#in which their moralities and circumstances still align with one another

[shikisei]

what if..

narumitsu..

but priest and devil

(idk which is which you pick)

i got lost . so you get 2 demons and no priest instead sorry

[random-thought-depository]

Re: manbear discourse (this is a discourse iceberg I've mercifully only seen the top of): am I the only one thinking that part of the subtext of the discussion may be that "man alone in the woods" is itself seen as suspicious behavior?

If the comparison isn't "bear to random man" but "bear to man who shows potential signs of hostility/dangerous failure of values-alignment with mainstream society," then being more scared of the man gets significantly more reasonable:

1) That point about the base rate fallacy (you encounter men many times per day without being attacked, you probably rarely encounter bears) gets shakier.

2) Especially because this is exactly the sort of circumstance in which values-alignment failure is likely to lead to actual aggression. This is a man alone with you. A man dangerously values-unaligned with mainstream morality is likely to still be civil and non-aggressive with you in ordinary day to day interactions, as a matter of his own self-preservation. In an encounter in the wilderness with no witnesses and no-one around who might intervene, you lack this "apes together strong" collective protection. Put it more baldly, if this guy was a serial killer, for him this situation would be the perfect opportunity to kill somebody and get away with it.

3) A hostile/dangerously values-unaligned man is in many ways a potentially more dangerous opponent than a bear despite the bear's greater brute strength; a hostile/dangerously values-unaligned man is much smarter than a bear and may have tools that give him many tactically relevant abilities a bear doesn't have (most obviously, he may have a gun, which is a significantly more dangerous weapon than a bear's teeth and claws). A hostile/dangerously values-unaligned man is also much better equipped to pretend to be safe to be around until he can get you into a position of vulnerability; if you meet a bear you know right away that you're dealing with a powerful, dangerous creature that doesn't have human morality, but an ordinary human is likely to extend substantial trust to another human by default.

The problem with this is, uh, it kind of seems to just move the dumbness from "a random man is more dangerous than a bear" to "a man being alone in the woods is a red flag that he might be out to kill, rape, rob, etc. people"; the latter doesn't strike me as a particularly reasonable proposition either!

Also, if this is about gender, it moves the accusation against men from "a random man is statistically more likely to be dangerous than a bear" to "men are more likely to be dangerously values-unaligned with mainstream society than women so a man being alone in the woods is a yellow/red flag for that but a woman being alone in the woods is not." Is the latter a more plausible/reasonable proposition than the former? Offhand, I can see some possible evidence for "men are more likely to be dangerously values-unaligned with mainstream society than women" e.g. most murderers are men, but 1) that's kind of weak, 2) that then raises the question of how much of the difference is the product of dangerously values-unaligned women being more incentivized to submit to the "apes together strong" pro-sociality coalition because physical sex differences and gender roles result in such women tending to have less physical strength, less access to and familiarity with weapons, and less familiarity with violence than their male equivalents. Note point 2) in relation to this.

[12pt-times-new-roman]

Another thing I find really interesting about Ludinus' plans here is that showing the Bells Hells this really isn't likely to change their mindset at all in regards to himself, and he knows it.

Showing them the destruction of Aeor by the gods might well change their opinions on the gods. Whether they like it or not, as Ludinus has pointed out, the gods did commit a genocide here. They wiped out an entire civilization along with nearly all of its people, its technology, its culture, and its sole geographical territory. As far as we, the audience, know right now, that's history; that's fact. And regardless of what Aeor did, it could be argued that that was an objectively wrong thing to do. There are could be circumstances that complicate that, but arguing that the indiscriminate destruction of Aeor was wrong is a defensible (and, imo, correct) position.

But that's not really the point. Ludinus, I think, understands the fact that even if the Bells Hells change their tune on the gods themselves, even if they agree that destroying Aeor was wrong or evil or unjustified, they would still oppose Ludinus and the Vanguard. They've agreed on that over and over again by now -- whatever their disparate opinions on the gods, they all have deeply personal and interconnected reasons to want Ludinus dead and the Vanguard stopped. They know by now that the gods are complicated, messy, contradictory, and morally gray; they know that the gods have done bad things, and that they have done good things. But they have also, extensively, seen the consequences of what happens when the gods' connection to Exandria is disrupted.

So because of that, I think what Ludinus is hoping for here is for the Bells Hells to recognize him as a parallel to the gods and his efforts as a parallel to the destruction of Aeor, which is fascinating. In essence, he wants the Bells Hells to believe both that the gods are bad people (for destroying Aeor), and that the gods had necessary ends (to end the Calamity or preserve their own life); because if they believe that of the gods, then surely they can believe that of him. Surely they can see that he is a bad person (for the death and trauma he caused them and so, so many others) with what he sees as necessary ends (to free the world from under the thumb of the gods) too, and side with him in those ends.

He's not trying to convince them of the goodness or justification of his means; at this point, that's not possible. He is never going to convince them that he was in the right, and he knows that. So instead, he's trying a different tactic: he wants to convince them that even though he has done terrible, indefensible things in the name of his cause, in that aspect he is no different than the gods they align themselves with. And if they can align themselves with the gods, then because of that parallel, they should be able to align with him, too.

Of course, all of that hinges on two things: that the Bells Hells can be convinced of the same goodness, righteousness, or necessity of his ends that he believes, and that they can be convinced that Ludinus should be the one to shepherd those ends. And I think the latter is already a foregone conclusion, to be honest; it should be clarified, I don't think that this plan would ever work. With other powerful people, maybe; but not with the Bells Hells, or at least not with all of them. But him going for this instead of other things explains a lot, I think -- namely why we're getting a divine perspective in Downfall (so that Ludinus can better compare himself to the gods), why he's not interested whatsoever in the stasis bubbles (excellent meta about that here; tl:dr Aeor is more useful to him as a fossil he can use as propaganda than as a culture to revive), and why Liliana is still trying to convince them not of the justification of Ludinus' actions, but the righteousness of his ends.

[terrence-silver]

Is Terry the type to baby trap his beloved or would he just let it happen

---

Depends vastly of the circumstances.

He adapts.

