#moral conundrum

[faif-girlcel]

a classic case of the trolley problem, with a twist:

on one track the six dog girls in the polycule, on the other, th polycule's only top.

common sense says sacrifice the minority for the majority's sake, but do you really have the heart to leave all six of those girls ownerless?

[braxiatel]

Mr CC Mumbo Jumbo I need you to put on your big boy anti thumb shifting wires and win the next life series for me. It’s me and ten other people being actively deranged about C!Mumbo right now and we gotta get some more people in here. I need to see everyone in this house waxing poetic about what celestial body, major arcana card, D&D subclass, element on the periodic table, bodily humour, subway order, etc your gayass little cubito is

[metanarrates]

i think that there is some type of test being posed to me every time a creator holds up a couple of fingerpuppets and goes "im going to make you think about how you quantify what makes a Real Guy." i consistently fail this test because unfortunately 100% of the time i tend to just skip over that question and point at the puppet and go "yep that is a Real Guy."

[venti-death-watch]

my worst au habit is that i always, without a doubt, put yanqing on the astral express. like the concept of him looking at jingliu & jing yuan’s teachings (pure strength & art of the sword versus strategy & why you wield) and deciding to take a third path is so appealing to me. it also is exactly what jing yuan wants him to do, so by him taking that third path he’s subtly telling jing yuan that he’s learned from jing yuan— ie, when there’s a stalemate on the board, bring in an outside option

[im-ashl]

artfight attack for YellingRock on artfight

they had a "draw me a character" thing so i made them a son

his name is Stomach Ulcer you can spend 500$ on his credit card and he goes to Forever Hell

he says gobble bobble woop woop do you Spare Him Or Kill Him

[eloquentsisyphianturmoil]

@nailsinmywall did a Vietnamese!Feanorians drawing and can I just say Viet Kong Fëanáro is the most terrifying thought that has ever occurred to me and I will never sleep soundly again

[watermelonsloth]

Itachi and the Uchiha Massacre

This might be one of the most controversial posts I’ll ever make.

I find myself very undecided about how I feel about Itachi’s role in the Uchiha massacre. It fills me with the same moral indecision and disgust of the trauma olympics (aka the comparing of “who had it worse”). Every time I try to come to a consensus, I immediately doubt my conclusion and question whether I’m giving Itachi too much of the benefit of the doubt or I’m not taking his circumstances into account enough. It’s like asking if him being a child outweighs him killing children. And that makes me uncomfortable.

On the one hand, he did something very very very bad. He killed an entire clan of people, including who knows how many innocent civilians and children. He then proceeded to psychologically torture his seven year old brother with the memories of him doing so. Prior to being met with this specific conundrum, I would’ve said without hesitation that this is a black-and-white situation with Itachi being solidly in the wrong. Even if he wasn’t the only perpetrator, he still would deserve much of the blame for being one of the executors of such an abhorrent act.

I cannot stress enough how terrible the massacre would’ve been in practice.

However, and this is where I might lose a few of you, as more information is revealed, one question nags at my entire fucking central nervous system. How much of a choice did Itachi really have?

To understand the full circumstances, first you have to understand that the context falls under two categories: who Itachi is (and his perspective) and what position he was in when he made the decision he did. First, who he is:

Itachi grew up in a militaristic village that normalizes violence, especially violence being used to solve problems.

This village has also normalized putting the village’s survival over oneself and one’s friends/family.

He was alive to see the very end of the third shinobi war and the nine tails attack, two events that have solidified his belief that war is the worst thing ever and should be prevented at all costs.

Hiruzen, Danzo, Kakashi, and Shisui encourage his belief that war should be avoided at any and all costs. Three of them are authority figures (see the Milgram experiment for why that’s relevant) and one of them is his first and only best friend.

He is a very introverted and closed off person. He’s so closed off that not even his immediate family can read him. Because of this, his inner circle is very small (meaning he has a very small support network).

He grew up with a strict, authoritarian father and entered the anbu at a young age, meaning he grew up being expected/pressured to obey those in positions of power without asking questions.

He’s an introvert who’s scared of conflict and keeps his head down.

Second, his actual position when he was told to kill his clan (I might be missing some, so feel free to add any others you remember.):

He was thirteen. That is a child in grade 8. That is the age of most genin.

Tensions between his family and village are implied to have been rising for a while and are now at the point that, for whatever reason, negotiation is deemed impossible.

Tensions are so high that if the village doesn’t act soon, the Uchiha’s coup will spark an all out civil war.

