#i find that morally wrong

[lgbtlunaverse]

The women Jin Guangyao uses to kill Jin Guangshan are NOT from the brothel he grew up in

Except for Sisi, obviously.

But, crucially, Sisi MOVED brothels after her face got slashed.

That's why Jin Guangyao only recognized her after Jin Guangshan was already dead. If he had sourced the women from the brothel he grew up in, you think he wouldn't have made sure beforehand that they wouldn't include the one woman who was explicitly nice to him and his mother? He couldn't bear to kill her even after she was already a witness, but that meant he had to imprison her instead. Not exactly an ideal scenario! You think he wouldn't have thought to avoid that?

Well, that's all hypothetical anyway, because he couldn't have sourced anyone from the brothel he grew up in anyway, because that brothel had already been burnt down. By Jin Guangyao! This is the order he gives Xue Yang at the end of the villainous friends extra, which also contains Xue Yang meeting Xiao Xingchen and Song Lan. Which means this is way before Xue Yang kills the Chang clan, Xiao Xingchen eventually catches him, and Nie Mingjue kicks Jin Guangyao down the stairs which leads to his death 2 months later. And Jin Guangshan doesn't die until after Nie Mingjue is already dead, so while this is definitely where Jin Guangyao starts planning to kill his father, it's well before he actually executed that plan. By the time he does, that brothel is ash.

I say this because there's been several time now where I've seen people attribute Jin Guangyao using sex workers to kill his father, and killing them aferwards, to some kind of revenge scheme? A way to get back at the other women in the brothel who mistreated his mom at the same time as he gets back at his father. But all those women died when it burned to the ground. We see their ghosts in guangyin temple! Every single woman Jin Guangyao uses to kill his father and then later executes was a complete stranger to him. It has nothing to do with who they are and everything to do with what they are (older 'ugly' sex workers) Whether you think that makes his actions worse or better or generally has no moral impact i'll leave up to you. But it's important to remember that while the violence he enacts on his father is deeply personal, what he does to the sex workers is not.

[canisalbus]

To me, Machete kind of has the energy of a secondary villain/coldhearted side character in someone else's story that a lot of fans latch onto, moreso than the protagonist. Question is, would he be the villain in anyone's story?

Why, thank you! I'm actually glad to hear he gives off that vibe. I don't think he set out to become a villain but a lot of people certainly view him as one.

[anghraine]

It's interesting (if often frustrating) to see the renewed Orc Discourse after the last few episodes of ROP. I've seen arguments that orcs have to be personifications of evil rather than people as such or else the ethics of our heroes' approach to them becomes much more fraught. Tolkien's work, as written, seems an odd choice to me for not wrangling with difficult questions, and of course, more diehard fans are going to immediately bring up Shagrat and Gorbag.

If you haven't read LOTR recently, Shagrat and Gorbag are two orcs who briefly have a conversation about how they're being screwed over by Sauron but have no other real options, about their opinions of mistakes that have been made, that they think Sauron himself has made one, but it's not safe to discuss because Sauron has spies in their own ranks. They reminisce about better times when they had more freedom and fantasize about a future when they can go elsewhere and set up a small-scale banditry operation rather than being involved in this huge-scale war. Eventually, however, they end up turning on each other.

Basically any time that someone brings up the "humanity" of this conversation, someone else will point out that they're still bad people. They're not at all guilty about what they're part of. They just resent the dangers to themselves, the pressure from above, failures of competence, the surveillance they're under, and their lack of realistic alternative options. The dream of another life mentioned in the conversation is still one of preying on innocent people, just on a much smaller and more immediate scale, etc.

I think this misses the reason it keeps getting brought up, though. The point is not that Shagrat and Gorbag are good people. The point is that they are people.

There's something very normal and recognizable about their resentment of their superiors, their fears of reprisal and betrayal that ultimately are realized, their dislike of this kind of industrial war machine that erases their individual work and contributions, the tinge of wistfulness in their hope of escape into a different kind of life. Their dialect is deliberately "common"—and there's a lot more to say about that and the fact that it's another commoner, Sam, who outwits them—but one of the main effects is to make them sound familiar and ordinary. And it's interesting that one of the points they specifically raise is that they're not going to get better treatment from "the good guys" so they can't defect, either.

