#from what i understand the other side does not have the moral highground either | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dreamteamfanblog · 3 years

Text

Me? Making another post disagreeing with a lot of Techno Apologist arguments? It’s more likely than you may think.

1.) “Techno was betrayed during the Manburg Vs Pogtopia war and then later by Tommy during their team up”

Techno joined Pogtopia knowing full well the plan was to take back L'manburg, nobody promised him anarchy, in fact they did the exact opposite? He knew the plan, Tommy outright asked what he'd do when they take it back and establish their new government and he said, and I quote, "we'll cross that bridge when we get there". Nobody betrayed him. If he thought they wouldn't do exactly what they said they'd do from before he joined them he's kidding himself. If anyone was dishonest it was Techno. He was open about being an anarchist but every time he suggested he'd turn against them it was played vaguely or as a joke, the withers were gathered behind their backs, he sabotaged their armour without them knowing before the sixteenth in anticipation of the battle because he knew they had plans to start a government, and while it could be inferred that he'd betray them, he never actually said he'd blow up their city, he kinda just said ominously vague things about being an anarchist and wouldn't elaborate on weather he was going to turn against them or not. It was very similar during Tommy's teamup with him, Tommy made it clear from day one he didn't want to hurt L'manburg or Tubbo in any way and Techno brushed him off, hid plans to blow up the nation, and decided they'd "cross that bridge later" despite Tommy's boundary being pretty clear, when Tommy enforced that boundary and stood with L'manburg that wasn't a betrayal either? Now I understand Techno feeling upset he couldn't change their minds, if he expected them to see things his way and switch sides I get why he'd feel disappointed they didn't, however them not changing their views to fit his isn't betrayal.

2.) “Tommy owed Techno loyalty, Techno would have fought the world for Tommy, and Techno was going to help him get back his discs!”

Tommy has never valued the discs over people. To suggest so contradicts the text blatantly. If Tommy valued the discs first and foremost he wouldn't have traded them to Dream for L'manburg's independence. If the discs came first Tommy wouldn't have promised to put them aside again before the exile to fight Dream. If the discs came first he wouldn't have turned against Techno- who agreed to help get his discs back- and let Tubbo hand away Mellohi. Tommy has consistently valued his nation, his friends, and general morality over the discs every time a choice is presented to him. Standing in the wreckage of L'manburg he even outright asked Dream; "Why didn't you just burn the discs? Why didn't you just hurt ME?" and sounded completely and utterly distraught that Dream didn't. And if i’m being real, Tommy didn’t owe him anything tbh, the idea that Techno helping Tommy out means Tommy is obligated to go against his morals and let innocent people be hurt/have their livelihoods destroyed because he owes Techno now is ludicrous. Love doesn't come with strings, the second it does it's not love at all, it's manipulation. The idea that "I love you and have helped you so don't get in my way when I hurt people and things you care about" is a fair argument just doesn't feel right to me at all. If Techno cared about Tommy he would have cared how deeply L'manburg and it's people mattered to Tommy. He would have cared about the boundaries Tommy set on what he did and didn't support. He wouldn't have attached conditions to his kindness. He didn’t love Tommy and Tommy doesn’t owe anything to a dangerous terrorist that doesn’t even care about him. Note the interaction when Tommy was trying to convince Techno not to do this because they're friends, when Techno voiced his concerns- "I'm a person, Tommy!"- and Tommy agreed readily "Yes, yes you are! But so are we!" Something Techno didn't agree with or acknowledge, only going on to talk over Tommy and dismiss him bitterly despite Tommy's attempts at communication. Plus during their time together Techno wasn't exactly the perfect friend either, was he? He openly refused to respect Tommy if the kid didn't subscribe to his worldview and consistently ignored Tommy's attempts to set boundaries with him as well as hiding the extent of his terrorism plans. Not to mention offering to hand Tommy over to Dream if Dream called in his favour. This all on top of the 'friendship' being conditional on if Tommy was willing to abandon all his other friends, his home of many years, and his moral compass for the sake of appeasing Techno. Ofc he chose L’manburg over Techno and the discs

3.) “Techno was right, the government was corrupt! Just look at the decision to exile Tommy and The Butcher Army!”

