#caveat to this also that “care a lot” doesn't equal “would be good at having a normal and nice relationship”

[convoloutedinjoke]

I think the thing that doesn't jive for me with J/H most of the time is that theres a lot of stuff where its made out like jean is ooooghghg Suffering because harry doesn't Care for him as much as he Cares for Harry and it rings really false to me. Harry would... care a lot? He would care very very much and in his own broken way try his best to express it? Maybe it wouldn't always come out right (see: the video game disco Elysium) but he wouldn't Not Care As Much. He would care. He would care so much it would be a major source of tension in whatever they'd call that whole situation, because (points at jean) unable to reciprocate even if he wanted to, which most of the time I doubt he does.

[jyndor]

Hi, saw your post on liberation movements and the ideology behind them - especially Palestine.

As a Ukrainian, you’ve had one of the most rational posts I’ve seen. It’s very disheartening to see the very same people and countries who rightfully call out Israel as a colonialist state which needs to be condemned simultaneously justify or overlook what Russia does to us, and has been for hundreds of years.

All liberation movements should be supported, and it should be of consistent standards. South Africa as you said, should bring Israel to justice, but it’s immoral for them to simultaneously engage in exercises and trade with Russia the same year Russia blockaded and starved Mariupol and raped and tortured women and children in Bucha.

Freedom to all people, from West Papua, to Myanmar to Palestine and Ukraine

Thank you, and I am sorry for what you are going through at the hands of Russia - anyone who denies Russian imperialism is wildly off base.

I've talked about the reasons why I think people who otherwise care about liberation in general are not as supportive of Ukraine as imo we all should be, and I think there's reason for the west to reflect on why it "cares" about Ukraine (the west does not really care about Ukrainians though ofc smdh) and not Palestine or Sudan or Congo or Armenia or West Papua etc etc etc, and it is obviously racism. but that does not mean Ukrainians are not fighting an imperialist aggressor. It is morally just for all to fight their occupiers and colonizers period.

now when it comes to less powerful/global south states aligning with Russia, Iran and/or China... this is where I'm going to kindly push back a tiny bit, or at least maybe give some perspective on this support even though I don't feel good about it and I don't like it lol.

A lot of these countries are getting aid and investment from Russia and China. It's neo-colonialism imo and no one has ever been able to convince me otherwise; sorry weirdos Russia and China (and to a lesser extent Iran) are not supporting these global south countries because they believe in anti-imperialism and resistance (lmao) but because they want to shore up support against the west amongst nations that have been oppressed and brutalized by the west. I'm not going to condemn them for accepting money and not wanting to sour relations with them.

I mean we could say the same about Ukraine accepting aid from the US and other European nations (all of which have that power and aid to give because of stolen wealth through colonialism, slavery and imperialism - and have had the most negative impact on the world). That CLEARLY has informed the government of Ukraine's support of Israel in the past few years, even with the caveats that I am aware that Ukraine's large Jewish population does tend to support zionism and Israel, and that of course there is a large Ukrainian population in Israel, as well as Zelenskyy personally supporting Israel. But in general that doesn't explain why Ukrainians support Israel at least according to the polling I've seen.

This Kyiv-based KIIS poll of just over 1000 Ukrainians from December is stark - 66% of ukrainians support Israel, 1% support Palestinians, 18% support both sides equally and 12% weren't sure. Now this poll or organization is clearly biased in favor of Israel, from this... interesting (lol) takeaway:

I mean obviously one poll is not really indicative of anything, but I'm not terribly surprised. This is why I stress the importance of liberatory politics, because anyone with eyes can see that Israel is the aggressor here, same as Russia in Ukraine. But I'm also gonna give some grace to people currently fighting off an aggressor of their own. Doesn't excuse it, I wish world leaders would be more consistent, but it is what it is.

