Edelgard’s decisions, I doubt they would have been so eager to fight for her cause even with her charisma and lies. Ferdinand’s the only one of the BE students to show real hesitance with the idea of joining Edelgard, in the explore dialogue right before the war phase hits, but then he’s just as down with Edelgard as everyone else is. Everyone just never mentions Edelgard being the Flame Emperor, or ordering their now allies to kill them, or using Demonic Beasts a minimum of twice - one of those times against them - or how she’s connected to Remire, or any of the myriad of other things Edelgard - and Hubert - are connected to and/or involved in. Which yeah, makes them seems like either idiots or some of the worst people in the cast - which means that nearly everyone is like this, since nearly everyone can join CF.

CF could have been a really interesting route if it was allowed to be more... I dunno, freeform? Like if it didn’t have the chosen class be the guaranteed students you have with you and instead used the bosses you fight on the other routes - ya know, Ladislava, Randolph, Metodey (forbidden Metodey lore perhaps lmao), Jeritza, maybe some otherwise unseen NPC’s like Count Bergliez joinin’ in too. Hell, if you can find one more person you’d have a full class’ worth of playable units lol, but as is yeah, it’s just... not ideal, for sure

[xxgothchatonxx]

It’s pretty clear in the book that Clarice could have kept Buffalo Bill alive until the ambulances arrived to rescue him, but she preferred to watch him die. What do you think so? Someone said Clarice also has dark features. She’s not on Will Graham’s level (tv series), but she also has a pretty dark self. What do you think ?

Clarice Starling absolutely has a dark side, but you're right it's not on TV!Will Graham's level. I think (need to emphasise, this is just my interpretation) her 'dark side' is that she doesn't follow the rules. The fact that she was at Buffalo Bill's place at all is proof of that. She was not supposed to be there. She was removed from that case, and she was told to just go home and let the authorities deal with this. But her strong desire, her want, her need to save Catherine Martin and stop Buffalo Bill from continuing his crimes, pushed her towards breaking the rules.

And she had been doing that since she first met Hannibal. She was explicitly told "do not approach the glass' and "you're not to tell him anything about yourself... you don't want Hannibal Lecter inside your head". And she does both things. But that rule breaking helped her solve the case, save the day, and also helped her better herself. Clarice was basically supposed to just be a tool to help the FBI and she ended up being so much more than that. And for people like Paul Krendler, that's a terrifying notion: someone moving away from 'their place'.

But back to the first part of your question. So, I think the part you're talking about is this.

"Starling had to be positive he was dead."

Again, this separates her from the rest of the FBI. Because, granted I'm not exactly an expert, but I'm pretty sure the protocol is to make some attempt to keep the criminal alive, if it's possible. Clarice didn't do that. She had to be positive he was dead. She needed to make sure he could never EVER hurt anyone again. It's not exactly what we'd think of when we think of a traditional hero. "Okay, I've stopped the bad guy, now I'll just pass him off to the authorities-" no, Clarice understands that there's some people who can't and shouldn't have the easy way out. I should also point out that she only shot Bill out of self-defence. 

Speaking of which, let's look at her reaction (in the novel) to Paul Krendler being... well THAT. I've got two interpretations. 1. She is not stupid enough to try and convince Hannibal to not kill him. Taking words from the movie here, she doesn't want to "deny (Hannibal) his life", she doesn't want to change who he is anymore than he wants to change her. 2. She thought Paul Krendler was a morally bankrupt prick who had it coming.

And let's finally talk about what a lot of people think is the darkest part of Clarice's story. When she decided to run off with Hannibal at the end of the eponymous novel. So, we all know that it was her choice, he didn't force her, that conditioning attempt didn't work - she is still Clarice Starling. So, the fact that she has decided to leave the right side people who used her and threw her under the bus and run off with a dangerous psychopath the only man (aside from Barney) who really treated her with any respect... that's terrifying for a lot of people. A woman taking charge of her own life, and especially with it being a sexual ending - "oh no, a woman is being sexually active and it's not cos she's getting assaulted!1!' - is a horrifying concept.