This is self-interested, yes, but it's not the self-interest of some mystical being or spirit or whatnot, but of people.

Tolkien's later remarks tend to back this up. He said that female orcs do exist, but are rarely seen in the story because the characters only interact with the all-male warrior class of orcs. Whatever female orcs "do," it isn't going to war. Maybe they do a lot of the agricultural work that is apparently happening in distant parts of Mordor, maybe they are chiefly responsible for young orcs, maybe both and/or something else, we don't know. But we know they're out there and we know that they reproduce sexually and we know that they're not part of the orcish warrior class.

Regardless of all the problems with this, the idea that orcs have a gender-restricted warrior class at all and we're just not seeing any of their other classes because of where the story is set doesn't sound like automatons of evil. It sounds like an actual culture of people that we only see along the fringes.

And this whole matter of "but if they're people, we have to think about ethics, so they can't be people" is a weird circular argument that cannot account for what's in LOTR or for much of what Tolkien said afterwards. Yes, he struggled with The Problem of Orcs and how to reconcile it with his world building and his ethical system, but "maybe they're not people" is ultimately not a workable solution as far as LOTR goes and can't even account for much of the later evolution of his ideas, including explicit statements in his letters.

And in the end, the real response that comes to mind to that circular argument is "maybe you should think about ethics more."

[iwasbored777]

The criticism that I've seen that Gwiles/Ghostflower receives that they "are only so connected bc they're both spiders" is silly cuz idk how to break it to ya but that's the whole point.

The point of the first movie and the reason why Spider Gang got so attached to each other so quickly is cuz they thought they were going through all of their struggles alone until they've met. They repeat this several times in the movie.

Because what they're doing is hard and they feel like no one understands them, not really, because no one in their universes has the same powers and backstories, until they found out that there are others who went through basically the same things they were going through. And it is what brought the whole team closer, and Miles and Gwen as love interests. It's not that they're only attracted to each other because of that - Miles and Gwen even started getting along before they knew about each other's powers - but that was exactly what made them (I'm talking about the whole team now as well as M and G as a potential couple) so considerate of each other from the start.

That's the plot (or one of many plots) of the movie.

[captainhysunstuff]

22 more images below the cut (Warning: Less than moral discussion ahead):

Light leads L to a particular stretch of woods that he calls "neutral ground" and demands to hear L's conditions for him to work with Kira. L tries to explain in a way that will convince Light to accept his assistance. It appears to be successful...

Next

Previous

First

Master List

Transcript

Big Disclaimer here: I, personally, don't condone the "Kira Plan" in any way, shape, or form. I don't even believe that there is a "correct" way to enact it. I am very firmly on the "Anti-Kira" and "Light is a Tragic Character with Bad Coping Mechanisms/Self Delusion" teams. I don't want to spoil too much of what's left of this story, but I do have a plan/explanation in the future~.

[sparring-spirals]

help i was raising a fun little terrarium of isopods in a little corner of my room and then my shit sibling came in and fucked everything up and now my isoposds have unionized and are building a isopod technology nuclear bomb (malleus key) to come kill us :(

[strawglicks]

my recent post abt ttcc fandom had a lot of ppl mentioning the demonization of toons and glorification of the cogs and it got me thinking about how, just because the cogs have fun lore and are fun characters, it seems people suddenly think they have to be morally good and in the right for them to enjoy the characters.

you can acknowledge the cogs are bad and still like their characters. (this doesnt mean every cog is just flat evil with no substance to their character, bc that is ALSO an annoying misunderstanding) the cogs dont have to be morally right for you to like them as characters!

and its totally ok to like the cogs more than toons. it doesnt mean you support their takeover of the land lol. you can enjoy characters while acknowledging their actions are bad. i personally cannot get too invested in the toons myself, but i can acknowledge their land is being colonized and they are right to fight back. just bc the cogs are your blorbos doesnt mean they dont deserve the comeuppance theyre getting. misty had that piano coming, even if her intentions approaching barnacle bessie werent malicious

[profounddefendorcrusade-blog]

Clover's personality (in-depth)

This thing turned out way longer than intended. As promised, I wrote my opinions in regards to Clover's mbti; I also wanted to include the enneagram but figured it would be too much, so I'll do that separaretly. For those who wanna get straight to the point, just scroll to the end of the post for a pic of the functions I think Clover has. But if you want more details, read the whole thing. Probably not many people will wanna do that, but I had fun, lol. Please excuse me for nerding out

Analysis

Even before they got into the Underground, Clover thought to themselves "Ok, this is a dangerous mountain and I ain't coming back, I'm probably gonna die and therefore not live to see the rest of my life play out BUT I'm gonna follow my values anyway. They're worth the risk." To me, right off the bat, that's Fi over Ti (aka inner values and morals over inner facts and logic).

