#nuanced discourse

[unsolicited-opinions]

We've Made Changing Your Mind Look Like a Flaw Instead of a Virtue

The internet has taught people to archive your opinions and weaponize your growth. If you evolve, you're a flip-flopper. If you admit uncertainty, you're weak. If you take time to rethink, you're stalling.

So people fake certainty to avoid punishment.

Intellectual honesty, though, requires change. If your views haven't changed in ten years, that says less about your clarity than it says about your lack of reflection.

[mofsblog]

Defending Ending 2

Okay I've seen a lot of discourse around the "True Ending" of Clinical Trial and I just wanted to give my take on it. Spoilers under the cut

I know a lot of people didn't like Ending 2's light and happier tone and it being the True Ending and felt like it absolved Lee of any consequences and just put Angel in a dangerous shitty position, isolated with a murderer and argue that it goes against the whole point of the game… But I just really don't view it like that. To me, Ending 2 reinforces some of the game's central themes surrounding consent, neurodivergency and societal neglect.

While I do think Lee can be manipulative (ESPECIALLY in the Reject route) and consistently hides things from Angel, I do think the Accept route that leads into Ending 2/the True Ending is a product of Angel's own anatomy as much as Ending 1 is. While Angel chooses to forgive him initally for the shrine thing, they don't dismiss or downplay what he did either. While they do display some unhealthy thought patterns (the idea that they never thought someone would ever pay so much attention to them <- which is a belief absolutely fueled by self hatred) that could contribute to their forgiveness, they don't let that blind them from the inherent fucked upness of what Lee's done. This isn't a "Wow, you did nothing wrong. Let's date!" situation. It's a "You fucked up and you hurt me but I'm willing to give you another chance, if you change for the better" situation.

Same thing with the revelation of the murder. Angel does not downplay how upset they are to appease him. Even when they acknowledge Lee killing Brandon probably prevented him from harming future victims as he's a repeated offender who likely wouldn't stop, Angel still acknowledge that Lee didn't know that when he killed him. Angel is consistently able to voice their grievances with him and call him out on the wrongness of his actions, which is why I feel pretty comfortable stating that Lee and Angel's relationship, no matter how fucked up, toxic or unhealthy, is not an abusive one because Angel is always able to voice their issues with him and he is more than willing to listen.

The player, and by extension, Angel is also explicitly given the choice on whether or not to forgive him with both revelations (I especially like that Angel's given the choice to basically back out of the relationship, even after they accept the shrine thing, after the murder reveal), highlighting their agency. Yes, you can absolutely argue that Angel's decision to forgive Lee twice is likely influenced by their loneliness and need for connection and that does make their relationship a bit unhealthy (and interesting/hj) but again I don't think it's abusive.

I also want to point out that even if the Accept route, Angel gives Lee conditions. They don't just accept him willy-nilly. They want him to actually listen to them.

I think that Angel's ultimate decision to forgive Lee isn't just to date him, it's to give him another chance at becoming a better, more rounded person. A large part of the whole game is about how society (the education system and the medical system) tends to fail neurodivergent people, especially those most in need of help. Angel and Lee literally bond over their different experiences of neurodivergency (or implied neurodivergency on Lee's end) and how ultimately society failed both of them (with neither of them managing to succeed in ways they wanted because the system wasn't built for people like them).

There's also the prevalent mentions and implications of past punishments that we can observe through some of Lee's dialogue. He's canonically an ex Mormon, who was probably consistently punished (and abused) for any wrongdoing (some of which we can assume could come down to traits of his neurodivergency as it's not too uncommon for autistic children to get misunderstood and mistreated). Similarly, we know that Angel was put some level of physical abuse and mistreatment by their school in an attempt to "correct" their left handedness and even then it's implied that's only one example of them being abused by the education system.