I see more support from Palestinians to Ukrainians than vice versa, and of course there are Ukrainian Palestinians and Palestinian Ukrainians, and idk how they feel about the idiots discoursing on tumblr dot com but hopefully they don't bother with it lol. You all - Ukrainians, Palestinians - have way more important things to deal with and don't need us internet weirdos getting on you all about this shit.

The rest of us? We can and should reflect on why we support various liberation movements and not others. Everyone should be free - I don't care if Ukraine gets funding from a totally cancelable #problematic shithole country like the United States of Hell, I'm happy we are on the right side of this... and I'm furious that politicians here are trying to tie Ukraine aid to fucking Israel genocide money and so-called border security funding (although my understanding is that got dropped thanks to Republicans being unhinged lol thank god). I am not going to blame Ukrainians for being mad about the holdup here, but also... idk man it's a good thing Israel didn't get more aid, and it's very good that our stupid border hawks didn't get their way either. I think it would be horrible if Ukrainian liberation had the cost of aiding a genocide. And I hate that preventing more genocide aid to Israel in this case meant preventing Ukraine from getting aid.

Unfortunately geopolitics are very, very messy and every country that isn't a global power depends on powerful countries for something. It's not about morality. Which is why states suck and should be abolished lol but that's another topic for another day.

Thank you for sharing anon, sorry for being wordy. I would love to hear what you think about any of this or of course anything.

[greatwyrmgold]

I still haven't found/made time to watch the Spiderverse movies, but a lot of people had fun speculating about how Skitter might look as a spiderperson, so I decided to look up a list of Canon Events to figure out what Wildbow characters fit them best. According to the wiki, known Canon Events not associated with any specific character are:

Becoming an orphan or losing at least one parent or one loved one.

Being bitten by a radioactive spider or gaining spider-powers by another means.

Causing (directly or indirectly) the death of a loved one (ie., Ben Parker) early in their superhero career.

The death of a police captain close to them (ie., George Stacy).

Becoming bonded to a symbiote.

Separating from the symbiote, which becomes Venom.

The symbiote and spider-power stuff are Marvel gunk that's about equally sane to slap on any non-Marvel character, which leaves us with losing at least one parental figure, causing the death of a loved one, and the death of a police captain they care about.

The police captain thing is obviously going to be a problem if we take it literally, since the only named police captain/chief/etc across all of Wildbow's works is Laird. With that caveat in mind, let's get to theorizing!

Spider-Worm

Alright, hear me out: Spider-Bitch. Obviously, Rachel was taken from her mom at a young age, and we have no idea what happened to her dad. Close enough. And she felt guilt over her part in Rollo's death, so that could count. And as for the police captain stand-in...her last adoptive mother was a hell of a disciplinarian?

Alright, clearly we need to start with the "police captain" thing if we want that to be anything. IIRC, closest thing to a police captain who dies in Worm is the PRT captain who Coil shot before getting a vial. If Piggot liked him enough, that would qualify handily. And we know basically nothing about her life before Ellisburg, so sure, maybe she's an orphan and accidentally shot her aunt in a fight with a Master or something.

PRT Directors Calvert and Tagg are also kinda police-chief-y, but not great choices because they're both assholes with no friends. Maaaybe the Undersiders count as close to Coil, for a twisted version of the Canon Events? It's probably a good angle to take for Spider-Taylor, but not very strong on its own.

If we broaden the "police captain" to include leaders of superhero teams...well, surprisingly few of them die in Brockton Bay. Excluding bit-parts like Bastion, I think it's basically just Aegis and Alexandria? Alexandria doesn't have many friends, the ones she does have don't have any loved ones whose deaths they caused, and the ones who you could maybe argue something in there for would make boring spider-people. Oh wow, Contessa has her PtV and webs? What now?

Which leaves Aegis. The most obvious potential spider-people to care about his death would be his fellow Wards. The Brockton Bay Wards who are not known to have two living parents are Clockblocker, Shadow Stalker, and Aegis himself. Shadow Stalker is unlikely to care much about people she killed early in her superhero career unless it's, like, her little sister or something, and Clockblocker's confirmed parent is dying of cancer, so I'd say he fits better.