The Uchiha clan has little to no chance of winning the conflict and will likely have most (if not all) of its members killed in it. Plus, the conflict would’ve also resulted in many casualties on Konoha’s side as well, including civilians, children, and shinobi who had nothing to do with what was happening.

Tensions between him and his father are extremely high as well with the two of them being implied to regularly argue.

His best friend, possibly only friend, died by jumping off of a cliff in front of him after giving him one of his eyes and left the responsibility of handling the entire situation to him.

He’s being suspected for the murder of said best friend (and was flat out accused of it in front of his younger brother by three adult police officers) and is suspected as being more loyal to the village than to his clan, making him even more of an outcast to his clan.

He's aware that his best friend was attacked and mutilated by Danzo, one of the village leaders and his superior. If he wants any action taken against Danzo, he’ll have to fight a solo, uphill battle against all of the village leaders and risk losing all sway over the Uchiha situation (which would still be a ticking time bomb) in the process.

If he doesn’t want to fight a two sided war or lose what little power he has in the situation, his safest option is to follow orders while pushing for a plan where casualties are minimized.

Did Itachi have other options? Yes, I’m not gonna pretend that genocide was Itachi’s only choice. But a lot of people seem to forget how difficult or flawed a lot of his alternatives would have actually been in practice.

For example, I’ve seen a lot of people throw around the idea of Itachi just grabbing Sasuke and leaving the village. First of all, the massacre still would’ve happened, Itachi and Sasuke just wouldn’t have been there for it. Second, Itachi would’ve had to remove Sasuke from the village without being caught by the village or the Uchiha clan when he was under the scrutiny of both. Itachi is a good shinobi, but I don’t know if he’s that good. Third, how would he even get Sasuke to go along with him? Itachi may not have been close to his clan, but Sasuke loved his clan. Yes, Sasuke also loved Itachi, but it’s a pretty big stretch to say that seven-year-old Sasuke would’ve just gone along with it, especially when he wouldn’t have been able to understand the true scale of the situation. (Itachi would pretty much have to kidnap Sasuke for this plan to work.) Fourth (and similarly), people don’t tend to like uprooting their entire lives to leave the home they grew up in, even in emergency situations or when it’s the objectively better/safer option. Itachi and Sasuke, who were both raised to be “lay down their lives” loyal to their home, would’ve been especially averse to this idea. Fifth, even if they got over all of that and got out of the village, Itachi would have to raise his younger brother alone at thirteen years old while being on the run from a world power with no protection in a world where they’re at risk of being killed or getting the attention of creeps like Orochimaru simply for having kekkei genkai. It’s not like Itachi had outside contacts (beside Obito but Obito would not have helped them even if Itachi trusted him enough to trust Sasuke’s life to him) or there was a benevolent nation to take them in. Even if they managed to one day settle into a peaceful life, it would’ve taken years of fighting to survive before they’d have gotten there. Cool fanfic idea, but making Itachi slightly more innocent isn’t a solution.

The idea that Itachi should’ve just told the Uchiha clan what was going on and got help from them is similarly short sighted. The Uchiha clan were the victims in this situation, but they weren’t perfect angels either. Itachi was not close to, or particularly well liked by, his clan. Save for Shisui (who is theoretically dead in this scenario) and Sasuke, he had no emotional connection to the clan, only vague respect and a waning sense of responsibility towards it. And even if he did go to them, Itachi telling them what was happening would’ve just sparked a civil war, the one thing Itachi was desperate to avoid and the thing that would’ve gotten them all killed.

So…

What was the point of all this?

I’ll admit that I hoped typing out my thoughts would somehow end in me settling on an opinion, but right now I’m still just as undecided and significantly more depressed. Because, like, it’s just a depressing, shitty situation where there were victims and perpetrators and Itachi who just so happened to be both. Maybe trying to ask if Itachi is either “good” or “evil” is asking the wrong question. Maybe the entire discussion about how moral Itachi is as a person or all of the other choices he could’ve made is missing the point.

[transpanda-1]

Trying to look up your horny or fetishy interests online is such a gamble because you keep looking for that holy grail that understands it's really stupid and silly and if that's case let's just have dumb silly fun with it, or you get the most mean spirited dark humor punishment based horniness the world has ever seen

[9w1ft]

Don't you find the strict rules of society in Japan overwhelming for you and the kids?

not one bit

[howifeltabouthim]

'I wanted to be good, and I wanted to serve God, and I found I could not do both.'