So... in conclusion (if you can follow all of that, bravo, cos I don't think I've said this in a way that makes any damn sense 😂) Clarice Starling's "dark side" is that her perception of what is right and wrong is different from what she is expected to believe. She is still fundamentally a good person, she just goes a step beyond what a lot of us would do, and what she is "supposed" to do.

[thundergrace]

Yeah I've seen a lot of people saying they were done with Ryan after she left Alice like that after Alice saved her. Some even have said that after that she's just as bad morally as Alice now. I don't agree, but I kind of wish the writers hadn't done that because Ryan is already disliked by a good amount of the audience so "screwing over" Alice who is considered the fan favorite/best character on the show by many doesn't help. And now that Kates back the hate is only going to get worse.

I'm glad they did it. Writers need to stop making decisions based on what they know are or will be unfair opinions, no matter how popular, especially if it affects the writing to do so...

Ryan may or may not be justified in her decision to leave Alice to die but again these people are choosing to hate a hero for not saving a serial killer, one whose gang beat her mother to death and has killed - I'm sure- dozens of people (I'm being generous). These are not the people you cater to in your storytelling.

What's really funny and brilliant about Rachel is in her performance she also emotionally manipulates the audience the same way Alice did Kate every time Kate had her pinned and TRIED to do to Ryan in this episode, that's why people are reacting this way -as if Alice is some helpless victim.

Did they think Kate was as bad as Alice for killing whateverthefuck his name was?

Were they done with Kate after she betrayed Alice and locked her up at Arkym (sp?)? After Alice cried, begged and pleaded with her not to have her confined and trapped again?

Did they hate Kate for choosing the Beth from another universe over Alice when only one of them could live?

No. All of this was fine because it was Kate.

The ONLY thing that would make Ryan as bad as Alice is if she actually killed Alice herself. Which she already realized and literally said when she was squeezing the life out of her and decided to let her go.

Though my personal opinion is she would only be as morally bankrupt as Alice if she killed ...literally anyone else.

[evr0ck17]

Untitled (death and long lines for espresso)

My name is Evan Penkethman, I'm a drug addict, an alcoholic, a writer, a brother , a friend and a son. I choose to share about what it's like to be an addict very openly. I write about life, but I think a lot about death.

Today I learned that the guy who completed this program i'm in last week is dead. I didn't know him or anything, I think he gave me props the night I told everyone my story, but we weren't homies or anything. I didn't know him, but in a way I did, because he's like so many others i knew who lost the battle. In a way he's just like me.. People are individuals, from different backgrounds with different stories, but they are all the same on some level. I've taken to focusing on ways that we are all one, and disregarding the perception of separateness, it serves me better.

I'm only two months sober today so if you take that as unqualified to talk about recovery, so be it. I'm still able to reach out and touch the feeling of nearly loosing the battle, on 70th Street in Manhattan. I won't tell that story again here but I'll link it:

Anyway, if you're around my age I don't have to tell you the havoc that addiction is unleashing on society. Here's an experiment: pull up your Facebook friends list that you started generating in the beginning of the aughts, now make a tally of all the people you see who died from any addiction related circumstances. My assumption is that the number is very high. This, you see, is the reason that I will air out the details about my battle with addiction. It isn't something that I want to quietly battle under some rug of secrecy, because it's no secret that there is a mountain of corpses that gets bigger every minute.

I've spent a fair amount of time in the 12 step trip, and I've seen all kinds of people recover for extended periods of time, and even had a few years of success myself. Sure, I wasn't bringing my AA medallions to job interviews, but I also wasn't keeping it secret. I think a lot of people misunderstand the anonymity concept that is the 2nd letter A, in AA, and treat it as some kind of secret society. My take on the spiritual tradition of anonymity Is that I'm not going to go tell everyone that I saw you there, your relationship to your recovery is personal and not for me to divulge to anyone.