Ideally, I feel Terry would, much like anyone else under the sun pretty much, deeply want for his partner to want to have his children more than anything else. To thank him for the opportunity. To be grateful. To look forward to it with every ounce of their being. Heck, to even beg, if possible, so he can relish the act, the attention and the supremacy he has over another living person being so enamored with him. He wants to draw that out of them. Incentify them. Inspire them. Be the only man they'd ever conceive having offspring with. But, if push came to shove, and they were hesitating, showing signs of being willing to slip away from his grasp somewhere in the near or distant future (ha-ha, nice try), giving out mixed signals, being hot and then cold? Not being dedicated enough to him and a future legacy? Hey, extreme situations require extreme measures, right? And this extreme situation calls upon him to do just do what he wants to do and simply impregnate beloved and ensure they're tied to him permanently, one way or another, seeing as how he ain't willing to relinquish something he desires and covets. He's gonna secure beloved one way or another, morality flying out the window. He relishes in either outcome, you see --- be it consensual in nature or of more dubious circumstances, because it's all sport either ways and whatever the method, however dark, however disturbed, he'll come out victorious. On top.

The ends justify the means, after all.

Of course, he can very easily use the oldest trick in the book and humbly state that a slip up happened and that --- boom --- beloved ended up pregnant seeing as how they weren't diligent enough to mutually take good care; simply something that happens in the heat of the moment and the height of passion and beloved does makes him oh so passionate, he might say (something that isn't a lie whatsoever, nonetheless, it's a serviceable tool to sell this story believably) --- still, it's hilarious that a control oriented perfectionist and micromanager like Terry would ever subscribe to accidents and overlooking something so crucial, regardless, he'll gaslight, he'll sweetly manipulate, he'll convince, he'll blame the fact that beloved makes him so horny that contraceptives just became an afterthought for a moment there and it's all a big part of his baby trapping scheme. To hide the fact this wasn't an innocent slip up and that he very much planned this all along; a need that only gets stronger and more pronounced as Terry Silver ages, I feel. He might think he's old and that as such, he's willing to lie, cheat and scam if it means securing himself at least an ounce of happiness by any means necessary as fast as possible, because time's running out and he's back is against the wall and that's bullshit. He doesn't like his back against the wall. He bites when he's against the wall. It's now or never. All the stars aligned. Love and desire and that one chance he's not gonna let go, becoming more insidious and unpredictable than ever.

But that is, he's just as willing to gloat over what he's done.

I think he cannot resist gloating (which is often this man's downfall).

It's in his nature to highlight the perverse and evil things he's done.

Enjoy himself while doing it.

Beloved might be there with their newborn and Terry could very well be barely containing himself from just looking them straight in the eye and telling them that he's done what he's done because it was pre-planned that it would pan out like this all along because he always gets what he wants the way he wants it. Heck, the idea alone makes him hard with absolute rotten glee.

[lattesa]

Just had a random thought about the contrast and similarities in both S4 and S5 where an admin joins a team of 3 players who are joined at the hip and stick together through thick and thin and also have moral dilemmas, and the admins take on a role of a protector (Parrot) or pillar of support (Ash), and they have some sort of sense of responsibility over the other three.

(Spoilers below)

For Parrot, its the 3HT who were considered the weakest players, and they had a moral code of staying at 3 hearts and being against exploits. Because of that, they have targets on their backs and Parrot takes on a role of being a protector for them during the Wormhole.

The 3HT already had a steadfast moral code when Parrot joined them, so he had no need to guide them at all in that, and he was focusing on physically assisting them through the hearts and gear he had, as well as rallying the rest of the Lifestealers who were against the Wormhole. However, the circumstances of the Wormhole and how he gives them extra hearts and gear to help them which would ultimately mean the 3HT would have to give up their beliefs to staying at 3 in order to win.

Bacon and Jaron take the extra hearts and gear, because the four of them would have to do anything to survive, and the rest of the Lifestealers even use exploits themselves to fight back against the hunters, but Planet stays at 3, and Parrot himself doesn't touch the exploits. As a lot of us know, they lost by ten seconds. But because Planet stuck to his morals the server was not destroyed entirely, though the ending was still hella chaotic and not really happy.

Meanwhile for Ash it's the PB&J, where all three of the players are considered some of the strongest members in the server and have max hearts (ironically, they were called 20 Heart Trio before ppl came up w/ PB&J), but they are also some of the newest as well. So despite how capable they are, they haven't had much of an understanding of how Lifesteal truly works until recently. They wanted to commit to a peaceful ending of the server where no one's banned, and be the good guys, however their goal of a peaceful ending crashed and burned after they got astronomically screwed over by half of the server, a lot of them being ppl they were teammates/friends with, as well as Wemmbu taking the presidency and turning it to hardcore.

The three of them were given a really rude awakening and their trust was all but broken, and they were on the verge of giving up their morals entirely and they did end up giving some of them up, but then Ash joins them and he's kind of a factor as to why Minute, Pentar, and Jumper aren't completely going down the deep end of villainy. He's not necassarily just there as someone to assist with fights and gear, though, because the other three have that handled pretty well. He's been acting as a guide, not just as moral support (because god those three really needed it) but also as an older player helping newer players who are only just fully understanding how lifesteal works.

He understands how the server's status quo of violence works, and that a peace isn't a thing on Lifesteal, but he still wants a happy ending, not a "peaceful" ending as PB&J keep calling it, but a happy one. He's pretty much become another pillar in the discussions and planning of getting the happy ending, and he's been reassuring the other three who were doubting any possibility of a happy ending, and doubting their own alignments. His optimism and confident repeated statements of "we're the good guys" was something much needed. The Players might've won in terms of ideals and a peaceful ending is no longer possible, but for PB&J, a happy ending is still viable.

[neonscandal]

Random ask, do you love Satosugu because somehow their dynamic remind you of BakuDeku?

Okay so this has been sitting in my inbox for a few days because, at first when I read it, I was like "I don't really see the resemblance".

But here's the thing, I've been thinking about some of the interesting points I think MHA and JJK have in common lately.. was I sure these two ships really didn't remind me of one another, too?

SHORT ANSWER

I do not love SatoSugu for the same reasons I love BakuDeku.

LONG ANSWER

I REALLY HAD TO THINK ABOUT THIS because the recipes are very similar if you really think about it. Deeply entrenched histories with one another, the relation they have to one another being an impetus to be stronger/better, worldview that seems to be heavily hinged on one another (debatably)... but the fact remains: you can have all the same ingredients and prepare a totally different dish.

What I appreciate about BakuDeku is that they are at odds but not in the ways that one would assume at face value. Like, people oversimplify Midoriya as being this incredibly sensitive, goodie-two shoes and Bakugo to be an antagonistic bully. But Midoriya breaks hella rules where Bakugo's aggression hides the fact that he is, in fact, an emotional rule follower! What a nerd. In a lot of ways, they embody facets of one another even when it isn't readily apparent. Both strong and both protective of one another which manifests in different ways. But ultimately, in spite of their differences, they are both earnestly aligned in their desire to embody what they respect and value about All Might and being the number one hero. There's a stronger sense of justice at play in universe that makes the story a bit more cut and dry. No amount of time has really shaken their understanding of one another. They are still locked in and the best insight into one another outside of themselves (if that makes sense).

