#that’s important also… i will NEVER defend these characters against valid good faith criticism

[starbuck]

so yeah, upon further consideration, my Type of favorite character is 100% “person with a horribly misplaced sense of duty that ruins their life and ultimately kills them”

[themountainsays]

*sigh* rn i'm in that uncomfortable place in which i'm upset about the ending of F2 but I also don't want to complain about it. There's a reason i have "not particularly interested in F2 negativity" in my bio, and it's because I fucking hate it when people complain about this movie. This isn't to say I don't think people have the right to complain or be upset or even that I disagree with them. It just really gets me down. Thats why I've blocked a bunch of users who didn't even do anything wrong. Because every time someone says F2 was a terrible movie that ruined everything for them i feel like i'm being shot in the face. Idk why i have such a strong reaction to negative criticism of the movie when I have problems with it too. I guess it's because I want to keep the parts I liked and forget about the parts I didn't. And is that a bad way to consume media? I mean, the whole point of fandom is to have fun. Feeling angry and bitter all the time doesn't sound like my idea of fun, so I try to keep those feelings for things that actually matter. I'd rather be angry about, say, racism, than over a poorly writen character arc.

But also... Idk I still feel a bit upset about the separation. And i'm trying my best not to dwell on the frustration but come on, the whole point of the first movie was the reconnection between the two separated sisters. You can't have them separate at the end! And yes! this is just a kid's movie and it's not something worth getting angry over! But ugh i'm still frustrated. I guess the next step is to come to terms with the ending? Learn to accept it? I mean its not like I can change it other than with fanfic so to waste my energy on being angry would be useless. It wouldn't make me feel better at all.

I mean, the movie makes sure to show us how easy it is for the girls to see each other again. It was never made explicit Elsa left Arendelle forever. For all we know, she spends just as much time in the forest as she does in Arendelle. For all we know she's just talking a leap year to figure herself out. Thats a just as plausible an explanation as "Elsa left Arendelle forever" is. But i have to admit, that does feel a bit like wistful thinking. I guess i could take comfort in the fact that both girls have individually found their place. Their new roles fit them like a glove. Elsa is clearly the most free and authentic she's ever been, and Anna will be perfect as Queen. But that's not what has me upset. What has me upset is the fact that, after being apart for 13 years, they're once again separated. It feels unfair. Aaaand I'm already getting myself down. Great. They're not only separated, but they have formed individual paths, independant of each other. While the best part of the first movie and the shorts was their relationship, the second movie focuses on the individual aspects of their respective character arcs. I don't think this is necessarialy a bad thing, but I personally don't like it. It makes their bond feel secondary to the story, unimportant. And maybe, that's the key to find acceptance? To just, relax, aknowledge it's just a movie. They're clearly happy where they are right now. It's a happy ending. It's not that big of a deal that they're separated. Family members go on their separate paths all the time! And while that's a perfectly valid way to relate to the ending, I don't think is the one right for me. I don't know. Their relationship is simply too important to me. So I guess my other option is to convince myself they're not as separate as it seems. Is that wistful thinking? Probably. Is it gonna make me feel better? Hopefully. And I guess that makes it an efficient solution. I'm not ranting or venting. I'm thinking out loud trying to solve a problem. So, is that my conclussion? That what Elsa has going on is more of a full-time job? I mean the movie does say the girls are working together to maintain peace, communication and balance. It would only make sense for them to you know work together. Hold professional meetings. Exchange information. Travel together to places where they're needed. Share a job. Spend lots of time together. I mean look at the five rulers of Arendelle we've met so far: it's clear being monarch of this City State is basically being the local Witcher. You get to be sent to deal with whatever supernatural phenomena is going on atm (argument against the idea that Anna is trapped in the body of an old lady doing paperwork. Have YOU ever seen Elsa do paperwork?? What makes a you think that's what Anna is gonna be doing?). I like the idea of Anna and Elsa sharing a job, a mission, even if they dont share a house. I have to admit, this was told rather than shown, but introducing a whole new conflict in the last 5 minutes of the film when you don't know if you'll end up making a third movie just to show the sisters being witchers TOGETHER wouldn't have been a good idea. I do think this is how a hypothetical F3 should be: show them spending just as much together as they do apart if not more, probably show them sleeping over a lot (Elsa having a lavvu/goahti in the north that she shares with Anna, with very evident home decor that SCREAMS "Anna spends half of her time here too" would be a nice way to do it). And considering the claim that they're working together is the only thing saving this ending for me, I really hope the writers commit to it. If they've just been named the Avatar protectors of peace blah blah blah they BETTER have some conflict threaten this peace so they have something to defend. something to work together with. Show us they're still together. I have faith in you. Do not disappoint me.