If you've paid any attention to what I write, it should be clear that I don't intend to be anonymous. I hate that addiction is taboo to talk about, it's getting more acceptable but there is a long way to go. Society is failing a huge segment of the population with draconian measures of incarceration that do little to help anyone.

Check it out: addicts aren't just skid row junkies, or derelict winos under an overpass, they're your children, your brothers and sisters, they're the fuckinv captain of the high school football team. They aren't morally bankrupt, they're sick.

Addiction changes the whole structural makeup of the brain permanently, pickles don't become cucumbers again. It's a done deal, you just have to figure out how to live within your new neurological parameters. If I get a grip on it I'll let you know. I have a grip on it today, that's the best I can do.

I would get sober for a while, and forget about the winters on the street, the physical and mental pain and the trauma... I'd start bitching about my wifi not being 200 megs or some bullshit. That's no good, when you lose touch with your very real mortality, you forget there's a hole in your boat and you stop bailing water out.

So yeah, I think about death. I want to write a bunch of stuff in case I lose the fight, to leave mark. I'm afraid of myself, and nothing is guaranteed. I write about the bad times to have something to reference in case I get sober for a while and pissy about the line at Starbucks or something completely inconsequential- I almost died, I can wait for my triple espresso, I can live with HBO max buffering my chosen episode of the sopranos, it doesn't matter.

Obligatory fund raising advertisement:

[drakeramoraythedoctor]

best options trading subscription service South Carolina You also need a plan for when the market goes against your strategy, so that you don't make decisions because you're panicking.

best options trading subscription service South Carolina While it is certainly a wise thing to look towards the trading methods of a successful trader, duplicating the steps of the trader alone may not prove to be the best strategy. The reason for this is that there are other factors that go into the process of developing a trading strategy than just the execution of the trades. Personal factors will go into the development of a methodology. In some instances, there will be psychological factors that will be developed into the trading plans. Understanding such components is vital to exploring a trading method to make sure it is valuable to your goals. Actually, it would not hurt to explore your own psychological factors and facets prior to looking seriously at trading.

No, that is not said as a means of undermining anyone's motivation, morale, or desire. Rather, it is meant as a way of properly forecasting the management of your venture and assessing the risk of getting involved with options trading. You also need a plan for when the market goes against your strategy, so that you don't make decisions because you're panicking. Yes, trading in options needs to be looked from the perspective of managing a small business. When operating a small business, you need to assess the risk associated with a venture. You also need to assess the risks and potentials associated with the success or failure of the business. This same ideology needs to be put towards options trading. If you can honestly assess yourself as someone with the self discipline to follow through with a reliable options trading strategy, then you may very well be extremely successful with options trading. Also, how well can you handle losing trades? Are you able to handle losses and pick things up and start the process over again? If you are then you may very well embody the proper psychological makeup for succeeding with options trading. Those that cannot handle the pressure of the occasional loss would be better served looking towards another investing strategy. It has been said success starts with the right mental makeup. options trading how to South Carolina These are excellent options strategies but only if you trade them using a specific and definite stop loss point. Yes, most options trading beginners trade such unlimited loss potential credit spreads with stop loss points but most of them give in to emotion when it's time to stop loss and hold their positions beyond their stop loss points in hope that things will turn around, which most often, they never do. Professional options traders always trade unlimited loss potential positions with an AUTOMATED stop loss point. That's right, automated stop loss that works without human involvement. This can be in the form of a stop limit, contingent order or trailing stop loss order. As long as you do not have to physically execute the stop loss. Physically executed stop losses are stop losses that rarely gets executed. Remember that. Buying options with your whole account and trading unlimited loss potential options positions without stop loss points are the two main reasons most options beginners lose their shirt. Take heed of my advice here and you would go through your initial options trading years in much more safety. How to Learn Options TradingMost people think they can learn options trading the very same way they learnt stock trading, which is just buying an options on stocks they think will do well. It's just that simple isn't it? Well, the simplicity ends when they discover that there are not one kind of option but two and each kind of option has countless strike prices and expiration dates! That's right! They suddenly realize that there is much much more to options trading than stock trading. Yes, stock options are a totally different ball game from stock trading even through they are used for the very same purpose of profiting from moves that stocks make. Yes, the fact that you are presented with so many different strike prices and expiration dates instantly tells you that there is no way to just pick on and profit. Much less trying to learn by trial and error. Yes, trial and error is very expensive in options trading as you cannot hold on to a mistake like in stock trading forever hoping for a come back. Options expire so options don't give you the ability to hold on to your mistakes forever. So, what is the correct way to learn?To learn how to trade options, you need to first of all learn what call options and put options are. All optionable stocks come with both call options and put options. Call options allow you to buy a stock at a fixed price no matter what price the stock is and put options allow you to sell a stock at a fixed price no matter what price the stock is. This means that if you buy a call option and the price of the stock goes up, the call option would make a profit because you still have the right to buy at a price lower than the stock price.