Both Lee and Angel know what it's like to be punished and hurt after displaying a 'weakness' or a mistake. They've both been hurt by the notion that punishment is necessary to improve a person, which is why I find the Accept route so powerful. I've seen a lot of people complain that Lee doesn't go to jail or face "tangible" consequences but the way I see it, prison would make him worse and remove any chance he has of healing. While fucked up, illegal and his fault, his actions are still partially a product of his upbringing and the lack of support and therapy for him. He specifically mentions that he never went to therapy so he could get his job. Lee is partially the product of an unaccomodating society as much as Angel is. (Also I could go on for hours about how his Mormon upbringing probably skewed his entire view on how relationships are supposed to function and probably made him think love has to be in the form of devotion)

The way I interpreted it. Angel wasn't coerced into staying with a dangerous, harmful person. Angel sees parts of themselves in Lee and is giving Lee a chance neither of them were ever given in a life. They're creating a new life together where mistakes and fuck ups aren't instantly met with punishment or harm. Yes, Lee fucked up horrendously, violating their trust and ignored their wishes but they're both willing to acknowledge that and work on it because maybe for once, one of them's allowed to fucked up without facing an abusive 'punishment' afterwards. Maybe for once, one of them's allowed to fuck up and be given room to grow and improve. And maybe for once, Angel gets to choose how they want their life to go.

No, most people probably wouldn't have made the same choices as Angel but its still their decision to make. Yes, it's likely influenced by their pre existing loneliness and trauma. Yes, Lee would have to put a lot of work in to change himself and that will take time and there's likely some unhealthy beliefs he'll always struggle with. Yes, Lee and Angel's relationship is far from conventional or completely healthy, but fuck man, I think they're giving eachother room to figure it out together and idk, there's something beautiful about that to me.

They're both very mentally ill but they're trying and there's something about that that I find oddly comforting. Most media with the yandere trope never really provide the option for the yandere character to actually try to reflect on their actions and maybe learn better ways to cope and honestly I was so sure that both endings would involve someone dying in some way because these types of stories don't tend to go well. Usually, after a certain point, a character's just framed as "too" far gone, "too" mentally ill, "too" fucked up and beyond saving and they usually die a tragic or poetic death (i.e like Ending 1). But Angel looks at Lee and his actions and decides fuck it and to say no to that. They make the choice to give Lee another chance any way after what he's done because they don't see him as irredeemable. I just really like the way they both get to live in the end and make a better life together and what that says about neurodivergent and mentally ill people.

[that-satireguy]

the absolute devaluation of systemic male privilege that comes from denying the nuances of trans men's experiences is kneecapping feminism.

We went from, 'men as a class has institutional power over the underclass of those classed as women. this is a system known as patriarchy, and within this system there are nuances.'

to

'um actualllllly 🤓☝️ trans men are MEN and therefore have systemic male privilege so its CLEARLY not this man/woman dynamic that results in menstrual products not being available, abortion being illegalised, forced marriage being so common, in fact even the mystical laws of past (which definitely dont still exist in other countries) were mysteriously targeting trans men too, so clearlyyy that can't be do with misogyny'

Like please. Its fucking common sense that this dynamic applies to trans men as well (usually even worse), and not in terms of them being part of the male class. this isn't misgendering and for fucks sake EVERYONE KNOWS THIS??

Can we please just go back to understanding that trans men arent typically part of 'men as a class' and this doesn't invalidate their gender, just reports material reality?

Please.

Im getting fucking sick of this man. Its not fucking misgendering or bioessentialism to point out that cisfeminism has ignored the shit out of trans men and that they are usually exceptions to this dynamic.

[aq2003]

nobody understands the robot revolution like i do it's not about "AI bad" it's about how AI has no inherent morality to it as a technology and it reflects human bias/greed/entitlement i am sorry

[yvesdot]

People have been upset over the Kesha "Delusional" single cover since it was announced, and it makes even less sense to me now that we have the song to compare it to thematically. The assumption that Kesha spat this out and didn't notice that every single bag is misshapen and every single "DELUSIONAL" is misspelled, rather than that she was making an intentional point, is really bizarre and unlikely.

Just as the Charli BRAT cover was intentionally gross and artifacted to make a point about DIY culture and IDGAF partygirl attitude, the "Delusional" cover uses AI art of defaced knockoff bags to visually represent that any woman Kesha's ex could find to "replace" her with would only be a cheap imitation of the real thing; a hastily put together facsimile of real beauty and talent.