A perfect ending F3 would obviously, end with the girls together for good, but taking advantage of the separation on F2. Rather than shamefully sweeping it under the rug, do something beautiful with it. Use it as a starting point. Don't just "fix it". Work with it. Prove to us than it was necessary, ultimately good and worth it.

Until then, I guess I'll continue with my wistful thinking and my optimism, and maintain my position when I say the girls are still together, sharing a mission and working as equals.

[sepublic]

Regarding Hazbin Hotel’s themes of Redemption

           Okay, this may be a controversial suggestion, but you know one thing I’d REALLY like to see Hazbin Hotel do? I’d like to see it take the whole idea and message of ‘Even the worst of the worst deserve a chance to change themselves, and that anyone is capable of becoming a better person’ and actually… go through withand explore it.

           Like, I don’t want all of the characters who get redeemed to very obvious, blatant choices where you can immediately tell, “Oh they’re actually a good person deep down inside!” Because when it comes to the idea of redemption, Hazbin Hotel’s core theme, that’s neither interesting, nor THAT much of redemption. The inherent goodness is already clearly there and a part of them, and if left to their devices, such characters, like Angel Dust for example, would definitely be good people.

           The thing is- This is HELL. This is where the worst of the worst come, this is rock bottom after you’ve taken an excavator and dug down a few miles. It’s easy to look at a Demon who clearly has good tendencies otherwise and was mostly bad by circumstance, and say, “Let���s redeem that person! It will be SO revolutionary to see that person redeemed, even though they’ve already been clearly set aside from the rest as naturally good!” I want to see the show try to redeem ACTUAL bad, terrible people.

           Which, gets into the controversial part- I want to see the kind of people who choose to be terrible, who choose to be cruel and kill, end up getting redeemed. Because the thing about redemption is, you don’t naturally deserve it- That’s antithetical to redemption. It’s not some gift just prescribed to a person beforehand, it’s something that’s earned, painfully, through trial and error. Because like Charlie said, EVERYONE deserves a second chance to be better, and even if that person was a bigoted abuser… If they decided they want to change, then they should be given the chance to do so.

           Now, I’m not saying EVERY character should just be redeemed. I’m not saying every horrible demon should have good values and a change of heart handed to them on a silver platter, nor do I want any of them to be forcedinto changing, so to speak. I’d rather not see Charlie kidnap random Demons off the street and forcibly torture them into changing their habits (Now, Lucifer’s order having to imprison a Demon to keep them from doing further harmful actions, THAT’s fine and acceptable, as is self-defense). But what I’d like to see is a nuancedtake on the idea of redemption, that actually explores this idea instead of carefully poking the surface with the tip of the toe and then saying, “Well I’ve done all I can do!”

           Because when a demon chooses to redeem themselves… It’s not going to be pretty. It’s going to be uncomfortable, arduous, difficult, and excruciating. And yet, if one is so fixated on justice, perhaps this is the best course of action? It’s easyto just be awful and never change yourself, that’s why Sloth is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. But actually stepping back and evaluating yourself, confronting yourself, living with the results of your mistakes and their implications, forced to feel consequences instead of just dying to escape it all? THAT’s real justice. It’s painful for the demon, but also the BEST possible option for them too.

           By the end of the day, isn’t it in everyone’s best interests for everyone and anyone to become better? To lessen the amount of pain in this world? And it’s not like punishment can’t keep existing, either- It’s not a black and white choice between getting off scott-free, and dying permanently with no option of ever becoming better. A character can still be punished for their actions, while still working to change.