spx options trading course South Carolina

However, when you buy call options on stocks that didn't eventually move up as expected, the call options can expire worthless by expiration, taking your WHOLE account with it if you bought those call options with all the money you had! This problem is made even more pronounced by the fact that options have a definite expiration date that goes from a few months to a year for some stocks but never forever. This means that you do not have the luxury of holding on to bad trades forever, hoping they will come back in a few years time. Professional options traders like me only enter a single position with money we can afford to lose. If I intend to lose no more than 10% of my account on any one trade, I do not use more than 10% of my account in a single trade. That's right, you NEVER buy a single options position or options contract with all the money you have! Although that would have made sense in stock trading, it is pure suicide and gamble in options trading. The other reason is trading credit spreads or naked option writing without using stop loss. Many options beginners were taken in by the apparent "free money" phenomena of writing naked options positions unaware that most of these credit strategies have unlimited loss potential. For instance, if you wrote call options (shorting call options), you would make a fixed premium in profit if the stock went downwards or sideways. Some "gurus" call this "playing bookmaker". Well, they are right that you are playing bookmaker to gamblers by selling options to them but they forgot to mention the fact that sometimes, gamblers win big too. When you write call options, your position will make an incrementally bigger loss as the stock price rises! It will continue to make bigger and bigger loss as long as the stock continues to rise.

