#see he's a GOOD boy lmao

[saragrosie]

I may have started the woke communist rpg...

Bonus feelings about Kim's design (Kim my beloved) and some close-ups under here:

[mblue-art]

once again i was fueled with coffee (did not sleep the whole night) but this time i doodled college au to cope bc ofc i did (also did not feel like sleeping wooo)

[vaguely-concerned]

there are a lot of daddy issues to go around on DS9 in general, but odo, bashir and garak are really in their own special little fucked up 'what am I but wrought in my father's image' club

[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.

[rafumeika]

What Mahito did: Manipulate Junpei into being his friend and then killed him in front of Yuji, laughed about Yuji's desperation to save him, killed Nanami, got Nobara into a coma, destroyed one of Todo's hands

Yuji with Mahito at the end:

What Sukuna did: Threaten to kill Yuji's friend multiple times, ripped Yuji's heart out of his chest and then tricked him into making a Binding Vow that he would have to forget in order to bring him back to life, laughed at Yuji when he desperately begged him to try and save Junpei, told him over and over again that his mere existence would bring destruction simply by being his vessel, destroyed Shibuya and killed countless of innocent people, ditched Yuji to make Megumi his new vessel, then sinked Megumi's soul as deep as he could in darkness in order to keep control of his body, killed Tsumiki, killed Gojo, killed Kashimo, killed Higuruma, killed Choso, almost killed Yuta and pushed him into using Kenjaku's CT to get into Gojo's body, kept praising literally everyone else but Yuji (while still trying to kill them), who he kept talking shit about instead, got pissed when Yuji showed pity and told him that he would kill every single person still left alive that Yuji cared about before finally killing him

Yuji with Sukuna at the end:

[warlenys]

the glenn macdennis comment hurt obviously but also so necessarily cause i’d gotten too delusional i was too obsessed with the potential final prize instead of fully enjoying what i love about what macden is rn which is the saddest awfulest gay tragedy ever written this is such a good catalyst for lowering my expectations and just living laughing loving in the doomed queerbait this is what shipping’s about what fandom’s about what life is about let us rest peacefully knowing that we absolutely will still get shit and it’ll be crazy and funny and sad but ultimately the power to make it beautiful lies with us. as the queerbait gods intended

[glassofpumpkinjuice]

incredible patrick image from my show from the fob discord tour updates channel thank you elliot

[whoisnotmyname]

started playing dai on nightmare mode w Gunnjar so i (naturally) started another ref chart. (that pride demon was Awful)

[pawtisserie-0022]

Hi this is Johnathan lmao, my brains been going into places due to stress from classes and an at home situation that could involve cops, anyway you're not here for that you're here for him

Johnathan came to be after an idea I read somewhere, don't remember where, that Mirrorlander may have been a deceased sibling of Homelander, a brother that didn't make the cut and served as a lesson for what would happen if Homelander disobeyed. EXCEPT I made it worse by having Homelander kill his own brother as punishment. But clearly he isn't dead.

Johnathan is an odd case, he's valuable enough to still be within Vought's grasps yet having him around could cause problems so LEGALLY he belongs to the government. He has all the same abilities as Homelander except for one called "Obscurity" in which people immediately forget his face after they turn away from him hence he's able to walk the streets freely as his own person (sort of) without people mistaking him for Homelander, he can control this ability, if he wants to be perceived he will be, if he doesn't then you'll forger he was even there

I'm still on the fence about him developing this ability as a defense mechanism or if it was forced upon him despite feeling like that's not really possible. Regardless it works for Vought's convenience of a plan c (because fucking hell at this point) if all else fails.

Johnathan is a free man by all means, but he's still just a tool, no matter what we do we all end up on someone else's plate.

[wingsofhcpe]

In conclusion

[bacchuschucklefuck]

I don't think I've seen you mention it, but for your class!swap au, do you have any idea of what you'd turn the other Bad Kids into?

genuinely love the way this ask is worded first of all. I am like a great magician ur right and the bad kids are my victim. I am like their joker if you will. anyways I do! I've definitely brought this up on this blog before (in nonrebloggable untagged text posts so I don't blame you for not seeing them lol (I don't blame you regardless of that tbh bc that's a weird thing to do)) but the rundown is: kristen -> sorcerer, gorgug -> cleric, fig -> barbarian, adaine -> artificer, fabian -> rogue

[teddybeartoji]

OH ALSO!!

FOR YOUR POST ABT SPANKING GOJO I NEED A FIC ABT IT IF YOU WILL PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

like!! i am very into being spanked but spanking idk and i need to know so i thought a fic may clear that up..

cuz ik lingerie on men is hot i find it lewd it's perfect i absolutely would go feral tho i'd be too shy to properly show it through talking, would rather touch instead

but spanking.. maybe i'm too submissive for it but it annoys me!! to be stuck in that role!! i wanna give as much pleasure as i receive!! but it's too degrading and i'd be too shy and i wouldn't know how tho it's just a slap IDK THE IDEA MAKES ME NERVOUS

so yea if you wanna elaborate ik that i, for one, would like it (am always open to new things and i already said it but i love love love your writing)

HEHEHEHEHHEEE SPANKING SATORU SEEMS SOO MUCH FUNN HE WOULD LOVE THAT SM<3333333333

mmm i'm not gonna turn it into a fic but i will give you some more of my thoughts abt it:333 i think satoru looooves experimenting and he's a switch so he's perfect for this!!!!!!!!! if you tell him that you feel a bit too shy, he's more than comfortable to take it slowly with you he's even gonna turn down the teasing hehehehe

he's gonna sit you down onto the edge of your bed and then he's gonna undress and show you the pretty pink lingerie that he has on (he does it very 'sexily')(he's trying to relieve your nerves a little by being silly) aaaand then he's gonna lay himself over your lap!!!! he definitely thinks you're so fucking cute for getting all flustered while still being so into this:33333

he wiggles his ass on top of your thighs, asking for you to touch him. he's still encouraging and teasing you at the same time "c'mon, touch me please" "you know my ass doesn't bite, right" "what, don't you wanna spank your handsome boyfriend, hm? you must hate me." etc etc he's so annoying i love him

but yeah overall he's very patient!!!!!! he let's you try it out in different ways, telling you to do it harder and with more power while giggling to himself lmao aaaand just when you think that you're about to die of embarrassment you feel his boner,, you can feel the pre-cum leaking through the lacy fabric of the panties. he's making a mess already and you're not really even doing anything yet!!!!! but that gives you more confidence - knowing that despite his teasing behavious he really is enjoying this as much as you are<33333333

[virgothozul]

I’ve never stopped lurking on ao3. Currently in the middle of Macho Man by GothNessMonster & Swampbunny (🔒rated explicit !)

and I’m pretty damn soft for catholic dumbass Shiza and silly fruity JoJo  

[sivvan]

whipped | /wipt/ adjective

kim do ha

[s0fter-sin]

is there any actual catharsis in the boys or is it all just suffering and scrambling for a crumb of relief