           And, yes- Some people won’t change, and maybe they never will. But the thing is, this isn’t regular, real life in the living world, where people have limited lives and resources and better things to do. This is Hell, this is rock bottom, THIS, of all places, is the place and time to start working on rehabilitating the worst, because what else will you do? What else would be the purpose of Hell, besides endless, meaningless pain? Infinite punishment should not apply to finite crimes.

           Likewise, even if some people will never change… It should always be made availableto them, the option to change- Just in case. The chance should always be ready, 24/7, eternally. And I know this may sound incongruous with what I said earlier, about how I want to see a character get permanently killed off by an Exterminator weapon… But really, such an event, I feel, would further highlight how important it is that rehabilitation and redemption be made readily, conveniently available at all times! Because life in Hell IS unpredictable, and it CAN be finite, and a permanent death would be a good way to really hammer in WHY Charlie is so insistent on giving these demons a chance to escape their fate. There’s an urgency to the Hazbin Hotel, because if people don’t start investing in it and making it available as soon as possible, people who could have changed will die and lose that chance they might have taken.

Now, I’m not saying every terrible demon, if any of them, should be forgiven- Absolutely not, and especially not by those they’ve hurt. There’s no obligation to forgive them, so even if it is an option that’s taken within the show, I’d still prefer if it was made clear that this was a choice by the victim, not by the abuser. Because a person who’s hurt others doesn’t automatically deserve forgiveness for making an effort- If anything, forgiveness is impossible. But just because you won’t be forgivenfor something, doesn’t mean you can’t change your behavior from then on- Because the crime being unforgivable is precisely WHY one would change their behavior! Because that behavior never was okay to begin with! If some terrible demons are redeemed, and it should be made clear that the bad things they did will neverbe forgiven, and that’s okay.

And of course, the Hazbin Hotel should be allowed to employ self-defense. It should still be allowed to fight back against those who may seek its destruction, because self-defense is okay, and if it hurts the attacker, then I don’t want the narrative to blame the victim for defending themselves. If a victim remains eternally hateful towards their abuser, then even if that abuser changes, even if that victim is also redeemed too… I still want that victim’s hate to be valid and accepted. Because earning redemption isn’t about making people like and forgive you, it’s about changing yourself. Those people don’t owe you anything, but YOU owe yourself a lot, and owe them a lot as well.

Again, some people will never change- But then again, never say never. Yes, redemption is a choice, and that part should also be emphasized… But redemption should also be made possible and available. The worst of the worst should know that it’s possible to try for it, while still being held accountable for the time they took to do so. Likewise, I’d really like to see the Hazbin Hotel’s teachings spread a lifestyle of being kind to one another, because when people are kind to one another, offer comfort and support, and so forth, you’d be surprised at how much a stubborn mind will yield away to that.

Of course, I don’t want said support and love to be forcedonto a demon, and have their personal autonomy violated. Sometimes you have to respect that they want to be left alone. Likewise, just giving someone a bunch of love and support won’t automatically change their mind, and I’d like for the show to remind the audience this… But at the same time, it can soften circumstances and make it morelikely for a demon to consider redemption, depending on the demon and their flaws in question of course.

I just… think this is kind of take on redemption would be infinitely more unique and intriguing than previous, rather vanilla takes on it. What happens if the ugly, generic war criminal mook who’s happily killed innocents, suddenly realizes they want to change? Or they’re suddenly exposed to love and support, and they look at those kind of lifestyles and realize that’s just so much NICER than what they’ve been doing… What if someone truly understands and sees that others are PEOPLE, just like them?

The closest I’ve seen to this kind of take is Steven Universe, which is amazing, but also by itself. Likewise, I’m also afraid that if Hazbin Hotel DOES go in this direction, it’ll be accused of ‘forgiving abusers’ and being ‘sympathetic to genocide’. I’d rather not want another SU Critical situation, but at the same time, I suppose such a thing would be inevitable. I think I’d rather see Hazbin Hotel actually try to explore REAL redemption, not just “Oh this ‘bad’ person just needs to be told it’s okay to be good and then they’ll be good!’… I want effort and actual change. And I think witnessing that in action far outweighs the cons of some people misinterpreting the message in bad faith.