Lmanburg's government isn't corrupt. It isn’t what got Tommy exiled. Dream did. Dream unfairly forced Tommy's exile, threatening to hurt people, destroy homes, slaughter innocents if Tubbo didn't concede, Lmanburg's government wasn't to blame for Dream, a hostile foreign entity, exerting unfair control over a group of people with no means to defend themselves. L'manburg has always been about fighting tyranny, they formed specifically to break away from Dream and his delusions of grandeur because he was corrupt. Dream is wealthy and powerful, L'manburg is a union of disadvantaged individuals that don't wish to live under tyranny and bound together to have a chance at fighting off Dream's rule. And on the subject of The Butcher Army? Techno never told anybody in L'manburg he was retired. He blew up their country, promised he'd do it over and over again if they set up another government, then went off to hang out in the woods and didn't say anything to any of them after that. Not to mention that the fact that Techno says he won't do it again doesn't mean he won't- especially since he was still grinding wither heads in retirement- and that "I won't do it again I swear" would never hold up in real life for literally any crime, like, you still get sentenced weather you're planning to reoffend or not, especially since Techno didn't even actually communicate that he wouldn't reoffend.

I think Techno's worldview itself is flawed, I think him seeing a small democratic government which was formed as a union of disadvantaged individuals attempting to escape oppression but still being shoved around by Dream's tyranny and deciding that this democratic government was the problem and needed to be taken down rather than focusing on the root of corruption from the overarching dictatorship of Dream really highlights that his ideals are flawed, I think his willingness to destroy homes and lives for the hypothetical moral highground it may give him is delusional, I think him believing that leaving L'manburg in ruins and at the mercy of the actual dictatorship that originally oppressed it's people to the point of them needing to bind together in the first place is selfish, I think Techno is wealthy and powerful and on the top if the natural hierarchy so doesn't grasp that other's may need the help of a community or even organized government, I think Techno puts an ideal over real human lives and emotions, I think Techno's methods of achieving his flawed ideology are cruel, I think his apathy towards suffering he causes and certainty he knows what's best for people that have been disadvantaged by the system he's promoting in a way he'll never be is, again, ignorant, I think his sense of entitlement towards understanding and coddling and loyalty from others when he attaches strings to his own love or loyalty is incredibly hypocritical, and I think his excuses are bullshit, quite frankly.

#long post #dream smp discourse #dream smp #mcyt

38 notes · View notes

asagimeta · 6 years

Text

Ok so do any Prideshipping fans know Julia Michaels' "Issues"? Because I need an AMV for that like AIR (I'll do a fic to correspond to it even) And you know, until I started this post, I didn't really get WHY I liked that song for Prideshipping because it, on the surface, doesn't really sound like much of a Prideshipping song? And then I started TALKING about it and it became an analysis

(Warning: Image heavy under the cut)

I feel like, maybe, the first verse is closer to describing Atem, and the second is closer to describing Kaiba, atleast from a video perspective (as an entirety each lyric is pretty hit-or-miss in my totally honest opinion but there's something about the tone and the idea of a lack of judging because they're sort of in the same boat that makes me feel very Prideshippy, I feel like that's one thing that's less overtly stated but shown fairly often, no matter how much they might bicker or jab at eachother- but ofcourse realizing that Kaiba jabs at everyone is part of it- there always felt to me like there was a level of understanding between them that they didn't really have with other people, maybe it's dueling, maybe it's the drive to win, maybe it's feeling alone and out of place, maybe it's all of this or none of it or some of it and some other things, but I just feel like any "judgement" between them would be boiled down to the most eye-rollingly petty things in the universe "You played THAT card? lol ok" "Still don't know why you hang around with the dork patrol but ok if you want to lower your standards go ahead" that kind of crap, but at the end of the day, when it comes to anything even remotely serious, even if they aren't actually on the same page about something, they understand the other's motivation well enough to go "Ok, this isn't how I would handle it and I'd like to show you my perspective, but I'm not going to hold your way of doing things against you"