Bonus: Clockblocker is the most likely Brockton Bay resident to embrace Spidey's quippiness.

Spider-Pale

Lucy. She has a dead parent, there are plenty of people whose deaths she (and Avery and Verona) been unable to stop which weigh on them, and you could make a pretty compelling argument that John was the Kennet council's equivalent of a police captain.

It wouldn't surprise me if there was a side character who fit better, but Lucy is a main character and she fits better than most characters I'll be mentioning today.

Spider-Ward

The fun thing about Ward is that it's set after the apocalypse. Basically anyone without two parents confirmed alive could qualify if they get along with police officers and/or senior heroes.

Rain is probably the best choice. He's wracked by guilt for killing people during the mall fire, he's raised by his aunt and uncle, and he has so many powers that adding weak precognition and wall-climbing and stuff wouldn't seem out of place. The only problem is the police chief equivalent, but one of the Fallen officers can probably qualify.

Spider-Twig

...I can't think of any authorities who aren't either mad scientists or literal nobility. I guess you could pick an experiment, but I don't remember any who both die, have meaningful relationships with other people, and have the seniority to substitute for a police captain.

Spider-Pact

Laid is a police chief and he dies. Pick a Behaim, any Behaim. Chrono-Spider.

Conclusion

If you want to make Spider-Skitter, I don't think that's a bad idea. But there are plenty of other alternatives, from Bitch to Clockblocker to Precipice. And that's neat.

[soulventure91]

im kicking the door down for 🍋🍐and 💙 for the diric lore

oh god Diric lore from the jumbo asks oh boy oh BOY -|

🍋 Does your OC act petty and jealous easily? What sort of things make them feel like this and do they experience guilt for getting so worked up? How do they deal with these emotions when they get them? If your OC doesn’t feel like this often, why not? Okay SO. We know the answer to the first is relatively yes - the why is a bit tricky. Diric's jealousy often derives from seeing someone he cares about (and we're talking like. Devoted levels of caring, like to the level of only-missing-a-ring-and-vows, which is. a problem for him.) interacting with someone else Dir probably doesn't know as well or doesn't feel secure in himself to be around - and getting on with equal or greater ease that Dir usually feels when interacting with the person he's given his heart to. This is why he had to have a couple clarifying talks with Alar when Alar made his initial arrival because man did Alar rub Diric wrong those first few weeks ^^; To be honest if they talked some more, especially because Alar is the last of three party members with direct divine communication he hasn't talked to about his therapy, I think Diric would find a lot of respect and admiration for Alar. Probably he wouldn't reach the same levels of devoted but Diric would be more in line with figuring out maneuvers with Alar in mind like he has with Maahes. Diric absolutely has to be called out on his jealousy if it's spotted; otherwise he's going to sit on it and end up saying something really stupid as his invasive thoughts start going off. He'd be more guilty about what's said in that case, but not over the feelings that triggered the outburst. With his therapy stint, another thing he gets to work on is not getting jealous in general - doesn't help that he and Mio are still figuring out how to patch things up and Diric still has a severe case of heartbreak to parse through - which is part of why Diric still has self-isolating moments at present and also giving Maahes any space he might need (partly in the hopes Mio would come to him if he needed to vent - though overhearing Mio opening up to the others somewhat, while a good healthy move for Mio that Dir does, in his psyche, understand, makes Dir question exactly how much Mio does trust him - look, invasive thought spiral ay). To be honest Dir should not be self-isolating. Someone please just sit next to him.