It's a point that addresses the idea that artists will be "replaced" by AI, that quickly-prompted AI images are comparable to "professional photography," etc. It's an extraordinarily normie, mainstream point, but it's also a point that is being flagrantly missed by the exact audience who would agree with it. It's kind of incredible.

I've been waiting to see a piece of AI art that felt like an "artistic statement" along the lines of Warhol's pop art & Duchamp's readymades, and so far this is the only entry on the list. It's interesting (and funny!) that the first piece to use AI to make an effective metatextual statement on such a grand scale should be made by someone who, in my opinion pretty clearly, does not like AI art. It makes me think, which is more than I usually get from an individual single cover. I'm a fan.

[bookwyrminspiration]

i need you all to be normal about people deciding they don't want to explore their identities. we're not inherently repressing anything, and we're not lost opportunities for self-fulfillment and finding community. maybe some people are, but we are allowed to decide we're satisfied and digging deeper isn't what we want, and we're valid for it. it is our choice. please stop treating us like we're naive and gonna regret it

[unsolicited-opinions]

This conversation between Ezra Klein and Sarah Mcbride (our first openly trans member of congress) is worth the time.

McBride's view of the social and political landscapes is clear-eyed and nuanced.

McBride seems to be a post-purity progressive eager to shift discourse away from identity politics.

She prefers engagement to exclusion and dialogue to dismissal.

She believes people are more than their worst take, and that engagement drives evolution. She doesn't treat every misstep in language or understanding as proof that someone is a bigot. Instead, she believes people can learn, grow, and be part of the conversation, even if they don't say everything exactly right at first.

That's constructive, compassionate, practical, and smart.

[notaplaceofhonour]

I feel like there are two truths, that we rightly celebrated when Pharaoh’s army were drowned, and that at the same time G-d was heartbroken that their creation was drowning—and neither response is wrong.

Both are entirely valid and normal responses to have to the death of evil men (who nevertheless were still people), and you just kinda gotta live with that complexity. like, you can’t expect people not to grieve the death of any part of G-d’s creation, but you also can’t expect people not to sing when their persecutors are gone.

I think G-d made us to feel both, and they made some of us to feel one more than the other, and that’s okay.

[glass-not-a-girl05]

My take on the Sabrina Carpenter album cover situation is that while, yes, her speech tends to contain some form of mild political, sexual and feminist commentary that paint her as a modern, liberal girl, her music lacks the radicalism necessary to subvert the imagery she employs, especially on this instance, and that's why it comes off tone deaf and "male fantasy" rather than empowering or satirical

[thund3randrain]

“It’s fine to ship Yelena with people bc aroace people can also have sex and be in relationships-”

I am putting you in a meat grinder and making you into spaghetti bolognese, which I will share happily with my aroace moots who are also tired of this shit

[idunnaldwir]

But you love him?! Even though he did so much harm? Even if he is such a mess?? That's sick!! There must be something wrong with you! Yes, I love him exactly because he is so broken and did so much harm. I love him because he has an arc and a story. I love him because he knows he's broken and because he can be forgiven and change and do better. I love him because if someone like him can be redeemed and do better, surely I can as well. Because if someone like him can receive grace from others, surely I deserve it as well.

I love him because I do not see myself as a golden, righteous hero, but rather as a flawed work in progress.

I love him because I do not believe people are unredeemable, nor to be condemned forever.

This is the value of anti-heroes and even villains, to be mirrors of self awareness, but also self love. To be founts of catharsis.

[fortheloveofexy]

On the one hand I am delighted at the idea of a Kevin Day duology... on the other hand I know that means Thea will by necessity have more of a presence and a lot of ppl are gonna be assholes about it.

[whispersbetweenchapters]

Never in my life did I think I would be defending the Prim Reaper. But here we are. I cannot believe all the mischaracterisation of his I'm seeing, and some of the hate. Yes, he can be disliked, I don't really like this mf, but people calling him as bad as snow is WRONG. Ahem. Right. ONE. Let's take a moment to remember that Gale was also a child, who was also learning it live. I'm not disputing that some of his actions were wrong, but you gotta be realistic, he was a dumb teenage boy. Yes, he needed lessons on empathy and compassion, but he was learning, in possibly the worst environment (which, wow, surprised that it didn't do too well).