After all, Demons have literally all the time in the world, assuming they avoid extermination, to change. So let’s see what happens when, after an eternity, a demon realizes their existence has become dull and bleak?

[masterthespianduchovny]

Maybe this has been discussed, maybe it hasn’t, but I think what really makes S8-9 hard to digest isn’t simply Mulder’s disappearance, but most important, Scully becoming uncharacteristically trusting.

Mulder being missing is a huge thing, so his absence was going to always be felt. But, Scully and Mulder served as our ethical/moral center for 7 seasons of the show. They were the good guys, fought the food fight, and were always on the side on the little man.

One of the most noteworthy things of the show was there inherent and explicit trust in one another. Another interesting thing to note: despite mulder’s paranoia, he could trusting, where as Scully ONLY trusted Mulder.

Constantly throughout the series we literally hear her tell Mulder that she only trusts him or she makes it quite known that’s how she feels. Scully is very stingy with trust when it comes to everyone else who isn’t Mulder. Perhaps in the beginning of season one she trusted others, but even during the first season, she started increasingly distrusting. Then, once she was abducted, it was rare to see her trust a non Mulder person.

Most importantly, Scully didn’t even trust skinner. Someone who consistently had their backs. Every blue moon, he did something to protect his neck, but I don’t recall him ever flat out betraying Mulder and Scully (without plans to save them or a good reason).

When skinner is framed for murder, Scully believes that he did or it is leaning towards believing that. It is only because Mulder pushes the issue that e case is investigated. She doesn’t refer to his character, their working relationship—nothing to even entertain the idea that skinner could’ve been innocent. There is even evidence that she didn’t trust him at the end of season seven (and, hell, probably beyond).

She didn’t trust the Lone Gunmen, despite working with them on and off for years.

We know she didn’t trust Diana and Phoebe, but I don’t think it was primarily driven by jealousy. Mulder gets distracted easily and can let a sense of comraderie and loyalty influence him.

We saw him trust deep throat and Maria. Despite providing good intel, they also betrayed him as well.

Scully may defend a person’s character generally speaking, but she does not trust on a personal or professional level beyond that.

That only extends to Mulder.

So, now that this foundation has been laid, let’s look into season 8:

Doggett is sent to investigate Mulder’s disappearance and pretends to be some random officer. Tries to manipulate Scully into thinking Mulder didn’t trust her and was confiding in other people.

I mean, I get his angle, BUT Scully...Scully, that’s something she’s never going to forget. And we see how deeply his words angered her. Calm, cool, and collected Scully threw water at his face.

So, we see hints of her not trusting him when she investigated the case by herself, but then, after that case when he chastises her...she starts to trust him a little bit???

And it doesn’t make a lick of sense.

Scully has less reason to trust doggett. For starters, Scully usually eviscerated anyone for talking to her like that. But, also...he was sent by Kersh. Why wouldn’t Scullys paranoia ramp up, esp because they did that with Krycek (Diana and Spencer). They’ve sent double agents to compromise the x files. Hell, even she was sent down there to debunk it.

I know doggett gave her his speech, but again, Scully doesn’t believe it trust other people. Of all of the people sent down to debunk and compromise the x files, she is the only one who stayed and believed in what she did. What makes matters worse: doggett believes the x files is horseshit. He essentially believes that it’s a waste of time.

Why would Scully have faith and trust a person like that to protect the x files on a basic level?

What incentive would doggett have to thoroughly investigate cases, find undeniable evidence, believe victims/witnesses of the supernatural kind? He doesn’t believe in this stuff at all when Scully decides to start trusting him.

Scully didn’t believe it much herself, BUT she believed in Mulder and she had a much bigger axe to grind with the FBI and the shadow people than Doggett did. I’m not exactly sure why doggett was willing to risk as much as he did.

But, circling back to scullys skepticism, she legitimately tried to validate Mulder’s work. Doggett came off as dismissive and believing the victims were crazy.