🍐 What is your OC’s mentality? Are they overall positive? Negative? A bit of both? Describe their thought patterns and reasoning behind their choice making! Motive number one for any choice Diric makes: does this help me better protect those I care about? Protecting others is the focus of his mindset, period. To Diric's mind, if he can't protect the people he loves - even if those people are more than capable of protecting themselves! - that's a failure on himself. Combat encounters where he lags behind the others and is either put in danger or unable to get in a swipe before the party wipes out the enemy? He's failed. Trying to advise or be a listening ear but getting chided for doing that? He's failed. Venting his thoughts or trying to explain the weird broken bits of his brain and not feeling like he's been understood? Failed. It's very negative, not healthy, and why one part of his new promises to Bahamut includes the caveat of not at the expense of myself when it comes to extending himself protectively. Usually, motive two is the more selfish one: can I become stronger doing this? It was this motivation that spurred him into Blackthorn and then the Underdark. If Diric could look at Blackthorn and say 'no, being there again wouldn't help me or anyone', he wouldn't have pressed going. But because it put to rest some of his issues and he was able to grow personally and protect the party, overall Diric's choice was always going to be yes, return to Blackthorn. Even if he hated every second of it. But he'll refuse to go back unless Aislinn herself asks for him.

💙 What did your OC want to be when they grew up and why? Did they have any lifelong dreams or ambitions they never got to work on or are they currently working to achieve this dream? Has their life taken a very unexpected turn and put all these plans on hold for a while or have they given up on any dreams? This poor little boy all alone in his room surrounded by toy weapons and the equivalent of comic books and action figures only ever had one dream: to be important to someone and be recognized for himself. All he could dream of was being a soldier like Malarnur Duskblade and one day being strong enough to fight alongside him. Obviously Dir did get his wish of becoming a soldier, but when you're put in the unit of social outcasts and expected to die...yeah. Add on completely wrecking your first command operation and there was no way Diric was ever going to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with his childhood hero. Which came true for the most part since Diric killed the pit fiend possessing said childhood hero! But I think by that point he didn't...want the hero's celebration he'd once dreamed about. Which is part of why he doesn't want to ever go back to Blackthorn, even with now being fully Drow. He was there as an outsider, not as someone that earned his place. I think part of Diric still has that dream of mattering to someone; it's why he devoted himself so much to Mio, why part of him is so certain he'll find somewhere that wants him. Because if he knows the where, the who should come naturally. But if he can't find the where or the who, that could break Diric entirely. This little boy's dream is all he really has left holding his heart together.

[livebloggingmydescentintomadness]

Do you have any words of comfort for a middle child who also serves as the perpetually single backburner friend? Crying myself to sleep tonight feeling like I will never be deeply loved, loved equally, or belong anywhere without being always at least a little out of place... :( Thank you for being here, Momdad

aww honey, i'm so sorry. (and i'm sorry it took me a few days to answer you, i just haven't had the spoons.)

i'm not a middle child, i'm an only child, but that left me pretty lonely too. i was homeschooled and had a really hard time making friends. people would often say nice things about me but never actually want to spend time with me, and i went through almost my whole life until 17 without anyone i was truly close to.

but things change. you grow up, and you start to realize new things. you start to figure out that when people treat you shitty, it's either because they're shitty, you just aren't compatible, or they also have their own shit going on that you aren't seeing.

life is a lot more complicated than "everybody ignores me, nobody tries to love me, i'm not good enough." it's hard for me to put that realization into words, but i promise that it's true.

when other people treat you badly, it's usually because they're lashing out from a place of pain or insecurity. everyone has insecurities, especially the people who most pretend that they don't. some people turn their insecurities inward, some people turn them outward. and some people have been through trauma and they just don't know how to deal with it, and you pay the price for that.

i know i'm rambling a lot and it might not make sense, but let me just bottom line it here: when people treat you bad, it's because of them. it's not because of you.

sometimes gentler, softer people end up more frequently targeted for shitty treatment, but that doesn't mean there's something wrong with you, it just means you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. every time you get treated bad, it's because someone chose to treat you badly.