I've done some research on this stuff and found out how "Fi knows the value of something not by analyzing it but by feeling it deep inside themselves that it is how it should be" Ti has to be as objective as possible, Fi doesn't. So I sat down and thought about how exactly Clover approached situations.

I feel like their main reasoning for being in the Underground were their inner values and beliefs of finding out what happened to the children. That's why I'd say they're an introvert rather than an extrovert (it's not because they're quiet and reserved, although they are, but because Clover's inner world affects their outer world). Now, both Ti and Fi look inward, and those inner thoughts and feelings affect how they interact with the external world. The real question is: is Clover objective enough to be considered a dominant Ti user?

We can see in the Vengeance route that Clover is stubborn with their beliefs and refuses to look at things from a more... logical POV: "Asgore killed five humans. Is it fair to wipe out every other monster in my way who gives me even the slightest reason to do it?" Martlet was the only exception because she was the only one who had tried to be nice and understanding. Clover's dark side is that they're tunnel-visioned and see morality as black and white (don't look deeper as to WHY the monsters do what they do), and blindly follow their own beliefs over what objectively makes sense. Just like Ceroba, who I'm positive is a feeler (she only considers how she felt about Chujin and not how skilled of an engineer he actually was, even when there's clear proof he wasn't the best at his job). 

Objectively, it's not fair to kill so many monsters after only five humans were killed. If Clover wanted fair vengeance, they would have stopped after five monsters were killed. But no. According to Clover's own logic, everyone morally imperfect, everyone who's hurt them, who tried to hurt them, or messed up somehow, must die. So, Clover isn't thinking about what makes sense; they're thinking about what makes sense to THEM, and stubbornly hold onto that till the end (again, like Ceroba), even after Martlet's warnings. She says how the Royal Guard will be after them.

The logical (T) thing to do would be to STOP before things become even messier, but once again, no. Clover doesn't care about the consequences, only fulfilling their mission that is driven by their own set of values. No matter which route you choose, you will be presented with Clover's own version of what "justice" means. It's not the objective truth, it's not what's the logical thing to do; they follow their own framework based on their (our) choices.

"If unhealthy INFPs are dealing with threatened values or viewpoints that oppose their own, they can go the other way and imagine that others are all corrupt, thinking badly of them, and deluded. They may see themselves as the only people who see “the truth”, or the only people who really care to make a difference in the world. They can become especially harsh and critical of others and take on a martyr role, gradually secluding themselves from other people". - this feels like geno Clover; they thought they were the hero but they were playing the villain all along

Now that I think about it, the logical thing to do, the one that makes the most sense, would be never to have entered Mt. Ebott in the first place. And if vengeance was what Clover wanted to do, it is fair and makes objective sense to kill only five monsters (since that's how many humans died). But as explained, Clover didn't follow that logical conclusion, but rather their own twisted sense of justice. The same goes for neutral. It's Clover who chooses who gets to live and who gets to die based on their own beliefs and feelings, which are not backed up by facts. Everything they do they do because they themselves feel like it should be done. They are the one who decide who gets to live and who doesn't based on their own opinion/how severe they think the misdeed of the final boss is. This counts for the regular monsters who attack them, too; again, THEIR own subjective decision.

For example, they might see Dalv's actions as acceptable/forgiveable and spare him, but not Starlo's and kill him. Objectively, both characters are messy in their own way, but Clover gets to be the "judge" and decide their fate, not objectively looking at the situation, but subjectively. In short, according to them, Dalv may deserve to live, but not Starlo. 

And even if they're a dominant Ti user, which I don't think they are, Clover is more past and future-oriented than present-oriented (N over S). As mentioned, they thought about how much they'd risk by going down Mt. Ebott (potentially dying, and definitely never seeing the surface ever again, or their family) but they followed their heart's desires; to them, morals and ethics (their own morals and ethics) were more important than what the more logical thing to do was (stay on the surface where it's safe).