Neither of them are perfect and in fact they both have some pretty deep-seeded crap that would probably make it difficult to develop any real relationship with someone who's out of the emotional loop, it'd be impossible- certainly- for either of them to be with someone who's a judgemental or righteous person, wich, despite Kaiba's quickness to criticize and Atem's increasingly high moral standard (I say "increasingly high" because there was, ofcourse, a time, when he was easily as ruthless as Kaiba in his own way- season zero- and remember that even in Duel Monsters he was much more willing early on to let the moral scales tip out of balance for the sake of his personal loved ones, mostly Yugi) I don't think either of them are actually as judgemental as they are defensive, in particular because they both seem much quicker to let their criticisms slide or let them go completely when it involves someone they have a connection to (all of Kaiba's crabbiness about relationships holding people down fly out the window when it comes to Mokuba, and as much as Atem tries to take the moral highground, I very honestly believe that if Yugi ever came to him like "I killed a dude" his bigger concern would be hiding the body vs his partner facing any real consequences, for example) and in particular they seem to let alot of their typical judgements go when it comes to eachother, only ever snipping or snapping here or there but never seeming to hold any longterm grudges or judgements, something that others definitely don't subscribe to

But I've rambled on long enough about this and I just want to propose to you guys:

(bold = applicable)

I'm jealous, I'm overzealous

When I'm down I get real down

(this is something we actually see multiple instances of, Atem has a tendency to get held down very easily by his thoughts, be they actual sadness/depression/upset like after he lost Yugi, or just a more quiet melancholy like when he went on the date with Tea`, he doesn't come out of his head very easily)

When I get high I don't come down

I get angry, baby believe me

I could love you just like that, and I could leave you just as fast

(Not seriously, but it'd be very fitting for a video)

But you don't judge me, 'cause if you did baby I would judge you too No you don't judge me, 'cause if you did baby I would judge you too

'Cause I've got issues But you've got 'em too So give 'em all to me And I'll give mine to you Bask in the glory Of all our problems 'Cause we got the kind of love It takes to solve 'em Yeah, I got issues And one of them is how bad I need you

(I couldn't find a picture from this episode of Kaiba, but he was the one who ultimately reinspired Atem to win the duel, he gave Atem a very much needed push)

You do shit on purpose

(Couldn't find a good anime image but it's essentially the same idea here; Kaiba is a classic example of self-sabotage, there's no actual reason for him to be so callous when he and Atem are on the same side, and even if he was using Atem as he said, telling him that was actually counter-productive, Atem would have been much more pliable if he was under the impression that Kaiba was going along with things as a "freind", by telling Atem "I'm using you, we aren't freinds, I'M USING YOU!" he's exposing his strategy and opening himself up for the opportunity to let Atem do the same thing to him- not to mention giving unnecessary ammo to their opponents, someone as smart, strategical, cunning, and honestly manipulative, as Kaiba should know that- he DOES know that, so why tell Atem if he isn't self-sabotaging? Maybe not trying to sabotage the duel, but certainly trying to sabotage a relationship that he's afraid is developing too affectionately, his goal in the beginning of this duel was to hurt Atem, even if it meant risking losing the duel, because it was- in his mind- alot more dangerous to let Atem get too close than it was to lose, this is really classic behavior for Kaiba, we see it often in the series that whenever /anyone/ starts to get close- Atem, Joey, Yugi, the only real exception is Mokuba- he's quick to do something to piss the other person off- or atleast try to, insult them, go overkill in a duel, scream at them, etc, he does this LONG after they stop being a "threat", there's no reason for it other than to sheild himself)

You get mad and you break things

(This was pretty fucking extra even for Kaiba, and we've seen him destroy property out of irritation/anger/believing it to be inferior/what have you)

Feel bad, try to fix things

("I don't like owing people things" = "You helped me even though I was a real jackass so now I'm going out of my way to help you too even though I don't *have* to")

But you're perfect, poorly wired circuit

Got hands like an ocean, push you out pull you back in

(He's got nice hands ok?)

