#its perfect tho

[symbioticsimplicity]

Why have I not seen a Mungrove Tenacious D AU yet???

[erxsxre-archived]

"I like this one..."

[anxioussailorsoldier]

zelda: “no, but...I would also like this notarised”

the totk situation is a textbook case of royal marriage for appearances so that the gay zoras can be with their blonde hylians, and you can't tell me otherwise

the blond barbarian man is leeroy, a beefier and more himbo reincarnation of link. still waiting to see him in-game

[userarmyhope]

J-H♡PE IN 2022

[doctorsiren]

Messed up lining Ford’s face so I went a different direction

[98chao]

was trying to make some sprites for blueberry milk cookie a few days ago and idk if im gonna finish them, so heres the ones i actually finished

and ofc have some vanilla milkshake sketches im actually so insane about them

[b4kuch1n]

study of this masterwork

[whaliiwatching]

a rendezvous beyond

and a halfway closeup just bc im rlly happy with how the bg turned out lol

[humhowellujah]

i'm drunk off two lavender martinis what the fuck do you MEAN dan and phil went on a step by step recreation of their japan trip as a part of a HONEYMOON episode for their sims. be so fr rn be so serious please. dan howell you have 4 minutes to respond . phil, keep it up babygirl. lavender martini recipe in the tags

[bungeepuppet]

🃏📍 Hisoillu Weekend - Day 3 - Future

THE FUTURE... OF THE ZOLDYCK FAMILY!? 😳😱😱💦

(illumi is sooooo normal about this EXTREMELY normal response 🥰💖)

[wodimewoahtime]

hey till...... don't you have just a little too much tsundere "i'm not gay" yaoi protag power???? why are you attracting these guys like a hamster to the shredder

[haysprite]

Some requests! :3

@tawghasa // @oh-omi // @plenilunni // @ziggstheenby-2

If you have any more Chilshi / Chilchuck related requests, feel free to send em my way! (ask box preferred)

[milkbreadtoast]

"The perfect orv dub/Kim Dokja voice doesnt exis-"

EXPLAIN THIS!!!!! (@voiceactorken on youtube!!!)

[star2stop]

so immensely late but uh. saw this post a good while ago and i thought it was very funny for some reason so heres mind in a suit lmao

also no way this shit is on PAPER?????? IRL EVEN THATS CRAZYY (i do not have the art supplies necessary to draw on paper i literally had to use a highlighter as the suits base color and i stole most of the stuff i used from my sister anyway lmao)

also uuuuuh wait op said to tag em uuuuh @randaccidents 💥💥💥💥💥

(couple zoom ins under the cut fhskfhskg)

[qiu-yan]

in order to say "wei wuxian is morally good," you must first define what it means to be morally good

though this is by no means exclusive to them, one logical fallacy i sometimes see wei wuxian stans make in their arguments is that they begin their analysis of wei wuxian as a character with the statement "wei wuxian is morally good."

so their argument becomes:

wei wuxian is morally good.

a morally good person would do XYZ.

therefore, wei wuxian would do XYZ.

alternatively, when they're objecting to someone else's argument about wei wuxian, their counterargument becomes:

this argument says that wei wuxian would do ABC.

a morally good person would not do ABC.

wei wuxian is morally good.

therefore, wei wuxian would not do ABC; the other person's argument is wrong.

while this is in fact a valid argument structure to use for other kinds of traits (ie. "brave," "doesn't think of the consequences," even something like "afraid of dogs"), this format of argument in fact cannot be used for a descriptor as vague as "morally good"--because, unlike the other traits, "morally good" is not precisely defined enough for the above argument structure to work.

"morally good" is not a character trait in the same way that "wants to defend the weak," "is angered by innocent people being harmed," and "does not fear consequences" are character traits, because what is considered "moral" can vary significantly from person to person. what a utilitarian considers to be moral, for example, diverges significantly from what a deontologist considers to be moral. if i were to say "wei wuxian is a morally good person," i have frankly said less about wei wuxian's personality and more about what i myself believe to be ethical.

thus, the reason why the above argument pretty much never works in the wild is that the depolyers in question rarely actually define what they mean by "morally good."

consider the case in which two different wei wuxian stans write on their blogs "wei wuxian is a good person." however, the first person follows a moral philosophy that centers courage in the face of certain failure, while the second person follows a moral philosophy that centers reason and pragmatism. thus, what the first person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who courageously chooses the correct path even when he is doomed to fail," while what the second person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is a reasonable and pragmatic person." these are no longer the same statement.

or consider the case in which the first stan follows a moral philosophy that centers agent-neutral harm reduction, while the second stan follows a moral philosophy that centers agent-relative reciprocity. in this case, what the first person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who helps others regardless of whether they've helped him before," while what the second person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who always repays kindnesses done unto him." again, these are no longer the same statement.

in general, if one wishes to argue that "blorbo is morally good," one must first specify what exactly they mean by "morally good," because not everyone follows the same definition of "morally good." many blorbo stans, however, don't actually do this. instead, they write their arguments as if their own definition of morality is already universal law; a reader can thus only reverse-engineer what the op believes to be morally good from their post. and this leads to no shortage of disagreements: two different blorbo enjoyers might find themselves in an argument over what they believe to be their blorbo's characterization, when in reality they are actually disagreeing over what it means to be ethical at all.

on the topic of disagreement, another fact that must be acknowledged is that wei wuxian himself is also a character with his own specific thoughts and feelings. wei wuxian is not an abstract paragon of righteousness whose definition of morality just so happens to perfectly match the reader's definition of morality; wei wuxian is a specific fictional character with his own specific thoughts as to what is right and what is wrong. and every reader has to accept that what wei wuxian considers to be right can in fact be gleaned from the text--and that what wei wuxian considers to be right will not always match what the reader considers to be right. wei wuxian might, in fact, disagree with you.

thus, if you want to make any sort of statement regarding wei wuxian's moral character (whether that be "he is morally good" or "he is morally bad") you in fact have to consider not just one, but four different questions:

what do you consider to be morally good? what moral framework and/or school of moral philosophy do you use to determine what is ethical?

how well do wei wuxian's actions adhere to what you personally consider to be morally good?

what does wei wuxian consider to be morally good? what moral framework and/or school of moral philosophy does he use to determine what is ethical?

how well do wei wuxian's actions adhere to what he himself considers to be morally good?

all of these are different questions! they cannot be conflated with each other.

to write a good analysis, you must accept that [what you consider to be morally good] will not always match [what wei wuxian considers to be morally good]. when such disagreements arise, rather than distort wei wuxian's character to match what you personally believe to be morally good, perhaps consider just allowing wei wuxian to disagree with you instead. even if he's doing something you honestly can't defend, maybe wei wuxian is still striving to live as best he can according to his own ideals, and it just so happens that his ideals do not match your ideals. you really should not distort wei wuxian's motives or beliefs just to make him more palatable to you, simply because you have wedded yourself to the idea that "wei wuxian must be morally good by my own standards."

closing thoughts: this isn't really exclusive to wei wuxian stans. i've seen all sorts of character stans in all sorts of fandoms make this same logical fallacy. i certainly think that some of the jiang cheng analyses i see from fellow jiang cheng stans are born less from an objective analysis of his character and moreso from the op's desire for his actions to align with their moral compass. but, out of all the characters in MDZS, it seems like people commit this logical fallacy when discussing wei wuxian specifically far more often than they do with any other character, save perhaps lan wangji.

[theelvishfiddler]

Rooftop Artists

Coloured it :D > lineart