SatoSugu exists in a morally gray area which enables them to have more character nuance than simply being aligned with "good" or "bad". While they are also at odds in different ways, I'm more inclined to appreciate the circumstances that brought them together. It's a bit skewed from Gojo's perspective but, ultimately, they are unified in how isolating their strength and responsibilities are. There's no ensemble staff to lessen the sting of that and, subsequently, there's this elevated miracle of finding understanding in one another's company. This is more inferred from Gojo's perspective, but you also never get the satisfaction of Geto's point of view. I think what I like most about their story is how incomplete it is. There's no reconciliation, no clearing the air of all the things they never voiced to one another.. and isn't that just how it goes? Especially unrequited. It's sad and unsatisfying because their relation to one another is ultimately their undoing. What made them well suited to one another is also what drives the wedge between them and Geto was doomed from the beginning. The story has seemingly run its course with both of them and there's still so many loose ends.

Even in writing all of this, there are a lot of undeniable similarities between them. Truthfully, we don't know how either stories will end so there may be more compelling likenesses revealed with time. The line I'm drawing in the sand is not so much what makes them similar but what I find the most compelling about them so maybe that doesn't interpret your question correctly but that nuance obscured all of the similarities for days for me haha so I appreciate you asking because it definitely made me think!

[wild-magic-oops]

For the dark urge asks: 1, 19, and 24!

from left to right: Lucas, The Dark Urge, Damien

1. What circumstances led to your Dark Urge becoming their Class/Subclass?

Lucas - I initially played him as a life domain cleric of Tyr because I thought it'd be hilarious and it was! Tho in my latest playthrough I made a hireling out of him as a multi-class gloomstalker rogue which is fitting imo so I might change his class for some fics/ideas etc. But back to the cleric - Lucas woke up with a very acute feeling that he served a god before so he drew the conclusion that he must've been a cleric. And his violent urges felt imposed on him, so he thought that must be a curse of some sort and therefore he must've gotten it because he served a good-aligned god.

My guy was deep in the delulu, but yet partially correct. Still, he didn't know which god he served so he did the good old tested method of guessing, and started with Tyr who looked at this poor confused bhaalspawn who wanted to do good and decided "yeah sure why not". Another option is for Withers to have always been Lucas's deity and for Lucas to just not have realized it and thought it was Tyr instead.

The Dark Urge - he's the default sorcerer class so there was no choosing there. He realized he could do magic and stuck with that. It was a bonus that he could fry people on the spot with said magic. No need to improve upon perfection lmao

Damien - I still haven't 100% decided but since he's a paladin and it's canon that paladin!Durge has broken their oath before, I'm thinking that upon waking up from the pod, even through his amnesia he still could feel the remnants of an oath and that he was wronged in some way. And because of his violent and terrible urges that he very much doesn't like, he decided to go the complete opposite route. So he swore another oath - this time of vengeance.

19. Has your Dark Urge become particularly close to anyone romantically and/or platonically in their journey? If so, who, and what is the relationship like? If no, why not?

All my Durges are Galemancers so Gale's their closest companion by far. Aside from him:

Lucas - tried the most to get to know others and give them a chance. He really likes Wyll bc he's a hero and has the whole "do the right thing" going on. But Wyll's also a bit too morally uncompromising which in itself is fine, but Lucas with his urges (and sometimes hubris) felt like he would fuck up at some point and Wyll would not take it well, so their relationship is not as strong as it could've been. He gets along with selunite!Shadowheart as well.

The Dark Urge - He's not super close to anyone aside from Gale tbh. But he does like the good-aligned companions more. And he has the most developed relationship with Jaheira out of all my Durges. He's the only one to admit he's scared of Bhaal to her. I guess from the original companions he gets along the best with Wyll and Lae'zel.

Damien - gets along with Wyll the best. I didn't recruit Karlach this time even tho I like her bc I want to see how something plays out, but for narrative reasons I imagine I did and Damien gets along great with her as well. And since this is the first time I recruited Minthara, he has a funny relationship with her bc they're both vengeance paladins and sometimes he agrees with her and then she says something out of pocket and he's like "no...!" He also respects Lae'zel once she's seen through her indoctrination and wants to fix the system for her people.

24. Does your Dark Urge have a treasured item with them? If yes, what is it and why is it special? If no, how do they feel about item sentimentality in general?

That would be a no for all my Durges. In terms of sentimentality - Lucas is the most santimental when it comes to objects, followed by The Dark Urge. Damien is the least by far.

[vesperstardust]

I think my life is done falling apart/together for now

I don't even know how to transcribe the chaos that has been happening in my life the last...forever...but specifically the last 6 months and especially the last couple of months

2020 and 2021 were the best years of my life, maybe that tells you something. They were the years I felt most secure and became most aligned with myself. I've always been a survivor who thrives in liminal spaces.

Falling apart and falling together look remarkably similar. If you take away anything from this post, remember that.

I want to move forward and stay still and let myself be happy and do the things I've been wanting to do but I also want to remember every twist and turn that brought me here. Because I'm grateful how it all worked out.

Wish I could do a cut under a cut Here is the story, I suppose, of what happened.

There is even more I can't write, but the present trials feel like they truly began when I lost my hair from alopecia during 2022.

I've struggled with alopecia areata, one of several chronic illnesses, but that was the first time I became bald. My long auburn red hair I saw as part of my identity, gone. Who am I? I had to find out quickly who I really was and find strength to keep going that I never knew. Cutting or shaving hair as humiliation against one's will, to break one's spirit, I understood why. I didn't recognise myself. During this same time I also had a traumatic experience with people I thought were my friends that was directly related to my experiences with alopecia.

It took months and along with a newly-approved-by-the-fda medication for alopecia and continued scalp injections, it's growing back fairly well. But just as this was happening, we became financially unstable when my partners gig job dried up and he began experiencing a severe health condition at the same time.

Things were stressful and challenging at this point but manageable. Then we lost our food money. At points we were half-starved (I say this without exaggeration - support your local food bank it will save someone's life). The morale blow/raise of losing/gaining treats is not to be underestimated. And people who have never been food insecure don't realise how little other things matter when you can't eat. You can barely think to do other things. I was food insecure growing up so at least that was something I knew how to deal with. But it's still a terrible thing to be hungry.

