#it's not a moral stance

[secondbeatsongs]

"DNI if you-" this and "Don't follow if you-" that; you're all cowards. just put this in your bio like it's 2007

[vaguely-concerned]

the fact that irving canonically survives through the end of asunder to be at wynne's funeral is so fucking funny to me. nothing but love and respect for MY unstoppable cockroach morally grey machiavellian mage dad!!! he's survived in his position through multiple attempted rites of annulment and blood mage plots popping up left right and center around him. the chantry keeps trying to stamp him out but his dodge game is simply out of this world, divine. civil wars, political machinations and minefields, chantry atrocities, this wily old motherfucker is dodging and weaving his way through it all, not-quite-no-hits-taken-running-it-but-honestly-close-enough-under-the-circumstances style. if solas does succeed in tearing down the veil I would fully believe that one of the like three people still alive at the end of it all would be a very weary 90 year old first enchanter irving going 'oh this shit again huh'. the maker has cursed him for his hubris and his paperwork is never finished (affectionate, it's fine he canonically loves paperwork)

[c-rowlesdraws]

(Note: I’m writing this in good faith and not trying to come across confrontational)

Have u forgotten u can vote 3rd party? I know there will likely not be enough people voting independant party for a non red or blue president to be elected THIS voting cycle. But. If enough people vote independent maybe america will wake up and realize there are more than 2 shitty options. (It takes time to change, and change for the better)

Look the problem with the blue no matter who mindset is that these people know you are going to vote for them no matter what. Not because you necessarily like them but because at least they aren’t the other guy. Which gives dems absolutely no incentive to not be a piece of shit. Like do you get it? They will be awful and endorse genocides and all other terror because they know you will let them get away with it. Maybe biden isn’t as bad as a republican would have been but he is still pretty fucking bad. Personally, morally, I cannot in any way justify voting for him again.

voting for someone as damage control in an election does not mean you can't heckle the shit out of them once they are in office. You elect the officials you think you and groups you belong to have the better chance of pressuring into better policies, and who will do the least amount of damage in the meantime.

Democrats are relentless towards their elected officials-- at least the ones I know who are actually politically active are. They call, they protest, they campaign. Plus, as you're demonstrating, people on the left do not blindly vote (that's the other guys). It's totally unrealistic to say that elected Democratic officials just think they have an easy ride.

people can and should vote for whoever they want to in local elections, primaries, etc. But in the big one, the president one, the one in the fall, voting third party is like drawing up plans for a nice new extension on a house that is actively being set on fire. Voting for president is damage control. Voting is your hard-fucking-won civil right. Voting in smaller elections can also be damage control; when there is no-one to feel "good" about voting for, you vote for the less-worse one, because maybe that one is more receptive to the idea of climate change being real than the other one, and you can work with that.

Sometimes you get to vote for the option you align with the most. But sometimes voting is about picking the option with the cracks that you can dig your fingers into and pull open. Or at least the one who won't start taking a sledgehammer to civil rights and environmental protections (and, and) with all his buddies while you work to build support behind a candidate you can feel good about voting for in four years.

Biden has shown he can change his policies over time, with pressure. Democrats can be swayed in ways Republicans cannot. One major party can be pushed more left. The other one will drag us into a darkness that I don't even want to think about. The presidency is about so much more than just the individual sitting in the Oval Office.

Voting is strategic. It is strategic. It is not negative moral karma to vote strategically. It is one action amidst all the other actions you can take to fight for the future you want.

[perditty]

The Shavepate has a harder heart than mine. They had fought about the hostages half a dozen times. "The Sons of the Harpy are laughing in their pyramids," Skahaz said, just this morning. "What good are hostages if you will not take their heads?" In his eyes, she was only a weak woman. Hazzea was enough. What good is peace if it must be purchased with the blood of little children? -ADWD, Daenerys IV

[thissmycomingofage]

Swifties : "Joe is posting about Palestine just to make Taylor look bad!!!"

Me :

[shaykai]

I would love to see more interactions with Palette and Nightmare (and by extension, the gang)

[existencebringsonlypain]

might delete later bc I don't wanna be controversial but I don't really understand. what is the issue with being proship? I don't enjoy any of the taboo topics in fanfic (incest, abuse, pedophilia, etc) but that's... not what being proship is about, right? isn't it just... not policing other people's fics? if you don't like it, it's not for you. Is it not just... let people do what they want, if it's not hurting anyone? I'm lost.

[truthsinwhispers]

You guys know that the news about Neil Gaiman isn't a trans advocacy issue, right? Like... you know this is about sexual assault? Hopping on your high horse to discredit these accusations as "right-wing gotcha"s is a HUGE stretch you shouldn't even be thinking of making. What the fuck is wrong with you?