TWO. Um, why the hell are we calling him a toxic trad husband? He is not. Trad husbands want their partner to be inferior while they shine and boast. Gale was never insecure that Katniss was a better hunter than him or a better shot, her fell in love with her for it, for how capable she was.

THREE. The statement that 'Gale would kill Katniss in the Games', uh personally, no. I do not think that Gale would kill Katniss in the games, because just like Peeta, he was also in love with her. I think that they would team up together, until the 'endish' before splitting up, hoping they wouldn't have to kill one another. I don't think Katniss would want to kill him either. AND if it came down to the two of them, I think Gale would sacrifice himself. He would make Katniss promise to look after his family before killing himself, so Katniss wouldn't have to do it. And if it were the other way around, he would make sure Katniss's family was well looked after. I'm just so over people making him out to be such a 'bad guy' when he is just a traumatised child.

FOUR. Everyone respects Beetee for blowing up people, but Gale is the worst person alive for it? Yeah, sure, Beetee went through hell, yes, it was probably more than Gale. But that cannot be the REASONING ON WHY GALE WAS BAD FOR IT. Just because his trauma was 'less' does not mean Beetee is any better. It's double standards. If we're being real here, Beetee is a mature adult, and Gale is a deranged, not fully formed teenager boy who has just been through the most traumatic events in his life. Beetee has already been living with his for years. Gale just watched his home, friends, and life be destroyed. Why would he care about anyone on the 'enemy' side at this point? His rage was not just from that, by from losing his father, from being oppressed, from watching so many children die in those games (hmm sounds familiar? Just like Beetee). Realistically, MANY people would do the same thing, make the other side suffer just as they have made you suffer. Not everyone is compassionate and sweet like Peeta, and that isn't 'wrong' or 'bad but you can't hold expectations to a child like that. Gale had every right to react the way he did. AND BEETEE IS NO BETTER. He knew what he was doing, don't cover his ass for it but hate Gale at the same time. Gale provided the idea, and Beetee made it. At ANY moment, he could have gone, hmm, nah, this is too much. But he did not, because he was just like Gale and wanted that revenge.

FIVE. Gale was also groomed by Coin, just as Snow was by Dr Gaul. Coin used his anger, his pain, for her benefit. Because, as we tend to forget, Gale was still just. A. Child. He was never told the bombs would be used against his own people; he was told they would be used against the Capitol, the people whom he was targeting. He was literally on the front lines. Did he want to blow himself up? No. Now, let me propose a question. Did Beetee know? Because someone had to operate that bombs, someone who knew how they worked, someone who wasn't on the front lines. It's an interesting thought, and maybe that's why Beetee says no to the Capitol children's hunger games because he already killed half of them with the bombs.

Now, just to clarify to am not on 'team gale',  I hate Gale for the way he lacked an understanding for Katniss when she returned from the games. For how he saw everyone as a competition and in love with Katniss, but as I said before, not everyone is great and compassionate, and that's okay because everyone is DIFFERENT. I just believe it's become a 'fad' to hate on him now for stupid things. You don’t have to like Gale. I don’t, he's annoying and a teenage boy brat. But hating HARD on him without context is lazy — and y’all are smarter than that.

[acequinz]

I don't know why people are on the opposite spectrum only.

It's always either Jiang Cheng did nothing wrong or Jiang Cheng did everything wrong.

Did Jiang Cheng love Wei Wuxian? Yes.

Did he also in a way abandon Wei Wuxian? Yes.

Would Jiang Cheng die for Wei Wuxian? Yes.

Would Jiang Cheng prioritise something over Wei Wuxian? Also yes.

Why are people acting like him being angry and/or upset Wei Wuxian about literally anything he has done(and he has done a lot) negates the love he has for him?

Also about Wei Wuxian's morality, the author has said that Wei Wuxian and Lan Wangji are morally good people, this does not mean they can't do something wrong. And having made a mistake doesn't make them bad people either, it's just that morally speaking Wei Wuxian was in the right to defend the Wens. But life doesn't fucking work on morals.