After going through the winding maze insurance companies so often require even for life-changing prescriptions, my partner finally received the medication he needed to recover his health to a manageable state.

But eventually we faced eviction from our apartment with one week's notice after attempted financial aid fell through. It's traumatic and frightening and sorrowful to have to leave the place you call home under circumstances beyond your control. My partner was interviewed and hired for a perfect job after no luck for months within DAYS of the eviction, ensuring that no matter what happened, we'd finally have food and other resources.

But we still only had a week to find somewhere to move.

One day, management (who had a history of being unreachable, including during the time we tried to seek financial aid and work with them) showed up and tried force their way in (the door chain stopped them) and then proceeded to lie and tell us we had to be gone that day even though legally we did not until 24hrs after the notice had been placed on the door, which it had not yet. That was scary though. And they had sent their newest person, and it's possible she didn't even know it was a lie. But we had the paperwork and emails to prove it. I remember physically trembling, the paper shaking in my hand as we tried to explain. Another time pest control tried to force their way in. I'm sure management sent them too, as the email had only said you could sign up for a visit if you were having issues, which we were not and never signed up for. At an apartment complex, a door chain is such an extra sense of security that prevents people from unlocking your door and just walking in whenever they please, as was proved to me many times.

So we had a week to find somewhere to live. Friends (true friends) helped us more than we can ever repay, in ways that money alone could never repay. We got everything into a storage unit in record time. Our Winter Solstice was spent moving the largest pieces of furniture. Darkest night made bright with their help.

Some places wouldn't even give us a tour because of the eviction now on record. Most things I read during this time about renting with an eviction seemed so bleak. We found one apartment we thought was perfect and applied. They denied our application - but mysteriously accepted it a few days later without us even appealing. Was it because of all the construction at this complex and they were desperate? Did my partner's words somehow sway them? I don't know but I was considering the lilies of the field very, very hard at that point

So we had a place to move to on the 2nd of Jan but in the mean time we had to wait it out at our other apartment, unknowing when we would finally have to leave. A couple weeks sleeping on an air mattress in a near-empty apartment. Merry Christmas. We still had our tiny tree. Happy New Year. Our New Year's Day meal was a single heat and serve bag of basmati which we split, a tin of sardines and some corn. It felt like a small feast. Looking back, all symbols of prosperity and abundance.

On the day we were to move in, my partner's workplace somehow messed up (holidays at least partially to blame) and he still hadn't received his paycheck though he tried everything he could. So we had to scramble to borrow the deposit money from my mom. It's a long walk up to our new apartment at the moment because of all the renovations going on putting out the elevator. And when we got there, we realised they had given us the wrong set of keys so we were stuck outside in the hallway outside the door for 45min with the birds and our small carry items because she'd said she'd bring the correct sets of keys up, meanwhile I also had to go to the bathroom intensely. We'd laughed a lot through all of this when we weren't near-consumed with stress and fear of what would happen next, but it was nice to have a moment that was just purely funny.

The paycheck drama continued for another week so we had to work around that as well. But we had somewhere to live. Somewhere safe.

By the time it was my birthday about a week later. I slipped on the carpet running to say bye to my partner. It could have been worse but I scraped up my knee and hurt my leg. My knee/leg still hurt :') That same day our car also had trouble and stalled while my partner was on the way to work, so our plans to finally go out were dashed BUT he ordered Indian for us so we had a great meal nonetheless.

I love this new apartment. The layout is interesting and unique, one of the reasons we were drawn to it. The closet shelving is threatening to collapse but that can be fixed. Lack of bathroom counter space and large mirror is the only real downgrade from the other place but I can honestly say everything else here is equal to or better. Most important, you can see the moon from the window, and the best view of the sky.

The construction here is intense at the moment but inside the apartment itself is a haven, despite the chaos outside. I don't mind it because, after all, it likely played a part in how we were able to live here.

It sounds so small somehow when I write it all down. But it's not comparable to be on the other side of an ordeal where you can see how it all played out all at once and what you dodged and how you survived. When you're in it you have to get to the next day. Sometimes the next hour. I felt real fear during this time, an emotion I wasn't very familiar with. Throughout my life I've been through what some people might call "a lot", since early on. I've had people tell me I'm the strongest person they know. I've learned to handle many fears of many things. But this was an unfamiliar unraveling. And once I realised what it was, I was able to deal with it better. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. Frank Herbert was right.

My last time at the other apartment was happy, peaceful and filled with relief. It was a nice place for the time we lived, but everything good came with us. There were things I loved about it, but there were also things I won't miss and am glad to get away from (like living by the highway).

Thanks for reading this post if you made it all the way through. I wasn't sure how much to tell strangers on the internet but - we're friends here :)))

Adapt. Survive. Survive. Thrive.

Outside our window currently looks like the blitz. But only in the best way possible. Because the chaos doesn't bring any grief or fear - just a way out.

[thiswaycomessomethingwicked]

what is a swerf and why is it hated?

touchy subject for an ask on this fine Monday afternoon.

Here is a super high-level summary:

SWERF stands for "sex work-exclusionary radical feminist" - a very broad brushstroke definition is that SWERFs oppose sex work of all forms, viewing it as inherently degrading and violent to women, and seek to have all forms of it abolished. (There are gradations of this and not all radical feminists agree on all things etc. As with all movements, ymmv.)

There are sort of two "camps" around sex work in feminism (again, super broad brushstroke): one arguing that all sex work is inherently demeaning and no matter what, it will always be a form of subjugation and/or violence against women and therefore will never be seen as a form of work for women. Another way to put it is that sex work isn't work, it's abuse/subjugation. Sex workers therefore cannot be workers, since they are not undertaking labour, they are instead victims.

This approach can lead to a condescending and patronizing view of sex-workers who tend to be silenced by SWERFs who argue that they are representing the best interests of the sex workers on their behalf.

Indeed, some sex workers have expressed frustration, anger, and disappointment at the condescension and patronization they have experienced from those who align with sex worker-exclusionary radical feminism. They argue that the position held by SWERFs of sex workers "selling themselves/their bodies" is a) stupid because all workers use their bodies to sell labour, b) reductionist by making sex workers little more than their body parts, and c) feeds into the patriarchal trope of the victimized sex worker who has limited personal agency.

There also tends to be a lot of reducing all sex workers down to (white) cis women ignoring trans, two-spirit, non-binary etc. sex workers.