TERFs eat shit and die challenge. This post is not for you. I love my beautiful trans sisters and hope you are all safe and well 🩵🩷🤍🩷🩵

[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 :(

[lostyesterday]

There’s an ethical question in Star Trek I’ve seen several people here talk about that I’ve thought about a lot. Basically, what are the ethics of having a romantic or sexual relationship with a non-sentient holographic version of a real person? This issue is brought up several times in canon, but never dealt with well, in my opinion. The main canon discussions of this topic that I remember (and it’s possible I forgot something) are in Booby Trap (TNG) where Geordi has a very brief romantic relationship with a holographic version of a real woman he’s never met, in Hollow Pursuits (TNG) where Barclay presumably has romantic/sexual relationships with extremely out of character holographic versions of Deanna and Beverly, in Meridian (DS9) where a guy wants Quark to sell him a holographic version of Kira to have sex with, and in Human Error (VOY) where Seven has a semi-long-term romantic and sexual relationship with a holographic version of Chakotay.

So, first of all, I don’t think that any of those instances mentioned are morally okay. Booby Trap is the most complicated case morally speaking since, to my memory, Geordi didn’t intentionally initiate anything romantic, though he didn’t stop it once it started either. I don’t want to imply that what Geordi did is morally as bad as the other examples I’m discussing, especially since Geordi is the only character of color being discussed here and his actions are not really equivalent in intention or impact to the other characters’. As an episode, Booby Trap doesn’t seem to have a clear idea of whether or not what Geordi is doing is unethical. In fact, it felt to me as if that question wasn’t something that occurred to the writers at all (until Galaxy’s Child, but that’s a whole other thing and the hologram portion of it is arguably the least messed up thing there, so I’m ignoring it in relation to this topic). Hollow Pursuits does portray what Barclay does negatively, but I feel like the episode is much more concerned with the negative emotional effects this has for Barclay rather than for Deanna and Beverly. Meridian, from what I remember, is the only episode to portray this situation as definitively bad, and Kira is portrayed as justified in being angry. However, the episode is a mess in other ways and does not explore the topic with nuance, making light of it with humor when I think it needed to be taken more seriously. Human Error is in some ways the most baffling case here because what Seven does is portrayed almost positively, as something that is a potentially good step in Seven’s “social development”. Apparently, there is no thought given to what Chakotay would think of the situation. I’ve seen people suggest that the narrative and fandom treatment of Seven versus the other characters is a gendered double standard, which I do think makes sense.

But the problem here isn’t having a sexual/romantic relationship with a hologram, the problem is that the person didn’t consent to having their holographic image used this way. There’s obviously nothing wrong with having sex or a relationship with a hologram not based on anyone’s image, or based on the image of someone who gave clear consent to have their image used in that way. But using someone’s image this way without their consent is pretty obviously analogous to making nonconsensual porn of someone. Do the ethics of this situation change if the hologram is of a historical figure? What about a famous person who is still alive? I don’t necessarily have answers here, but I do think the situation can become more complicated.

And then there’s another factor to consider – is the sexual/romantic relationship the biggest issue here? In the cases of Hollow Pursuits and Human Error, Barclay and Seven’s simulations of the crew are much more extensive than just the romantic/sexual portions. Would it have been all right for Barclay to create potentially offensive and demeaning holographic versions of his crewmates if there was no romantic/sexual component? Would it be okay for Seven to recreate a version of every Voyager crew member and live out an intricate alternate life with them without any of their consent if she never had romantic/sexual relationships with any of them? Is it any less a violation of someone’s rights to use their image without consent for, say, a propaganda campaign for an issue they disagree with, or a story that portrays their holographic version as a horrible person? That second scenario is the plot of the Voyager episode Author Author. This episode seems to take the moral stance that it’s bad for the Doctor to use the images of his fellow Voyager crew members to portray horrible characters, but there are other questions it doesn’t raise. Would it have been okay for the Doctor to use their images without consent if he had portrayed their holographic versions positively? What is the line between an acceptable and unacceptable usage of another person’s image without their consent? Is it ever okay to use a person’s holographic image without their consent? Is such consent implied when a person agrees to holographic scans of their body? What exactly is one consenting to when they consent to have a holographic version of themself created? I don’t necessarily have answers to these questions, I just wish any of these episodes had explored these issues with more nuance. And I do think that it’s important to consider extending the question of consent here beyond sex and romance.

[narwhalandchill]

while i wouldnt necessarily disagree that childe seems to be on edge more so than usual (and he himself mentions being in a poor mood in act I) in the fontaine archon quest i do have to say i find it a little funny that theres people who think hes behaving, like, completely out of character in the court scene when he decides to go apeshit after being judged guilty by the justice.exe AI bot like.

did it somehow escape peoples memories that this man when presented with the idea that we as the traveler mightve tricked and gotten ahead of him with the geo gnosis just. entered a state of complete murderous rage leading to him activating foul legacy in the golden house. which actually ends up self-sabotaging his current objective more than anything bc unlike the clear way they struggled against childe before now the traveler just won by default by outlasting him

he mightve gotten over it fairly easily afterwards (in no small part bc traveler actually fought him which automatically translates to equal=respect=friend in his fucked up head) but childes been shown to be a highly dangerous individual with a massive ego prone to outburst in the heat of the moment when outplayed or his pride wounded before even when it isnt the smartest course of action like. this isnt new lmao.