In other words, they could already "predict" what would happen in the future, while in the present moment (the beginning of the journey).

And right before sacrificing their soul in pacifist, they think about how their death would affect ALL the monsters in the future, whether they had directly met and befriended them or not, even though they wouldn't be there to see it.

Clover seems to be able to easily move between the past, present and future, unlike sensors, who are mainly in the present moment (this is what I've heard somewhere at some point and remembered it, dunno how true it is). They can easily recall the past, and what they remember are things that moved them on the inside.

I've heard some of my friends say that Clover's character arc was to become a kinder person (develop their Fe), which, honestly, I don't think is the case. They simply acted on their inner views of what justice truly means, without further analyzing whatever they believed justice to be.

In pacifist, they're naturally selfless and kind and forgiving: a bit of a prankster, but they're one of "the best souls" according to Martlet. Just look at the ACT options that they used to befriend monsters. Quietly listens to Decibat, offers Dalv a handshake (and friendship), easily forgives Martlet, Starlo, and even Ceroba (+ gives her a hug), endures so many hardships yet keeps their heart pure and selfless. 

They were always driven by something bigger than themselves (like Chujin, who I also think is a N user).

ISTPs are more adventurous and independent and flexible and focused on current problems in the present moment; Clover has been future-oriented from the start; they depended on Toriel to take care of them, and didn't try to immediately "adapt" to the monster world. Their 1st reaction was to stay safe and cozy. ESTJs (yeah, at some point I thought Clover could be one) are more "ruthless" in their pursuits, they "force" others to adopt their inner values. Clover doesn't do this in any route; they simply act upon their own beliefs, but aren't demanding that other monsters to have those same beliefs.

That's why I think they're an INFP.

Functions

Fi (dominant) – "If something goes against their moral code, they will not go through with it." It went against Clover’s moral code to spare monsters in genocide and abort the mission, so they didn’t, regardless of Martlet’s warnings.

"Fi dominants are inclined to speak up against beliefs or actions that go against their personal values or express disapproval of certain behaviors." I can't find the screenshot, but in the Mines, if you interact with the character who's in the same room as one of the puzzles, Clover will find out how that character pulled a prank on that guy who later got a promotion in the pacifist end credits (I need to reply the game to find the screenshot). But basically Clover was upset that their own morals weren't met and gave them a "disapproving look" or smth

"Ti dominants most often feel compelled to speak out when people are acting inconsistent (ie: contradicting themselves) or when people are being illogical from the Ti user’s perspective." I think Clover reacted to the above situation as a Fi user

"Unlike Fe users, Fi users are very blunt and direct. Fi and Te creates a person who is brutally honest about their opinions and feelings. If they don’t like a person, they will let that person know." Not a person in this case, but an example of this are the options we get for Martlet's questionnaire. Clover will have no problem honestly giving her the lowest scores for both questions; we also also get the chance to honestly tell Ceroba that we're not into Starlo's training. There are these cases where they're direct as well:

...and blunt:

they would have given at least a smile or a thumbs up, but no, their honest opinion is their honest opinion

"They appear cold and withdrawn, but tend to warm up as they get to know a person."

Ne (auxiliary) – "Ne views a situation from multiple angles and motivations" I feel like this is best seen in pacifist; this is exactly why Clover decided to give up their soul in the end; they saw all the motivations of the monsters, from many different angles. On the flip side, in the vengeance route, it’s the complete opposite situation: Clover only looks at things from their own pov, completely disregarding others. That’s the thing about the INFP dark side: INFPs become "disillusioned or stuck in their ways." This 100% describes Clover at their worst: stuck in their ways is already explained, while we can say they were disillusioned when even Martlet turned against them/gave up on them (in Genocide). That was enough of a reason for Clover not to feel bad about finishing her off. They never liked her, but they definitely liked her more than anyone else, so I’d say it counts.