-

On the other side of the conversation are feminists who view sex work as work. There are a tonne of variations on the details around this position.

Two easy examples of some diverging views: there are those who argue that sex work is no different to other occupations and it's only treated as such because of moral strictures around, and fear of, sex (and women, queers, trans folk etc).

Then there are others who say that sex work is legitimate as any other form of work, but there's still an inherent problem around society being structured in a way where work (as a broad concept) is required in order to survive. Therefore, there should be means to ensure people can survive without being forced into labour (e.g., universal basic income). This would then reduce situations wherein anyone is pressured or forced into any occupation/form of labour, including sex work.

Then there are those who say it's a combination of the two above points or something else entirely.

There is also variety of opinions on whether sex work can be empowering or if it's almost always going to be a more negative experience. The nuances of why/to what degree/which circumstances etc. are many.

Differences aside, 'sex-work is work' feminists tend to agree that sex work is shaped by the class, gender, race, legal position etc. of those undertaking it in relation to where they live and the social/political realities there. In addition, most in this camp agree that it's a complex topic and that sex work can be both exploitative/violent and a site of agency, depending on the person and the situation.

-

My personal issues with SWERFs, among other things, is the policing of the voices of sex-workers which goes part and parcel with the condescension and patronization. Also the tendency of some to reduce women to little more than their body parts tends to lead to a strong overlap in these circles between SWERFs and TERFs (though not all SWERFs are TERFs and vice versa).

-

That said, feminist thinkers across the board (including SWERFs) broadly agree that legal policies which criminalize the sex workers themselves are harmful and they also broadly agree/recognize that those in the sex work industry tend to be disproportionally vulnerable to violence, which is an issue largely neglected in policy-making.

-

The International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe has a decent briefing paper on the ongoing the matter which is a decent place to start, if you're interested in reading more. It focuses the voices and opinions of sex workers themselves and is trans inclusive, which is great.

-

quick end note: as noted above but I want to re-emphasize, not all sex workers are exclusively women. There is a wide range of people who identify all across the gender and sexuality spectrum who undertake sex work.

second end note: everything in the above is super high level and very simplified. There's a lot I left out or glossed at a real high, high level. YMMV in most of what I have written, depending on the feminist you're talking to.

[merrysithmas]

I was reading through your metas on Star Wars especially Obikin and they amazing! They’re refreshing because it seems to me the majority of this fandom forgets that Anakin/Vader isn’t the bad guy or the villain of SW. It’s Palpatine. And that’s literally the point according to GL at least as far as I’m aware. I know he’s has literally said flat out that Anakin/Vader isn’t the villain he’s just a pathetic broken man who, yes, does awful things but he’s still not meant to be seen as the “true” villain of Star Wars that most people see him as.

I don’t know why people either don’t understand this or if they just choose to ignore it because they don’t like Anakin and we see more of him/Vader than Palpatine/Sidious. It just baffles me how so many want to hold Anakin accountable for his actions and blame him for things but they will in the same breath ignore Palps. Make it make sense.

thank you so much!

I think a lot of it has to do with a certain subset of the audience's unwillingness to see a piece of fiction as a representation of tropes, dynamics, archetypes and fable-esque fantasy rather than direct correlation to Real Life Morality.

obviously in real life Anakin, no matter WHAT, should be imprisoned for life... murder is not good lol.

but in Star Wars, a story, it is obviously to me at least that Anakin is a representation of the ultimate MacGuffin. he is a CLASSIC tragic hero in the grecian sense - not good or ultimately liked or morally decent but destined by nature of his flaws to do something heroic.

Anakin is NOT a human - he is demi god conceived of the Force and essentially a barometer for the health of the Galaxy. He is enslaved, mistreated, taken away from his mother, not given consideration for his unique circumstance by the Jedi, coveted by an irresponsible Padme, prodded by a confused Obiwan, & groomed and manipulated by Palpatine. Anakin is used by the Senate as a war hero and given praise for killing thousands for the Republic. All of those Institutions and people, despite their intentions and lofty moral goals, failed him as essentially "a test" for the Galaxy - the Force was testing the moral health of the Galaxy by creating Anakin.

Anakin is the ULTIMATE slave - he is PREDESTINED by the Force and has no choice in his ULTIMATE destitn which is to "balance the force" and for this he suffers IMMENSELY. The Force created Anakin to defend the Republic, and when it was corrupt and failed (as Padme herself noted), used him to destroy it because Anakin became corrupted same as the Republic did.

Of course, Anakin CHOOSES how to do this (murder) which makes him flawed and villainous, but he is eventually pitted against Sidious because the Force "knew" he'd be the only Force user strong enough to survive the Dark Side for decades, and the ONLY ONE STRONG ENOUGH (guilty and good enough) TO RETURN TO THE LIGHT AFTER ALL THAT.

Anakin suffers in Vader's sarcophagus as punishment for his murderous destruction of the Order & alignment with Sidious - he could have theoretically achieved its "destruction" in another more peaceful way. He could have walked away from Sidious. But he didn't. He chose to do that. Anakin became flawed & corrupt in an image of the flawed Republic. (Obviously Obiwan represents the imperfect Order and Padme the imperfect Senate).

Anakin is a literary device - he is a demi god - he is and his actions are not supposed to represent real life people (that would be instead the flawed Padme and Obi-wan - who despite being good still fail bc of their hubris or selfishness).

Also Star Wars is not based on Western morality - and Anakin's relationship with the Force is one of dualistic origin. He is an angel and a demon, slave and master, kind and cruel, strong and weak, the physical embodiment of strength and the physical embodiment of pain... but Anakin is NEVER free.

He is the Force (light, good, "god")'s creation to be used to fight Sidious (dark, evil, "devil").

Anakin is the most tragic character in Star Wars and by definition is a tragic hero.

When Luke saves him, he sees this, and it gives real life viewers hope that regardless of our destiny-by-circumstance we can choose better.

[witchhaunts]

THE INFINITE PATHS OF FAERIE : MAJOR &. MINOR COURTS

the societal landscape of the fae is governed by the existence of courts. there are the most well known , called the major courts , but there also exist the minor courts. both work as schools of thought , political parties , social factions , many , many things. most fae , save for those born before the creation of the seelie &. unseelie or willingly wild , consider themselves among one or the other along with one minor court. often times it is a circumstance of one's birth at this stage , but a faerie can also choose to move between courts , especially the minor , as they see fit.

below i will detail the major &. a handful of minor courts that exist in faerie. this list is not all encompassing , as the minor courts can change &. more certainly exist than what is listed. these are just the ones that have been the most persistent &. are around during ro's canon timeline.