getting accused of a crime he had never even heard of in a foreign nation he only recently arrived in and then sitting through all that court drama and being assured afterwards that he only needs to partake as a mere formality for declaring his innocence only to be somehow declared guilty by a machine is very much realistic grounds for childes patience to reach its breaking point if you ask me lol

[direquail]

I don’t get this dichotomy of “do you see them as platonic or romantic”. Yes. I will read a zillion fics of them platonically. I will read a zillion fics of them fucking nasty and/or in love. I will read a zillion fics of them fucking platonically. Free your mind. Nice dichotomy idiot what lies outside it

[nintendont2502]

btw i will forever recommend just. refusing to engage in discourse. its free its easy and you literally arent missing anything LMAO - 99% of discourse on here is just on the most pointless petty shit that literally doesnt mean a single thing to anyone in real life (i am looking directly at you "pRo/AnTi" shippers), and the other 1% is genuinely important shit... that isnt going to be solved in any productive way by insulting '''the other side''' online. arguing with strangers online never changes anyones mind all youre doing is making yourself *and* your cause look annoying as hell :thumbsup: maybe chill out. find a hobby.

[laurapetrie]

Unlike Jo, Amy embraces her budding womanhood, which she feels empowers rather than diminishes her. At sixteen, she has the air and bearing of a full-grown woman” and has “learned to use the gift of fascination with which she was endowed.” Although not a natural beauty like Meg, the blonde, blue-eyed Amy easily succeeds at making herself into a fashionable work of art, gaining first the attention of Laurie's college friends, then Fred Vaughn, and finally Laurie himself. It is not only with men that she succeeds, however. She wins over her fellow art school students, the mean girls at the fair, and then her aunts, one of whom takes her to Europe. Once abroad, Amy blossoms further. “Always mature for her age,” she now becomes “more of a woman of the world.” She enjoys her power over men (including Laurie) and tears around Nice in her own carriage, taking the reins herself and yelling out to Laurie in the street, her “free manners” scandalizing a French mother who hurries her young daughter in the opposite direction. Amy was the daring American girl abroad ten years before the publication of Henry James's Daisy Miller. In the end, of course, Amy wins Laurie and decides that she won't be an artist after all (because she possesses talent but not genius, something Laurie also discovers about his music). Readers often forget that Amy wants to become a famous artist because she gives it up so easily. She will become instead, as the wealthy Laurie's wife, “an ornament to society.” To many readers, Amy has seemed to be the clear winner among the four March sisters. In her New York Times essay “Amy Had Golden Curls; Jo Had a Rat. Who Would You Rather Be?” film and book critic Caryn James wrote that favoring Amy over the other girls was a "no-brainer." Pretty Amy went to Europe, had adventures, and married the dashing boy next door, while Jo lived in a dumpy boardinghouse in New York and married a boring professor. - Anne Boyd Rioux, Meg, Jo, Beth, Amy: The Story of Little Women and Why It Still Matters 

[redhoodie1723]

Yeah let's also cancel Lewis Hamilton for meeting and having conversations with Putin... Yeah... Also maybe Seb too because he was also there???? Yeah... Right...some of you have never had a job where you had to talk positively about someone you didn't like or approved just for the sake of keeping that job.

idk which time ur talking about hamilton and putin meeting up and making friends, as the only time i can find that they've interacted was at the 2015 russian grand prix where putin was giving out the race trophies. hamilton, vettel, and perez were all on the podium for that race. correct me if im wrong and theres another time theyve met, but thats literally all i can find.

now, first of all, there's a big difference between having to interact with a political figure on a race podium, and choosing to interact with them freely out in the paddock, taking pictures with them, and praising them in additional interviews. there's also a big difference between being polite to the current leader of the country you're in that is known for killing/imprisoning people who speak out against him, and actively supporting an ex-leader who has (as far as we know) never actually killed someone for not being supportive.

if you ask me, it would've been unsafe for hamilton or any of the drivers on that podium to speak out against putin at that moment or act impolitely. on the other hand, the biggest trouble norris could get in for not praising trump and taking pictures with him is maybe a talking too back at the mclaren HQ. like, lets be real, it would be ridiculous and insane of mclaren to fire norris after all the time/resources theyve put into his development, especially now that its finally starting to pay off. it would be like shooting themselves in the foot, a move thats generally reserved for ferrari's strategy team or sauber's pit stops.

furthermore, you are simply assuming that norris' job wouldve been at risk in this situation. not once has it been implied that he was threatened or coerced into this situation. its even less likely that that has happened since piastri hasn't made any comments or taken any pictures with trump as far as i can find. for all we know, it could've been norris' idea to do all that. so, not exactly the strongest defense here.

and even if he had been forced into the corner and told to take pictures and play nice, he also took it a step further to compliment trump in other interviews saying it was an "honor" and there's a lot to "respect" about trump. hamilton has never come out saying any of that about putin. in fact, he has come on the record since then condemning putin and his actions. can you tell me where norris has come out condemning trump and his actions? no? that's funny.

[oddrocks]

I don't think pit madness is WHY Jason decided to become a serial killing mafia boss, I think he just did that shit your honour.

but I do think it probably played a factor in how he could have been manipulated into such extreme behaviours given the circumstances