you deserve better than a friend group that ignores you - although, i do need to make one caveat to that. sometimes we stop reaching out to our friends because we want them to reach out to us first, and when they don't, we take it to mean they don't care about us. but honestly, that's not really fair. they might think that you not reaching out means you don't want to be contacted, or they might just be really busy or tired. i often think "oh i should message [friend]" but then i forget or have to do something else or i just don't have the emotional energy. sometimes i don't message because i feel guilty about not messaging.

so i think you should be wary of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by not trying to engage your friends. but if you DO try to engage them and they routinely ignore you? yeah, you deserve better friends. and it's okay for you to decide that these just aren't the people for you and move on.

i've been through a lot of lonely years, and to be honest i'm still lonely sometimes. but i have absolutely found better people who treat me well. and, just as importantly, i've learned how to better accept being by myself. i've learned how to better accept myself.

i don't know how old you are, sweetie, but i think you're probably younger than you think. you have a whole lot of time to grow up and find better people. i know that doesn't help with the loneliness today, but you can try not to put any blame on yourself. growing up and finding your place is hard, but it's not your fault that it's hard.

there's nothing wrong with you, honey. and while i know it sounds lame and unfulfilling, you can always give yourself love, attention, and a place to belong. you can always be there for you and put yourself first.

[secondwhisper]

Okay, so. The imminent overturning of Roe v Wade is a big fucking deal. And, there's been a lot of unwarranted fearmongering regarding the impacts that this decision will have on civil rights / sexual autonomy laws in the US.

I've seen people claiming that if (when) Roe is officially overturned, suddenly contraceptives, same-sex marriage, and interracial marriage will be on the chopping block. This is ... not really likely. The laws around these are pretty different.

Roe v Wade established the right to abortion (with fetal viability caveats) according to a reading of the 9th Amendment. This reading follows from Griswold v Connecticut. Griswold v Connecticut established a right to contraceptive use, following from a "penumbra" of privacy implied in the constitution. The (majority) opinion on Roe was heavily dependent upon the 9th Amendment, though (concurrent) opinions through readings of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment have been more influential in subsequent rulings. Griswold's privacy rights (per the majority opinion) are based instead on reading into the 5th Amendment, with the 9th Amendment and the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause being brought up in a concurrent opinion. This means that Griswold (and contraceptive legality) may suffer threats if Roe is truly overturned via critique to Due Process privacy, but Griswold (and contraceptive legality) has a broader foundation that will not disappear without one or more direct attacks after this one. Which are possible, but not immediately threatening. (Pre-Griswold, Katz v US established some rights to privacy based on the 4th Amendment, but this is less frequently invoked in later rulings, in part because it depends upon testing for a "reasonable expectation of privacy" rather than enumerating innate rights.)

Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage aren't based whatsoever in a right to privacy. They're based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (not Due Process). Same-sex marriage (Obergefell v Hodges and US v Windsor) is based on anti-sex-discrimination laws (14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause via Romer v Evans, note that this has been subject to some recent challenges, idr the case names sorry) and a fundamental human right to marriage (Loving v Virginia). Interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia) is based on anti-race-discrimination laws (14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause) and a fundamental human right to marriage. This fundamental human right to marriage, first enumerated in Loving v Virginia, has also formed the basis for rights for imprisoned people to be married (Turner v Safley, Zablocki v Redhail) and is pretty solidly established, though a direct challenge to it is possible and would be devastating. Overturning Roe doesn't provide that basis, though, since they've to do with different 14th Amendment clauses.

Medical privacy expectations actually have some legal backups beyond constitutional guarantees: HIPAA prevents healthcare institutions from sharing personally identifiable information. It doesn't cover voluntarily shared information by the patient. It also doesn't protect the doctors who practice criminalized care (eg abortions, trans youth HRT) in the event of Roe's overturning. Roe protects doctors almost more than it protects patients. Notably, HIPAA also applies only to medical information, whereas the precedent of Roe and similar cases has been foundational in, for example, voiding state anti-sodomy laws. So, yeah, Lawrence v Texas and similar rulings will be extremely at risk if (when) Roe is overturned.