SEELIE COURT ( MAJOR )

the court associated with summer &. spring , of life &. renewal , of tradition &. codes. it was founded sometime in the first century , following many independent fae constantly fighting one another. technically , they merged with the unseelie when their queen titania married king oberon around the beginning of the early medieval period. even so , the courts still exist &. even the monarchy acknowledges it. the seelie are concerned with beauty &. pleasures &. often lack an understanding of mortals. they will make you laugh until you cry or dance until your feet bleed without knowing why it hurts you because these are the things you supposedly enjoy. though they are seen as the good side of faerie , this is simply not the case. all fae are monstrous &. alien to the mundane world because they do not have our morals.

UNSEELIE COURT ( MAJOR )

the court associated with autumn &. winter , of death &. decay , of change &. entropy. it &. its structure also came into existence in along with the seelie court. when unseelie king oberon married queen titania , as stated above , the courts officially merged , but there is not a strict effort to enforce that notion. they are typically viewed as the evil fae , which , just like the seelie , is inaccurate. unlike their counterparts , the unseelie do often understand humans. when you've dropped dead from the dancing they've compelled you to perform , they know why it's hurt you. they also do not have mortal morals , but their knowledge of us means they can appear crueler.

COURT OF BEASTS ( MINOR )

this court is primarily made up of the more animalistic fae. you have satyrs , pooka , nature spirits , all manner of wild creatures. they don't tend to align with one of the major courts over the other.

GOBLIN COURT ( MINOR )

this court is filled with the more monstrous of the fae. goblins , boggarts , hobgoblins , the name is rather literal. they tend to be more on the uncouth side &. as such tend to align with the unseelie court over the posh seelie.

COPPER COURT ( MINOR )

a court of inventors &. progressives. you can find household helpers like brownies here as well as dwarves focused solely on their creations. because of their interest in change &. moving forward , they are often aligned with the unseelie.

COURT OF COIN ( MINOR )

a name given to themselves in favor of the much less kind titles other fae give this court. those of the coin are enamored with the noble houses of faerie &. seek to not only emulate them but impress them wherever possible. despite their love of nobility on both sides of the spectrum , their need to uphold that order brings them closer to the seelie.

EVENTIDE COURT ( MINOR )

the sluagh , the redcaps , the bockles , all manner of quite unsettling creatures inhabit eventide. they come across as malevolent &. cold , isolating them selves from other fae to do... whatever it is this mysterious court does with their machinations. their reputation puts them more in line with the unseelie.

MERCURIAL COURT ( MINOR )

pixies &. other such tricksters populate the mercurial court. they are often used as spies between other courts whenever it suits their fancy. they love merrymaking but are certainly not above it happening at someone else's expense. due to their , well , mercurial natures , this court remains unaligned but is still seen slightly more often among the unseelie.

COURT OF WHIMSY ( MINOR )

often considered the seelie counterpart to the mercurial court , despite their officially neutral stance , the court of whimsy is one of artists , musicians , storytellers , creators of all kinds. primarily populated by satyrs , they are here for passion &. a good time wherever it can be had. they also tend to be one of the courts most likely to have mortal guests , whisking human artists away to faerieland for inspiration. however long they may want to keep them.

COURT OF THE LOST ( MINOR )

not all creatures in faerie thrive on politicking. some are simply trying to survive. this is where the court of the lost comes in. rather than become what is known as a wild fae , one who has separated themselves from any alignment whatsoever , there is safety in numbers. as such , they , too , tend to be removed from any particular affiliation with the major courts &. contain all manner of fae.

COURT OF TIDES ( MINOR )

these are the water — based fae. while there is overlap with the court of beasts , there is something to be said about being a world removed from an already unusual place. the seas , the rivers , it might as well be a kingdom of its own. naiads &. selkies can be found with this court &. they tend to avoid affiliations , transitory as the water they come from. they also move the most between worlds for the same reason , helped by the fact streams &. flows often follow ley lines .

BURIED COURT ( MINOR )

fae like the sídh , aos sí , dwarves , gnomes inhabit this court. those that dwell underground &. , more importantly , bring forth its riches. they also have a connection to deep , old magic that comes from even further under the hill. despite a mortal's perception of them usually being dirty or as rough as the stones , they tend to align themselves with the seelie.

[thephilosophersapprentice]

I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about how D&D memes have damaged the understanding of what chaotic neutral is and how it functions in the context of the game. Sit back, relax, and pour yourself a hot drink; this is going to maybe get intense.

Disclaimer: This is not a vagueblog, just a mindset I've seen around, both on Reddit and Tiktok. It's my intention to aid understanding, not sound accusatory.

For those who've never played, or who only have a passing concept of character alignments, D&D uses a system not unlike a political compass, just replacing the economic axis with a good-to-evil axis and reversing the direction of the libertarian-to-authoritarian axis.

Let's break down the two components (the two axes) that make up a character alignment.

Lawful to chaotic is a measure of how much you value your personal freedom over the law. However, there are different ways to spin lawful vs. chaotic characters; a chaotic character may believe, for instance, that the law limits the true scope of what one person can do to help another, while a lawful person may be lawful because they believe that the law exists to make everyone equal and protect them all. On the other hand, a lawful character may not care about the laws of the civilization they're in so much as a personal moral code. A chaotic character isn't 2014 Tumblr Random because they're chaotic; the Randomness is a character trait, not the result of the alignment.

Good to evil is a bit harder to define. Red from Overly Sarcastic Productions defines evil as "causing harm unnecessarily," but also goes into the fact that any definition breaks down under specific circumstances, all in her excellent Trope Talk on the subject. Basically, a good character tries to minimize the harm they cause others, while an evil character may not care or outright cause as much harm as possible because they think it's fun.

A neutral character (on either scale) is hard to define as well. Roughly, a neutral character has situations in which they act chaotic and situations in which they act lawful, situations in which they act moral and situations in which they cause harm needlessly.

Dear reader, you may have already grasped an idea of why "chaotic neutral" is so misunderstood. There are players out there who use the chaotic neutral alignment to justify acting like a chaotic evil character and avoid the associated bad press. I'd argue that you can't play this style and keep your alignment chaotic neutral unless you chaotically do roughly as much good as you do harm.

Why does it matter? Gameplay-wise, in 5e, it doesn't. There were editions in the past where there were consequences to your alignment choices, but no more. But from a storytelling perspective? From the motivation of not being terrible to your fellow players? Understanding the alignments (and table etiquette as well) can make or break the experience.