m3 options trading system South Carolina These stories have no doubt cast a shadow over options trading and there are even people who now tout that options trading is as risky as futures trading. Well, strange thing is, after more than 15 years of trading options, I have never experienced losing all my money within a few days nor going bankrupt. This led me to wonder why these things happen to some options traders. After some investigation, I conclude that it is not options trading that breaks accounts but specific things some options traders tend to do, especially beginners, that opens the door to such financial disasters. I narrowed these reasons down to two main ones. The first of these is that some options traders trade options just like they trade stocks; buying call options with their whole account on that one "hot stock. "Yes, this is the number reason why most options beginners lose their shirt. Most beginners to options trading do with call options exactly what they do with stocks when they have a "hot tip"; throwing their whole account into that single "hot" trade. Now, this isn't that big a problem in stock trading because if the stock didn't move as expected, the trader could simply continue to hold the position until it does, sometimes for years. However, when you buy call options on stocks that didn't eventually move up as expected, the call options can expire worthless by expiration, taking your WHOLE account with it if you bought those call options with all the money you had! This problem is made even more pronounced by the fact that options have a definite expiration date that goes from a few months to a year for some stocks but never forever. This means that you do not have the luxury of holding on to bad trades forever, hoping they will come back in a few years time. Professional options traders like me only enter a single position with money we can afford to lose. If I intend to lose no more than 10% of my account on any one trade, I do not use more than 10% of my account in a single trade. That's right, you NEVER buy a single options position or options contract with all the money you have! Although that would have made sense in stock trading, it is pure suicide and gamble in options trading. The other reason is trading credit spreads or naked option writing without using stop loss. Many options beginners were taken in by the apparent "free money" phenomena of writing naked options positions unaware that most of these credit strategies have unlimited loss potential. For instance, if you wrote call options (shorting call options), you would make a fixed premium in profit if the stock went downwards or sideways. Some "gurus" call this "playing bookmaker". Well, they are right that you are playing bookmaker to gamblers by selling options to them but they forgot to mention the fact that sometimes, gamblers win big too. When you write call options, your position will make an incrementally bigger loss as the stock price rises! It will continue to make bigger and bigger loss as long as the stock continues to rise. This is what is known as an unlimited loss position. This loss is often, or always, much bigger than the premium you received from selling the options. Before you know it, your entire account is wiped out on this one trade because the stock refused to go down as you expected it to. Does that mean we should not trade credit spreads or naked writes ever again? Not really. These are excellent options strategies but only if you trade them using a specific and definite stop loss point. Yes, most options trading beginners trade such unlimited loss potential credit spreads with stop loss points but most of them give in to emotion when it's time to stop loss and hold their positions beyond their stop loss points in hope that things will turn around, which most often, they never do. Professional options traders always trade unlimited loss potential positions with an AUTOMATED stop loss point. That's right, automated stop loss that works without human involvement. This can be in the form of a stop limit, contingent order or trailing stop loss order. As long as you do not have to physically execute the stop loss. Physically executed stop losses are stop losses that rarely gets executed. Remember that. Buying options with your whole account and trading unlimited loss potential options positions without stop loss points are the two main reasons most options beginners lose their shirt. Take heed of my advice here and you would go through your initial options trading years in much more safety. How to Learn Options TradingMost people think they can learn options trading the very same way they learnt stock trading, which is just buying an options on stocks they think will do well. It's just that simple isn't it? Well, the simplicity ends when they discover that there are not one kind of option but two and each kind of option has countless strike prices and expiration dates! That's right! They suddenly realize that there is much much more to options trading than stock trading.

billy williams options trading course South Carolina So, unlike stock trading where you simply buy the stock when you think it will go up, options trading make you think one more step deeper into the possible degree of move in order to maximize profits.

1 options trading course South Carolina For instance, if you wrote call options (shorting call options), you would make a fixed premium in profit if the stock went downwards or sideways. Some "gurus" call this "playing bookmaker". Well, they are right that you are playing bookmaker to gamblers by selling options to them but they forgot to mention the fact that sometimes, gamblers win big too. When you write call options, your position will make an incrementally bigger loss as the stock price rises! It will continue to make bigger and bigger loss as long as the stock continues to rise. This is what is known as an unlimited loss position. This loss is often, or always, much bigger than the premium you received from selling the options. Before you know it, your entire account is wiped out on this one trade because the stock refused to go down as you expected it to. Does that mean we should not trade credit spreads or naked writes ever again? Not really. These are excellent options strategies but only if you trade them using a specific and definite stop loss point. Yes, most options trading beginners trade such unlimited loss potential credit spreads with stop loss points but most of them give in to emotion when it's time to stop loss and hold their positions beyond their stop loss points in hope that things will turn around, which most often, they never do. Professional options traders always trade unlimited loss potential positions with an AUTOMATED stop loss point.

This will certainly help promote your ability to discover the proper answer to whether or not you are cut out for options trading. How can you discover whether or not you have the mindset of an options trader? The first step involves honestly answering whether or not you are someone that possesses the discipline to be an options trader. Some may believe they have the discipline to succeed. However, believing you possess certain attributes to a specific degree and actually possessing those attributes to the proper degree are two completely different things. Knowing exactly where you stand in terms of your mindset and your levels of discipline will aid in boosting your chances of success. For example, someone who needs to keep fiddling with their account by buying and selling every few days isn't someone who should be investing in options! The commissions alone will eat you up. Similarly someone who like a lot of excitement in their trading should probably stay away from options. Having a quality options trading strategy is helpful. Putting the options trading strategy through to fruition is even more helpful. But, once again, there is a big difference in having the desire to follow such a process and actually following through with it. Those that are able to follow through with such steps may be limited in number.