Some states, like Connecticut, have proposed "safe state" laws, promising that they will refuse to extradite people who have undergone (or performed? Idr the exact wording) criminalized medical procedures and then fled to another state. This is good, but it's actually less enforceable than it sounds. Following Puerto Rico v Branstad, the federal government not only can but must enforce the interstate extradition provision found in the constitution. There's some room for further interpretation here regarding how this applies if the "crime" is committed by a person in another state, where the "crime" is not criminalized (eg a Texas resident travels to Connecticut to provide trans-affirming healthcare for their minor dependent), but... It would be a supreme court level case, and I have no optimism regarding their judgments on fugitives in any context.

Tldr: Roe being overturned will have disastrous consequences for abortion access. Contraceptive access is more open to future challenges, but is maintained for now. Doctors providing criminalized healthcare will have little to no recourse, though patients may find some small amount of safety in privacy provisions found in HIPAA. Anti-"sodomy" laws, and other laws restricting sexual freedoms, may become enforceable again. "Safe states" promising to harbor medical refugees (who face criminal charges for abortion, HRT, etc, in their home states) may not actually be able to provide these fugitives with safety. But marriage rights for interracial, imprisoned, and same-sex couples are not impacted!

[vidalinav]

ok but what are your thoughts on gendered baby outfits because I absolutely hate the headband bows people put on baby girls I think they’re ugly af and I swear I see them all over peoples insta and they make me so mad like I bet they’re annoying and they also look ugly and like are we that obsessed with gender we have to dress our girls up with pink and bows and flowers right away!? ugh sorry you don’t have to respond to this I just had to vent my hatred of bows

I'm not 100% gender-neutral express. I just don't like the overarching concept as that you go into parenting with a set of expectations that cater to specific gender norms in which the parenting style doesn't exist without those gender norms and would be remarkably different if the gender of the child was different.

So like girl dad from what I've seen sounds like oh this dad is going to do his little girls hair or play house or do those tea parties. He's going to beat up someone when they cry. A boyfriend or another. Some bully. He's going to be protective of their wellbeing, receptive to their emotions. Maybe he'll teach her how to fight to protect herself. Encourage more masculine things as father-daughter bonding. Blah blah blah blah. All of this is not so bad but it works under the caveat that a daughter will act as a daughter is expected to based on what the parent perceives. And unless this caring attitude is equally reflected in the opposite gender or a gender that doesn't exist without these norms, and unless it's as malleable as the child's personality, wants and wishes as they grow then... this is just a sucky parent. Because parenting is about raising an individual. Not raising a concept. You cannot separate a good, caring, attentive parent into genders without it inherently being based on the pre-conception of gender-based norms! That's why you can't be a girl dad or a boy mom. You can only be a sucky parent or a relatively good parent. That's it.

Parenting to me should be about raising an individual and not raising an expectation of a person. Expectations foster disappointment. There's a person behind that gender. The child is going to grow up to be whoever they are, and the parent influences but doesn't 100% determine who that child becomes. It's not a gender stamped on a forehead, with the underlying rule that if this child were another gender this parenting style, this attitude probably wouldn't exist, and if the child is anything but this gender than the parent would love them less.

That being said cutesy outfits are like... ehh. Babies don't have opinions (beyond the basic). I'm not bothered by pink rooms or blue rooms or bows or bow ties (if they baby isn't bothered or uncomfortable physically). A lot of it is trends. There's no reason pink should be a girl. Blue should mean a boy. White and cream should mean gender neutral. As if the lack of color means something. Bows shouldn't mean femininity ect.