Please, if you want to do terrible things, just go ahead and play any flavor of evil--chaotic, lawful, or neutral. Following table rules and player etiquette, there is absolutely nothing wrong with playing an evil character. There's not even any gameplay mechanics to make it uncomfortable, and being evil in the game does not equal being evil in the real world. Look at the DM--they're probably portraying evil characters so you have a villain to fight, and it doesn't make them any less a good person or any less a good DM.

As a personal example, I have a chaotic neutral rogue/artificer/bard (I haven't decided which way I want to multiclass.) Said character is chaotic neutral because she has seen the men in charge fail the people they were supposed to serve (therefore chaotic, valuing personal freedom) and because she's seen and done things that make her believe she isn't a good person (though she doesn't believe she's a bad one, either.) She might believe that the ends justify the means, but there are lines that she still won't cross.

Alignments are nuanced. They're highly dependent on the situation and the group you play with. As a DM, if you have a justification for why your character alignment is what it is, I'll listen and allow it, but bear in mind that how your character acts will affect how people around them react to them. (For instance, if your character has been a jerk to everyone in the vicinity, I'll probably set the persuasion DC at 25--which, unless you're a level 20 character, is very high.)

Also, fun fact--if you play chaotic, you're kind of sharing the same half of the political compass with the libertarians. 😊

Go forth! Have fun!

[kybelles]

while i understand your point about the slavery system VS the pet system, i think it’s important to remember that what a character thinks ≠ the author thinks, so i don’t think it’s fair to judge pacat’s character off of a series that has intentionally morally grey characters.

about the actual point, laurent said that a pet has more of a choice than a slave, which is objectively/legally true in the capri world (though of course not *actually* true, considering children can’t consent under any circumstance). while at face value this seems like a strange thing to say regardless, i think the reason *why* Laurent in particular said it has to be considered. It’s pretty clear that Laurent at least partially blames himself for the abuse he suffered at the hands of the regent (i.e. when he said that auguste was the only one in his family free of taint, implying he had it himself), and so in my opinion, it seems that he still holds the belief that it’s possible for someone under his, aimeric’s, or nicaise’s circumstances to have a choice, because he believes that he did (even though we the readers know he didn’t). it’s his own self-blame that seems to have leaked into his opinions on the pet system as a whole, which of course doesn’t justify his way of thinking, but i don’t think it was exactly meant to be justified either. again, laurent is a very morally grey character, who i don’t believe is meant to reflect the morals of either the author or the reader.

not saying you’re wrong, just wanted to give my two cents

this was a lovely read! 👏

i have no notes except for the part about pacat: of course i’m aware a character’s thoughts don’t always align with the author’s actual views (tho i believe pacat used self insert in a lot of areas in this series but that’s another convo) but i believe it did fell on her to condemn the pet system the same way she did slavery. even if she didn’t have enough space in kr she could’ve tackled this issue easily in taoc. the way she left things in canon feels very unfinished to me. like even a line or two about damen and laurent changing the law to protect pets better alongside of abolishing the slavery would have been sufficient.

[romanken]

8, 10 + 2 if you're feeling heinous 😈 24 if ur not 😇

8. common fandom opinion that everyone is wrong about

well MY special little noble is actually the most inherently just and pure of heart and when they win the throne there will be a thousand years of peace. Wdym inherent violence of feudalism that's not real. And while there has been a downtrend in this belief throughout the last five years it HAS influenced a lot of other discource subtly... most people have realized that the way to start fixing westeros's problems is not thru a nice feudal monarch, but they dont understand that abandoning this framework for character/plot analysis also means abandoning a lot of other framework. In the arya v sansa wars people still use feudal patriarchal definitions of femininity to decide who is the Best Sexy Feminist (preteen girl). In debates about morality for certain actions people excuse things because it aligns with the feudal code of ethics- a deeply flawed and violent code. See: ned HAD to take theon hostage because well we live in a society. Like i think it's important not to hold characters to the same moral standards that we hold people in modern times to, because their circumstances are so wildly different, but we dont have to adhere to THEIR feudal values when analyzing them because its only a detriment to their characters. They live in a society but WE do not... cmon guys...

10. Worst part of fanon

no one fucking draws these characters ugly enough. Asoiaf fandom has a plague of sameface ig model syndrome and it sucks cause george puts so much distinct personality even in minor characters and then people are like hmmmmm what if they had the same button nose and good chin that everyone else has. Brienne is ugly let her be ugly!!! Arya and jon have long plain faces u dont have to draw the teen/preteen kids as super defined and striking! Let the kids look like kids. I don't care how beautiful dany is let her be a 15 yr old. OR the instinct to make everyone best friends forever and soften the complicated dynamics btwn these characters. like modern aus where the starks are the benevolent rich people who adopted theon from his abusive trailer park family grind my gears like hes a child hostage from a powerful noble house and u cant erase such a defining part of his character bc you want everyone to be nice to each other. Also related to this is people making jaime nice/acting like asos was a redemption arc or that he didnt commit some uniquely horrific acts in agot/acok. His actions thru out the last two books are not the acts of a changed man they are the acts of a man who realized he can make choices based on empathy and reason not instinct. LAST thing which is something i dont reaaaaally see here much but i know the cunts on ao3 are doing it: the post canon thing where people want brienne and jaime to get married and have twelve kids. Fuck you eat shit and die brienne is not an incubator especially not for that lannister SLAG

2. a compelling argument for why your fave would never top or bottom

cersei is not necessarily my fave but shes a character whose sexuality i often think of. In canon the only time she's had sex with a woman she's topped and every time she fucks a dude she's disassociating so hard shes on another planet. Even when fucking jaime shes like imagining herself in his body fucking him in her body. In the bulldyke cersei universe he's stone. The pants stay on during sex and so does the shirt and probably also the shoes. Cis gay guy cersei universe he already thinks being gay is emasculating enough so obviously he's not going to let anyone penetrate him. Transmasc bi universe its like you've never been strapped until you've been strapped by a dude who's never cum once in his whole life. THANK YOU!