So, we see that Scully automatically doesn’t trust non Mulder people, but there is no professional reason for her to trust him either, despite him keeping her secret. And keep in mind: the stakes were higher at that time than when she was assigned to Mulder. Him protecting her secret could’ve played into a long game.

But, then...she defends him against Mulder to Mulder in private and that’s where the show loses me once and for all.

I’m not saying that Scully would never defend doggett or anyone against Mulder’s criticisms (I also think Mulder was uncharacteristically hostile), BUT Scully either would’ve been unsure or advising Mulder that they have to be careful with how he approaches doggett for a couple of reasons.

But, since Chris Carter wants us to like and trust doggett, Scully suddenly likes and trust him even tho that has never been her MO throughout the entire series. She may have been trusting in the first season to some extent, but Scully ended a friendship/connection concerning Mulder. Again, it took her almost a decade to even trust skinner despite all that they been through, yet she trusts doggett???

Her trust of Reyes was less offensive because they didn’t try so hard, but again, it’s a hard pass for Scully trusting her either.

I know they flirted with the idea of Scully trying to be Mulder for an episode, but without a doubt, she would’ve been the most paranoid person in the FBI after his abduction for a very long time. I can’t imagine her having any type of meaningful relationship while Mulder was missing, the fbi investigating it, AND possibly her. I can’t imagine her trusting anyone at all after that.

Her partner, her best friend, her lover, the father of her child, and literally the only person she trusted was fucking abducted. Scully is traumatized and scarred. She’s careful, fragile, but cautious. Terrified and unafraid at the same time.

It doesn’t connect as someone else explained, it was supposed to be Mulder and Scully against the world not Mulder, Scully, doggett, Reyes....

But, it feels as if, besides Scully not truly being her paranoid, untrusting self, they missed the baptismal by fire. Their trust was unearned based on how we know Mulder and Scully.

[maximumphilosopheranchor]

Was Mary Stuart as tolerant with religious disidents as Elizabeth? Would you call Elizabeth a tolerant Queen in the subject of religion?

I will reply only to your second question because I know very little about Mary Stuart’s religious policy. You should ask someone else about her.

I think Elizabeth was fairly tolerant towards Catholics during the first decade of her reign.

“It would have beeneasier to stir resistance if Elizabeth had only martyred a fewleading Catholics. But there was no early Elizabethan equivalent ofSt Thomas More. Although some would have willingly died for thefaith, the Queen was not willing to give them that honour.

This left theirapologists frustrated, for the resistance needed role models.Nicholas Sander, in exile for his faith, recognized this, as JohnFoxe had. Foxe, however, had the advantage of dead martyrs; Sanderhad to rest content with a martyrology of men who lost theirpositions and were imprisoned. For example, Reynolds, the CatholicDean of Exeter, told Sander that Elizabeth had been sent by God as anact of divine providence, a punishment for worldliness under Mary.Mary had to die because her presence had become prejudicial to thefaithful, who were running riot. “Then at length,” Dean Reynoldssaid, “comes Elizabeth, not destined to benefit herself but usonly. For it is the privilege of the Church of God to grow by meansof persecution.” Believing that by dying for the faith he could dopenance for having abjured the Pope in the time of Henry VIII, hegave his goods to poor and went to London to “be available toconfess the faith”. Summoned before the Ecclesiastical Commissionhe made so glorious confession he lost his benefices and wasimprisoned. Then he died disappointingly, of natural causes.

Not even EdmundBonner, Mary’s bishop of London and a man vehemently hated byProtestants, was martyred, despite Sander’s valid assertion that hewas nearest to martyrdom. Bonner had been so zealous in hunting andburning heretics that even some Catholics were disturbed by hisbelief that to kill one heretic was to save many lives. At his trialhe was thanked, with deep irony, for having done so much to promotethe Protestant cause. And yet he, too, would die of natural causes.

Elizabeth, who seemsto have been the architect of this policy of toleration, hadsucceeded in stunning the Catholics into acquiescence. They were asconfused as everyone else about her true religion. Though they werecertain she was not a Catholic, some thought that she could bebrought to be one by a husband, a political deal or the sheerincivility of the Protestants. Domestic Catholics and Catholicdiplomats maintained this hope, as did the Roman curia.