Hell Wei Wuxian holds too many regrets that even he won't admit that he's a perfect person because there're too many things he would want to do differently. But under no circumstances can you question his morals because they have always been in the right place. All his acts of purposeful cruelty were against people who hurt him first.

Jiang Cheng being unable to stand up with Wei Wuxian during the Wen situation is because he's young and has no support but it's still disappointing because Jiang Yanli still managed to stand with Wei Wuxian in a way and then we see Jiang Cheng be unable to, it's also because the scale is different and he prioritised his sect over Wei Wuxian.

Then the other part of Jiang Cheng lashing out on Jin Ling physically that I see many screenshots of it and it's always when Jiang Cheng is under high emotional distress situations. Which is not to say it's okay and should be allowed. But the world setting and situation also matters.

But guess what that also does not take away from the love Jiang Cheng has for Jin Ling.

There's too many connections in the story itself especially around Jin Ling and his uncle's.

Now of course a relationship can have all the love but unless it has active care and affection it means nothing.

Which is why Wei Wuxian and Jiang Cheng fall apart. They have the love, they even have the care but because they just can't share affection they fall apart immediately after Jiang Yanli because before she had been the bridge of affection between them.

With the final bridge down, their relationship could not stay afloat and just sank.

[burr-ell]

The narrative is one thing, but I think it's really weird for fans to think Ludinus "has a point" about the gods in general causing the destruction of the Calamity when we know better. We objectively know better. It wasn't Sarenrae mutilating Vespin Chloras into a mindless puppet. It wasn't Melora sending Zerxus manipulative dreams and visions. It wasn't the Raven Queen destroying Exandria's protections against extraplanar threats. It wasn't Kord sending fiends into two inhabited cities to slaughter people indiscriminately. It wasn't Bahamut trying to release two emperor titans to destroy the planet. It wasn't Pelor killing and resurrecting Zerxus multiple times just for kicks, calling living breathing mortals "worthless paper dolls" and "a bad first draft".

It wasn't they who were responsible for the cloud of ash covering Exandria, or even most of the casualties. We know it was "not only in the first year, but in the first moments of Calamity" as Rau'shan and Ka'mort were destroyed—to prevent unleashing them on the world and everything being lost—that a large amount of that two-thirds of living beings were killed. We know that the "eruption of ash and fire, molten stone" from the destruction of Toramunda caused by the release of energy from the Astral Leywright sent up a cloud that covered Exandria for about a hundred years—up to the point where Downfall takes place, in fact. We know who then saw that destruction, done in the name of saving the world from the worst of his carefully plotted scheme, and then decided to shatter Exandria's teeth.

It's interesting how fixated some folks have gotten on the idea of "history being written by the winners", that maybe we don't really know the truth of what happened. It's not only ironic to then give infinite benefit of the doubt to the perspective of someone we know is a liar, it effectively wishes away how much of the history we've seen play out for ourselves. Under this...let's charitably call it understanding, the gods that we objectively know caused the Calamity's destruction are never the gods being referred to as oppressors and tyrants (even when they've explicitly identified themselves as oppressors and tyrants!).

For Bell's Hells, and the people of Exandria, much of this information has in fact been lost to time, and I don't look askance at them for not knowing what happened. I do, however, look askance at the real-life people who do know what happened, who can reasonably piece together the information we've been given, and are still so desperate for Ludinus to "have a point" that they're hiding behind tautologies and clichés so they can demonize the gods regardless. Because "what if the good guys were bad" is subversive, you see. When the black-and-white mindset is true but just casts the heroes as the villains, well, that's nuance, right?

[arriettyspin]

Okay so did anyone else find Haymitch referring to Maysilee as his sister to come entirely out of left field? At this point in the story they were still barely friends, just about allies. And the dialogue felt stilted and nothing like Haymitch's way of speaking previously. There was something very reactionary and fourth-wall breaking about the passage - like the author was telling us how we should perceive their relationship instead of trusting the reader to interpret it themselves from what was shown in the text. Maybe I would feel differently if they had had more interactions, idk.