'Cause you don't judge me 'Cause if you did, baby, I would judge you too No, you don't judge me 'Cause you see it from same point of view 'Cause I got issues But you got 'em too So give 'em all to me And I'll give mine to you Bask in the glory Of all our problems 'Cause we got the kind of love It takes to solve 'em Yeah, I got issues And one of them is how bad I need you

(He made a freaking holographic replica for god’s sake)

And so on and so forth

Anyway, this started as "I really want someone to make a video for this song" and became "Some Prideshipping thoughts that I wanted to express" and sorry?

#Yugioh #Yu-Ggi-Ooh #Prideshipping #Atem #Seto Kaiba

12 notes · View notes

37h4n0l · 7 years

Text

Dear Tumblr, please learn how to be a bad person - a Rant(tm)

Let's get this out of the way; I'm not gonna tell you what 'good' and 'bad' are. My point is, in fact, that I have no authority to tell you.

[rant under the cut]

Now, just so I can avoid making this entire rant about subjective morality - which I could discuss for ages, just not now - I'll bring up a point about it and then we'll be able to start from a common ground, at least. So, any kind of moral law is arbitrary for the simple reason that you cannot explain where it comes from (or, you could, to be precise, but doing so would only reveal how changeable it really is). There's an argument about tracing morality's origin back to biology, maybe the most convincing one out of all, but that's not the one an average person would use to explain their beliefs on what is right or wrong. Some would bring God into the picture, others would claim that they simply know because it's part of human nature and those who don't are just deviants or evil. It has me dumbfounded sometimes how little rigor we apply in our reasoning on something this basic. 'I simply know' is not an argument, and after a few more 'why?'s it all leads back to instincts of protecting our own species and other impulses overriding each other to different extents depending on the situation. This, however, completely defies the 'higher meaning' one would assume our moral values have and also makes them occasionally dismissible when they go against logic or long-time planning, in much the same way we do, for example, with hunger when we see someone else having a meal and resist the urge to violently try and snatch away whatever they are eating.

Now that we have established the foundation, let's see where it leads us and how we can discuss the concept of immorality in this context. Firstly and most importantly, these values having no logical basis and being mere instincts implies that what is 'right' or 'wrong' can vary significantly, which I'm sure no one would find shocking. But the step that follows is that there is no limit to how much these concepts can shift. Take any act you would find reprehensible - let's say, killing, just to make it simple - and now tell me which is worse between killing one person or killing five. By the usual reasoning of 'every human life is worth the same', we can assume that most people would say five. And there we go, killing one person is suddenly 'right' in the technical sense. Now you might roll your eyes at me and say that both options involved an immoral act, so obviously, committing said act multiple times is going to be 'more wrong'. What if you had to choose between one pregnant mother and five nazis? I'll say more; what about being convinced that the people you kill are going to Heaven and live an eternal, happy life there instead of this earthly existence full of suffering? A well-trained nitpicker will always be able to come up with a situation in which whatever you claim to be bad is not; a fun game to play, albeit tiring after some time.

It follows naturally, that anything we do we think is a good act might happen to be considered bad by someone else. Yes, there are things that are statistically more likely to be seen as reprehensible, but those are, again, decided instinctively. The reverse might also be true; or, in general, any kind of act has a possibility of being perceived as either good or bad. What does being a 'bad person' mean then, after all of this? If we define it as someone who has committed a relatively large amount of 'bad' acts (or 'one big bad act'), then we have to remember how everything they did, which we classified as 'wrong', could potentially be considered good. Most of the time, in fact, the person committing such things thinks they are in the right. They might have enough awareness to see the problems others could have with their actions, but then again, 'the ends justify the means' comes very handy sometimes. Crimes and sins are nothing more than acts of egoism that hurt just the right amount of people; which is a vast generalization, as the reality of war would have us understand. Precisely because morality varies so much on a case-by-case basis, we keep overstepping our principles constantly, with or without realizing it.