24. topic that brings up the most rancid discourse

"Daenerys is basically george bush because she uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh well its a post 9/11 metaphor and uhhh well astapor is basically iraq and uhhhhh nuclear arms" "dany has never done anything wrong in her life and criticizing her means uhhhhh you hate women and abuse victims" "dany is a RAPIST and a RACIST and wants ALL BROWN PEOPLE TO BE SUBSERVIENT TO HER" "mirri maz duur deserved to die horribly for killing (checks notes) her enslaver" "dany is a colonizer (that's not what that word means. you need to look up what that word means)" brothers. Lets all link arms and kill ourselves

Jesus Christ this is long as hell. Sorry I got a lot of beef

[darlingdearcstdead]

𝖈𝖑𝖆𝖚𝖉𝖎𝖆 𝖒𝖊𝖗𝖈𝖎𝖊𝖗

›  :･ﾟ ⧼  antonia gentry ,  cis woman ,  she/her ,  interview with the vampire.  claudia  mercier  is  a  21 ( 127 )  year  old  vampire  who’s  been  in  chance  harbor  for  2 weeks.  the  socialite & author  is  known  for  being  charismatic  on  a  good  day  and  bitter  on  a  bad  day.  they're  often  heard  listening  to  body bag  by  neoni  and  can  be  described  as  a smile half charming & half feral, clever as the devil & twice as petty, burying regrets six feet under, infamy follows in your wake.

✧ pinterest ✧

⇝ STATS ⇜

full name : claudia mercier nicknames : claudia age : 127 ( 21 physically ) birthday/zodiac : june 13 / gemini gender/pronouns : cis woman / she/her sexual orientation : pansexual species/affiliation : vampire occupation : socialite & author family : john romain ( father, deceased ), anna mercier ( mother, deceased ), helen romain ( aunt, deceased ), lestat de loincourt ( vampiric maker ), louis de pointe du lac ( vampiric brother ) personality traits : charismatic, bitter, vengeful, independent, cynical, careless, moody, lonely, emotional alignment : chaotic neutral

⇝ BACKGROUND ⇜

( trigger warnings : vague mentions of parental death, parental abandonment, physical abuse, death )

claudia was born in a different time and to entirely different circumstances than the ones she currently faces. her birth was a mistake, an accident of passion between two young people who weren't prepared for a child. her mother died in childbirth as was common in that time, and her father had no desire to be a father to a bastard child. instead, claudia was given to her maiden aunt, a gift, he would later claim. her early life was remarkably unremarkable in any way. she had chores, went to church on sundays, and tried to avoid beatings by her bitter aunt.

it wasn't until the fires in storyville that her life changed. she was rescued from the fire by what she thought was an angel and changed by another. only, they weren't angels but vampires. demons, her aunt would have said. but they didn't seem much like demons to her. either way, she was thrilled with the new life and what it offered her.

while she was initially enamored with the new, extravagant, carefree life she'd been given, that love soon turned to bitterness as life passed by and yet, she never changed. she initially played by the rules she'd been given, but after accidentally killing a mortal boy she'd become fascinated with, almost all morality left her. she became, sort of, a ripper for a while, killing indiscriminately and in multitudes. after being discovered and having a falling out with louis & lestat, she ventured out on her own only to find the vampiric world wasn't as welcoming as she'd anticipated.

after a few years, she returned to her makers, though she was ill-content with the status quo, leading her to eventually 'kill' lestat ( though this was unsuccessful ). she & louis ventured to europe where they met a troupe of vampires which led to her being condemned to death ( also unsuccessful ), and she found herself on her own once more.

through the years, she's made her own way in the world, making money in the few ways she could. claudia rarely stays in one place long, has little in the way of friends or companions, and still enjoys the kill. she found a niche writing vampire romance novels, though the sales have somewhat fluctuated since the reveal of vampires to the world, she's still able to continue the lifestyle she's become accustomed to.

[lumpofwhump]

For your alignment chart ask game, Lenavee, Radu, and Barclay?

-verkja

Thanks for the asks (these and the yet-unanswered ones lol…)

Lenavee is Neutral Good, tending toward the Chaotic end of the order spectrum and down toward the Neutral part of the morality spectrum.

She was a petty thief and small-time scammer (if only under duress) for most of her childhood, and will lie, steal and manipulate to protect herself and her loved ones. Even her overly deferential way of speaking to and about people with more power than her is as much part of a submissive act as it is something her captors ground into her for years… and is sometimes incredibly backhanded. The traditions and institutions she respects are those of her culture, and not even as a form of defiance against the occupying forces (as it has become for many Hiukree rebels).

Morality-wise, she’s at a base level benevolent, and is a lot of people’s Mom Friend. She’ll throw herself under the bus for someone she loves knowing that they won’t ever know or recognize what she did. BUT. Put her and hers in danger or anything close, and you might find yourself drinking poisoned coffee or locked inside a washing machine.

Radu is solidly Lawful Good, though not the most extremely so of either quality.

As a heavily-conditioned whumpee (especially post-wipe), he’ll generally do what either his whumpers or his caretaker(s) tell him to the best of his ability, even if it hurts him. There’s quite a bit of fear there, of both punishment and abandonment, but there’s also genuine respect for anyone who protects him… or at least tells him they’re doing so. A significant exception to this is his protecting another, younger whumpee against his whumper… which led to him being wiped.

He’s almost a total cinnamon roll, of the variety that wouldn’t even hurt someone in self-defense. But. His loyalty to people he cares about can push him to do intentional harm. The example of this that’s come up so far is purposely mistranslating someone’s statements about one of his former whumpers’ good actions to say that said whumper had done the speaker harm. Granted, Radu did this to make sure that the person in question couldn’t do any more harm, and he didn’t know that the guy would get tortured because of what he said, but he could’ve guessed that it would’ve ended badly for the person he was framing.

Barclay is True Neutral. He drifts all over the place depending on his circumstances, but he never fully and permanently shifts alignment.

Anyone with power who gives him the time of day has his utmost respect, and he’ll do (or not do) a lot to prove himself and stay in their good graces. Throughout his early adulthood, he’d be the type to say he’s just following orders. At the same time, he does have lines he won’t cross, and will engage in minor, hidden forms of disobedience to avoid doing so. Meanwhile, he’s got huge impulse control problems. This leads him to disrespect authority figures or systems that have wronged or misjudged him, under the logic that if he can’t win, he might as well do whatever he wants and give the haters the finger while he’s at it.

As this suggests, Barclay tends to be as good or bad as the people around him and/or their expectations of him. When he’s working in the labs, both Director Richardson’s expectations that he be ruthless with subjects and the disdain of more ethical staff and subjects lead him to become the worst version of himself - cutthroat, bullying, and explosive in temper. When he’s eventually rescued/released from ten years of captivity and torture, though, his rescuers’ belief that he inherently belongs as a worthy member of his found family makes him act his best to deserve that respect… though still with the occasional reactive outburst.