Lev Grossman, from The Bright Sword

[stamplerfag]

the adderall has stopped shutting my brain up at work

[frecklenog]

i love putting characters in situations that are both kinder and much more harrowing than canon

[thevastnessof]

I think something very compelling about the Strawhat crew is that they are heroes, but they dont HAVE to be. they choose to help anyone who needs it, but they didn't take any oaths to be selfless. they're not being hypocritical when they overlook the greater good and tear apart the world for each other, or overturn everyone elses suffocating stability without asking just because they didn't like it. they can be as selfish as they want in how much they love each other, bc their duty IS to love each other

[distort-opia]

Okay, follow-up question for your response to my last ask: Do you think Joker would keep killing if Bruce just ignored him/didn’t show up to his crimes for some reason? Even though I know they aren’t canon, the stories that I can think of that address this are The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Cacophony (when Bruce and Joker have the conversation about what would happen to Joker if Bruce died), which both seem to imply that the answer is “no.” Since Joker’s identity is so wrapped up in being Batman’s narrative foil, I tend to lean toward this sort of interpretation myself because I can’t imagine Joker having much of a reason to exist and commit crimes without Batman (at least not after existing as his counterpart for many years). This is admittedly a pretty dark outlook because it implies that Bruce is unintentionally enabling Joker’s violent behavior (likely because he doesn’t want to admit to himself that he is the reason that Joker continues to kill), but it’s one that I find fascinating because of those implications.

However, it is entirely possible I am wrong!!! Maybe Joker would keep killing to draw Batman out, or maybe he has other reasons to kill that are important enough to him that he would keep going even if Batman stopped showing up (like his belief about the injustice of life or his desire to have fun). I’d be super interested to hear your thoughts on this.

A good question, and I think I wrote about this somewhere else... but can't remember where. Either way, you're right in pointing to The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Cacophony as indications of what Joker might do if Bruce disappeared or refused to pay him attention. And yes, absolutely it means that Bruce is unintentionally enabling Joker's behavior and is indirectly to blame for the people Joker continues to kill. In some comics he refuses to admit that, but I think more often he's been depicted as very much knowing that without Batman, Joker wouldn't have existed, and hundreds of people would still be alive. Then again... this is partly true for most of Bruce's Rogue Gallery. Joker is simply the villain he has the most direct influence in the creation of -- because unlike a lot of the others, Joker didn't see Batman on the news and get inspired by him to put on a costume and go on to terrorize Gotham. Joker fell in a vat of chemicals either by accident, or because he was so terrified by Batman he chose to commit suicide. No matter what origin you take into account, if Bruce hadn't been at Ace Chemicals that day, Jack Oswald White (apparently) would not have become Joker. And so, Bruce's sense of shared responsibility is the largest for him.

But leaving aside this little tangent, I personally don't vibe with TDKR and Cacophony for the answer to this question. Firstly, TDKR is... more its own Universe, with its own specific version of the characters; and secondly, in Batman: Cacophony, I'm pretty sure Joker was lying to make Bruce feel like crap. It's obviously my personal interpretation, but overall, because of the way Kevin Smith writes Joker... that whole conversation in #3 read to me as if Joker realized Bruce was reaching out, and immediately needed to destroy any sense of hope. He needed to quash any doubts in Bruce's head that Joker could be... well. Reasoned with, or fixed. And so, he said the things that would demoralize Bruce the most, on purpose. He confirmed in the worst way possible that all the things he did were because he hated Bruce, and that it was all Bruce's fault -- because then, maybe Bruce would finally kill him or let him die.

Anyway, an analysis of Cacophony isn't the point of this :)) I only want to bring up the comic Mother Panic: Gotham A.D., which you might not be familiar with. It basically has this exact scenario play out in the future. Batman just... disappears. And then Joker turns the world upside down to draw him out. He kills almost the whole Batfamily, he kills and kills, but Batman doesn't come back. So the comic shows him as having given up. He's not Joker anymore, but he's also not catatonic or anything, he's just... drifting. I'll put the most relevant 3 pages from the comic under the cut:

This is my preferred "What if Batman disappeared/stopped paying Joker attention" version, tbh. He kills all of the Rogues, he kills almost the entire Batfamily... He even tries to find other heroes to motivate him the way Batman did, and fails. But he doesn't go into a coma, or die. I personally see Joker as still enough of his own, independent person to not just stop functioning entirely when Batman is taken out of the equation, and this depiction falls most in line with that.

So, as you can see, there's comic and alternate Universe support for both interpretations regarding what Joker might do in a situation like this. It does differ from writer to writer, and from one conception of Joker to another, so you can pick and choose. I'm going with Mother Panic: Gotham A.D., though :)) He's written most like himself in this, I feel.