I can't be bothered by it either, because they're not my children. Parents always will come in with a certain perception of their own roles as parent, as their own roles as whatever gender they present. I would hope that the child would eventually be able to decide for themselves about how they dress and what they like and how they are socially a part of their world, and the parent would be amenable to this, but of course that's not always the case. So as a Instagram trend, I'm like... ehhh. You do you. As a let's categorize people into girl dads and boy moms (or boy dads and girl moms) and let's raise kids catered to their gender specific norms, hard pass.

[hoaryoldbitch]

D*ny doesn't want to be judged by her father's actions, fine. How does she want to be judged by her actions now after that massacre? I can't believe some people rooted for her in that battle.

D@ny is evil, Anon, she killed Ed Sheeran…

Sorry, I just needed to make a joke to shake off some idiocy I’ve encountered today. I promise you’re getting a serious answer.

I already answered a similar question here.

Sadly, Anon, we’re not allowed to judge D@ny’s actions, because that makes us bad feminists and possibly even misogynists. D@ny is only being dragged for doing the exact same thing as all the men who came before her, just because she’s a woman, right?

Not really…

I’m not denying that there are people out there who are more critical of her because of her gender. But for me and for most other people I know who share my opinion, that’s not the case.

You see, it’s possible to love D@ny as the complex and interesting character she is, to admire her strength and her qualities, her accomplishments and her good intentions AND still acknowledge that she has done morally questionable things, horrible things even and that she might be a bad person.

I’d also like to address the point that D@ny is being judged more harshly for the same actions male characters have managed to get away with. This is not true, simply because we haven’t seen any other character murder people on such a large scale and in such a horrible way before. I think the outrage over the Field of Fire 2.0 is completely justified.

The only incidents which seem comparable are:

1. The Red Wedding. I’ve never seen anyone trying to justify it to be honest. Tywin tries to do so in-universe, but I’ve already explained why his logic fails.

2. Hardhome. The White Walkers aren’t even human. I’ve never seen anyone seriously rooting for them.

3. Cersei blowing up the Sept of Baelor. Though she didn’t kill as many people in one go as D@ny, I still believe she deserves an honourable mention here.

4. Tyrion using Wildfire to blow up Stannis’ ships. Even if he was somewhat more justified, because he was defending the city against an attack, his actions were still cruel and morally wrong. He killed a lot of people in a horrible way, helping his family to maintain their position of power, despite all their crimes.

People keep bringing up that D@ny is at war. True, but she’s the one who started that war. She’s invading a country and trying to conquer it. I just think her actions are showing that she’s not the right person to rule that country. I also don’t believe that winning the Iron Throne would make her happy, but I’m digressing.

Let’s focus on the argument at hand again:

D@ny has done morally questionable things, as have nearly all other characters on this show.

D@ny has done horrible things, as have many other characters on this show.

D@ny has done good things, as have many other characters on this show.

I think we can all acknowledge that, but where do we go from here?

First of all,  I think there is no point in trying to make a list of all the good and bad deeds a character has done in order to put them in a ranking from bad to worst. It’s not a competition and pointing out that other characters are equally as bad or worse doesn’t make your favourite any better. 

Similarly, fighting people who are worse than you doesn’t automatically make you a hero.  

Thirdly, the good doesn’t erase the bad, nor the other way around. Jon banishing Melisandre was the perfect example of this philosophy.

I would like to add a caveat though: if the balance is starting to tip in one direction, I do believe it’s time to question a character’s actions and the consequences of what they’re doing.

An argument I often see people use to defend D@ny, is that she has good intentions.  I believe she definitely used to, right now I’m not so certain anymore. But to be honest, I don’t care how good your intentions are if the result is that thousands of people die a horrible death because of them.

My judgement of D@ny is still the same: she was justified to move against the Lannisters after they’d attacked her allies. BUT the way she went about it was over the top, cruel and unnecessary. She could have spared more lives and she could have saved the supplies to feed her armies and the people she’s intent on ruling.