Human society has made an attempt at building up a common code of ethics out of convenience. It's not perfect, but it works most of the time. It's also easier to cram into people's heads by connecting it to morality (note that I don't use the terms 'morality' and 'ethics' interchangeably; the first one refers to the abstract principles, the second to the practice); after all, it feels better to abide by laws if it makes you think of yourself as a good person. In fact, many social interactions and expressed opinions are part of our striving to 'be good' or being seen as it. We could go as far as saying there's no difference between goodness and its appearance since no one will ever truly know our intent and the entire concept, in and of itself, relies on altruism and being in line with the unspoken rules of a presumed objective moral system. Humans can go incredibly far for the sole purpose of making a good impression, even far enough to bend the rules they are trying to adhere to in the first place. One principle compromises another, and this chaotic process - denominated as virtue signalling - comes crumbling down on itself if taken to the extreme, revealing it as what it's always been, at its core: yet another act of egoism. The need to 'be good' is no more noble or worthy than the need to eat, sleep or drink.

So why am I making a post about this on Tumblr, you may ask. What does this have to do with this website? A lot, actually. Tumblr is basically the haven of virtue signalling, even the site's structure and functionalities facilitate this. I doubt it was an intentional decision (after all, it did backfire on David Karp in the past, with people demonizing him as a 'cis white man'), but it turned out this way now and there's no going back. The way dashboard is built makes it easy to spread any kind of content very quickly, while a highly customizable personal blog gives the false impression of a private sphere, despite even the most intimate kind of content being searchable by keywords on the main page. It started attracting a type of person more prone to this competition in showing off who's more morally righteous, and it's been a vicious circle since then.

The point I am trying to get to is that many people - especially here, on Tumblr - have become so obsessed with 'being good' that they fail to see how some of their actions to achieve this are vile and underhanded from others' point of view, enough to outweigh the help they offer to a community of their choice. With this comes a stubbornness that serves to justify whatever they do; 'they are doing this for the greater good, after all'. It's a strong as steel conviction to help them ignore their own aspects which could be considered 'bad' and keep living under the illusion that they can do no wrong and aren't hurting anyone. Yes, I'm talking about cutesy bloggers with pastel-coloured themes who participate in callouts and throw the harshest insults at whoever has a different view, dismissing any reaction to their behaviour as 'hate' or an exaggerated offense taken at their obviously perfect opinions. I'm talking about the teenagers (or sometimes people in their twenties) who consider targeted abuse 'sassy' and 'radical' just because their own kind bombards them with positive feedback for it in a fashion statement-style circlejerk, those who will call you a pedophile (an accusation potentially enough to ruin someone's career and social reputation) and get back to aesthetic blogging five minutes later with no qualms.

There's a sort of moral perfectionism in the Tumblr mindset. Hell, it's there in everyday life, even, but it's more accentuated on this site. It's an expectation of always being righteous and unquestionable. No matter how repugnant a person's views are, they'll be looked down upon more for apologizing than not doing it - because an apology is, besides an exposed weakness, basically a warranty to be mistreated. Despite the alleged moral highground the niche radicals on Tumblr would want you to think they have, there's not an ounce of empathy in them for another human being when they perceive the person as an enemy. Show them that you're sorry and you regret disagreeing with them or attacking them, and they'll turn you into a punching bag within the span of minutes. Becoming a target is part of the deal for them, something you have to put up with if you haven't been on their side from the start. The justification? 'The rightful anger of the oppressed', or something like that. It never occurs to them that you're more than a demographic, that you're a person with thoughts and feelings just like them who's made a big compromise in their favour.