"Creative, open-minded, and able to think outside the box" We can say Clover’s creative when they build Axis’ robot companion, solved the two puzzles in the Mines, they’re also most likely into role-playing just like Starlo, based on their clothes (and they seemed into the whole larping thing with him), and how they seem to be into drawing; open-minded, definitely (Clover with everyone; the pacifist route in a nutshell); able to think outside the box (this goes hand in hand with them being creative: I forgot to mention the many creative ways they found to befriend monsters)

"Ne lives in the present like Se does but makes connections to past and future." Imo, this is exactly what Clover does (their sacrifice in the future, and all the things other monsters had said to them in the past; however, they DO interact with the present world at the same time. This is what I meant when I mentioned how they "jump from and connect all 3")

Si (tertiary) – "happy in their comfort zone" Is this Clover? Yeah. Initially, this was their "default" reaction/behavior: with Toriel. They subconsciously became more independent thanks to good old Flowey. As I said, their values led them to take the risk and come into the Underground in the first place, not adventure/excitement (the way I see it). Were they also seeking the truth? Yeah again, they wanted to know the truth behind the whole situation, but I think it had more to do with how they had found the fact that no other humans bothered to look for the kids immoral.

"Si users may draw on their past experiences to guide their present actions and decisions" Example, how the detailed lines they remembered everyone said in true pacifist, influenced them to make the decision to die in the present moment. Or when they asked Ceroba if she would date Starlo, after hearing and remembering Crestina mention his crush on her beforehand, wanting to set them up.

"Si users have a strong memory for past experiences and details" Yep, explained above. Also, dunno if this counts as noticing details, but we can make them beat the Shufflers’ game with ease.

"Si users are typically practical and realistic in their approach to solving problems" The Snowdin mini-quests come to mind (although they use past information here too to figure out what each character needs to be helped). Also, how they fixed the elevator by using a pickaxe (most practical & realistic choice). They’re also pretty rational while dealing with Guardener, and in general, while dealing with enemies.

Te (inferior) – I guess this is why I suspected they could be an ESTJ.

"seen as leaders" By everyone.

"Come up with ideas quickly" Pretty much throughout the game. They’re more low-key about this than ESTJs though.

"Ruthlss and domineering" This is them in vengeance route

"Extraverted Thinkers recognize the emotional content, but then they set it aside to focus on the facts" I feel like this inferior function of theirs is mostly seen in flawed pacifist. They recognized Ceroba’s emotional situation, but chose to be fair and just instead.

"Te users are logical" Recognizing the dangers of the Underground and deciding to stay with Toriel. We can also say it makes sense that Clover attacked those who attacked them first, and finished Ceroba off (Te is what is objective, but from the external world)

"Though they are generally free spirits, they like to have a certain order in their lives. They do enjoy structure, just as long as it does not intrude with their feelings/morals/ethics/etc. They like to be the ones to create the structure, not to have the structure to be created for them."  Vengeance route and Clover’s "mission" come to mind. Basically, the structure is that, whoever Clover sees as morally flawed, gets to die. And they stick to it

tl;dr this picture pretty much explains the way I see Clover's functions in a nutshell ↓

[hermes-helpol]

Sitting outside during a storm, watching, listening; enjoying the rain and the lightning and the thunder and thinking of Lord Zeus.

Thinking about his stories; what I know and how much I know I'm oblivious to. Wondering what I can learn from him. Reminding myself to research him later.

Thanking him for the storm. For every drop, every flash; every rumble.

Thunderstorms are something we have always adored both collectively with my system and together with our family/mother. But this one was truly magical because I got to experience it with Lord Zeus in mind.

I love religion 💜.

[linktoo]

I just watched a whole Hyundai commercial for more spider-verse animation but I'm so obsessed with the fact that they got Gwen and Miles' voice actors to stiffly promote an electric car

[pigeonclaw]

I got thinking about Splashtail today and something that I've been stuck on is just how young he is. I kept thinking he is awfully young to get involved in a conspiracy to replace his Clan's leadership, especially to think he deserves a shot at being leader himself. But the more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

Mistystar has made some really bad choices in the past two arcs. RiverClan was weak enough to get conquered by Darktail, and afterwards, Mistystar shut off all communication with other Clans — to everyone's detriment — for the purpose of "giving RiverClan time to recover" but it honestly felt more like a choice made by paranoia to me. And of course in TBC, she sided with "Bramblestar" even to the point of exiling two warriors to appease him, even when it was clear to almost everyone else that something was wrong with him and obeying him was wrong. She's appeared as increasingly weak and illogical as time has gone on and she's gotten older.