This necessity for absolute purity is what makes the linch mob think it's right to pull out things someone said several years ago and use them against the person. Once you're tainted, it's forever; whatever you do, you won't wash it off. The only hope for redemption is starting a new account and denying links to the 'dark past'. Once someone starts with the assumption that they are part of the 'clean' ones, on the other hand, it becomes hard to convince them they have made mistakes. In this absence of self-awareness, the only thing that counts is the feedback; and as long as the majority is too afraid to contradict the justice blogger in question, they will proceed with their mistreatment of others. But does the guilt ever kick in? Well, yes, but there are easy ways to completely dismiss it, the most common being mental illness. You might have noticed that many Tumblr users are 'self-diagnosed' with even five or six psychological disorders (which - let's be real - if it were true would cause a massive impediment in everyday functioning). Whenever you do something you know is going to hurt another person, you can simply deny your agency in the situation and claim you're suffering more than them anyway because of your problems - two birds with one stone.

Perhaps the biggest problem with this behaviour - besides being massively damaging for the perpetuator's mental health itself - is the inability to accept being a bad person. Negative things are a part of life, as is acting in cruel and despicable ways from time to time. There is nobody so pure as to have never done something wrong; this is easy to see from what I've explained about the moral perception of actions at the beginning. And I'll dare to say that everyone has to have at least that small amount of self-awareness required to recognize this, even if subconsciously. But it appears that we live in a culture where it's now more fashionable to push these insecurities and regrets in the back of your mind and simply pretend that you've always been right, no matter how many mental gymnastics are required to prove it. Instead of letting people accept some actions as (even a 'necessary') bad, the Tumblr subculture encourages you to instead see them as good deeds. It seems like an insignificant distinction, but trust me, it changes the common mindset radically. And here I share some advice based on both firsthand and secondhand personal experience, as well as extrapolations from what I've said above.

1) This is an extremely common talking point and it has popped up in numerous controversies regarding the Tumblr-mindset; do not apologize. Again, you achieve nothing with this, except for giving up your own dignity. You don't have to compromise with people who are deliberately attacking you, and turning it into a civil debate - something I have personally tried to do multiple times - is impossible. These people don't and will never see you as a friend or even a neutral entity. They're there to bring you down and they will abuse of every opportunity to do so. Stand up for yourself, don't crawl back. If you do, you're feeding the same mentality they have succumbed to by trying to show them that you really are a good person, something they will never believe.

2) It's alright to be 'bad'. Firstly, because morality is subjective, but that's besides the point. Everyone has acted in immoral ways at least once and we all know it; hiding it is futile and disingenuous. Don't be afraid to lose friends or ruin your public image, because, believe me, everyone has the same problem. No one is pure. Do what you want to do and spend time with people who accept it - those who don't are not worth your time. But own up to it. Admit it. Come to terms with the fact that it's part of your personality.

3) 'Don't sink to their levels' is good advice in some situations, but not all of them. You're not ascending to a higher ground by becoming a martyr and a victim. I could go into an entire rant about how we're still suffering the subtle influences of Christian morality despite not being in a situation where it's suitable and adequate - it started out as a coping mentality for a persecuted sect, which Tumblr users definitely aren't - but the main point is that you don't have to turn the other cheek. Someone is setting up an entire group of people to go after you? Who's going to blame you if you do the same right back at them? Don't police yourself if the other side refuses to.

Ultimately, we're all horrible, corrupt, petty and hateful - in some circumstances and from certain points of view. If someone says they're not... Well, they're lying. Don't let the perfectionism ruin you; it's nothing but a tool for other people to vent their frustration on you and feel more righteous. Do your good things, do your bad things, know them for what they are and let others do the same. I hope this came through.

#the discourse #rambles #fandom culture #subjective morality #social justice #jocial sustice #rant

27 notes · View notes