This is the RiverClan that Splashtail grew up in. The only RiverClan he's ever known is one weakened by Mistystar. And for a good portion of his life, the Clans have been terrorized by the hunt for codebreakers while StarClan has been absent. If he's the sort of guy to naturally have doubts and concerns about these sorts of things, it makes a lot of sense that he would end up disdainful towards Mistystar and StarClan and want to change things. I think in this case, his youth is what makes all this make sense to him.

[shadystranger]

Im crazy about the way they framed this like sam was poisoning his mind

[isp-annafer]

I find the snippet Jay showed us very, very interesting. Eurylochus went from, "Let's just cut our losses and run" in the Circe saga to "You miss your wife so bad you'd sacrifice your own crew." I wanna see this. I wanna see where Eurylochus's character development goes.

(And then Odysseus replies with, "You would have done the same", likely referencing to what he said in the Circe saga.)

Now, I have been told by numerous people that Odysseus sacrificed some of his crew to escape Scylla (which, yikes, and also may be the actual event refered to in No Longer You, because it fits so well. Thanks guys!)

Seems to me the Eurylochus from the Circe saga would have understood Odysseus sacrificing a few men for the greater good so that they can get home, but the Eurylochus in the next saga doesn't seem to agree. In fact, he condemns him for it in the Mutiny snippet.

Hey, wouldn't it be funny, if, while Odysseus is having his downward spiral into ruthlessness, Eurylochus had his own rollercoaster of a journey from distrusting the Captain's decisions after Polyphemus to actually trusting him again? Wouldn't that be funny?

It's implied Eurylochus had something to do with the bag of storm being opened, whether he did it himself or just never stopped the crew, Eurylochus's own mistrust of Odysseus, likely, led to it being opened, and so many people killed. Do you think he thinks about it? Does it eat him up inside? And when he advocated to leave the men-to-pigs behind and escape Circe while they still can, did Odysseus's determination to get them back, that he'd do anything to get Eurylochus back if it were him, slap him in the face, too? That was how much Odysseus cared for him, and yet Eurylochus had thrown that love at his face when the crew opened the bag of storms. And the thing was, Odysseus succeeded! He got the crew back (Mostly. Elpenor wtf were you doing up there), and it was by opening himself up to her! Wouldn't it be so funny if, in the end, it had been Eurylochus who picked up Polites's philosophy??

Dusted it off from where he had dropped it in grief. Held it up to the light where he could see the fractures, the flaws, but also the warm soft glow of it, too. He may not be able to trust the world to be kind, but he can trust Odysseus. And wasn't that what Polites had wanted in the end? Trust in each other. Lead from the heart. Whatever they face, they'll survive it together.

Wouldn't that be so, so funny?

Boy, I sure do hope Odysseus won't do anything that would irrepairably break that newly grown trust :))))))

*muffled Scylla boss music steadily growing in the distance*

[incogcheetah]

ANOTHER thought I am quickly becoming obsessed with is the fact that as Odysseus is being bombarded by the souls of the dead, the ones that come to haunt him are specifically the people he's GOTTEN killed, not that he's killed himself. For example we hear him worrying that he'll be haunted by the infant that HE killed, but almost all the souls that come to haunt him are the ones that he GOT killed. His friends, everyone that he was responsible for, hell even his mother died waiting for him to come home.

Odysseus thought the people he killed would make him a bad person. But getting his loved ones killed, turns out, makes you a lot more guilty and regretful than doing what it takes to survive. Like Zeus said, "The blood on your hands is something you won't lose. All you can choose is whose." There's more than one way to have blood on your hands. It's just about choosing the way that you can live with.

[spearxwind]

sea of thieves rly was like. we are delaying the tenth season soo much its gonna be soooo good you guys <33 and dropping hints for more hunters call content and then the reveal drops and its just guilds. in the year of our lord 2023 (and one more mid world event i guess. coming a month after that but initially planned to be the one thing in season 11. and also the singleplayer mode coming in on december so two months into the "season")

[mcskullmun]

You ever make like a narrative connection in the thing your writing that’s so satisfying, or find that one thing that ties to points of the story together so beautifully, that you are filled with the need to rip someone’s throat out with your teeth. I don’t, I don’t have a better way of describing that emotion