Their hopes werestrengthened by her amazing refusal to persecute them as they hadevery right to expect. Although the Act of Supremacy and its oathcould be used to find and punish Catholics, she did not allow it tobe widely administered, and those people who did refuse to take itwere treated with a gentleness (..)

This was afrustration to her Protestant subjects, many of whom wanted blood,but it kept much of the country in peace.“

Norman Jones, The Birth of the Elizabethan Age: England in the 1560s

I respect Elizabeth greatly for this effort, especially since there was much pressure on her to exact revenge for Marian persecutions. She refused to do so and was criticized for her leniency.

Elizabethan religious settlement had a compromise character, it was designed the way to make her church acceptable to as broad number of people as possible. Elizabeth didn’t want to pry into the private beliefs of her subjects - hence her saying of not to making windows into men’s hearts -, and didn’t attempt to root out Catholics, she rather hoped that Catholicism in England will die in natural death. But she expected her subjects both Catholics and Protestants to conform to her established compromise, to her laws, if only outwardly, whatever opinions they may have held in privacy.

However, there was a fundamental problem in Elizabeth’s relations with Catholics. In the eyes of the Catholic church (because it never acknowledged her parents’ marriage) Elizabeth was illegitimate and consequently didn’t have rights to rule. It’s a massively important moment because in theory to be a Catholic potentially amounted to deny Elizabeth’s power and her government. Elizabeth’s fellow rulers didn’t have this problem, and it grew acute after the Northern rebellion when in 1570 the pope Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth thus absolving her catholic subjects from allegiance to her and legalized her deposition. This was a turning point in Elizabeth’s policy towards Catholics after which new anti-catholic legislation was enacted.

“In April 1570 the pope had issued the bull excommunicating Elizabeth, depriving her of “her pretended title to the throne”, absolving all oaths sworn to her and ordering the faithful to disobey her orders and laws. The original intention had been to help the rebel northern earls, but the bull came too late. To make matters worse, the following year Pius V and Spain joined in a plot to depose Elizabeth, which marginally involved Mary Queen of Scots and the duke of Norfolk (who was executed). Elizabeth still clung to the hope that a church of conformists would emerge over time and blocked legislation aimed at putting further pressure on the indigenous Catholic community, but she did except measures against the pope. Expressing support for the papal bull or saying that the queen was a schismatic or a heretic was declared high treason. So too was bringing papal material into the country or attempting to convert anyone to Rome; importing Catholic artefacts such as rosaries was made a lesser offence. As for exiles, any who did not return within six months were to lose their property. The hostile reaction in England to the pope’s action meant that although the missionary priests arrived claiming that their purpose was exclusively spiritual, the crown, understandably and justifiably, saw them as traitors determined to set up a fifth column. Increasingly severe penal laws were passed against them and against laity who gave them assistance  and soon against the whole recusant community. In 1577 the first missionary priest was executed. The situation became even worse in 1580 when Jesuits arrived, the counter-reformation corps d’elite swearing absolute and direct obedience to the pope. In all some 124 Catholic clerics were put to death by Elizabeth, plus perhaps 59 lay folk.”

Eric Ives, The Reformation Experience: Living Through the Turbulent 16th Century

It’s also claimed that there was little of persecution in the 1570s, and the most intense phase of it (of missionary priests and their supporters) was during the second half of the 1580s and the first half of the 1590s which leads me to think that it was influenced by outbreak of the war with Spain.

Besides, as time was going by there emerged a clash within Elizabeth’s church itself between defenders of the established order and the hotter sort of Calvinists who became known as puritans and who urged for further church reform. The former won (because they had Elizabeth’s support) and the latter had to conform, in separate occasions the acts against Catholics were applied to them.

There is a very good article here. It’s about the Gunpowder Plot and Catholics in early Jacobean England but it goes back and very well covers Elizabeth’s dilemmas regarding Catholics.

[padawanlost]

What do you think about the Citadel arc? Specifically, about Anakin and Tarkin's interaction, and Anakin kind of... liking Tarkin's perspective on how war should be handled? I'm asking because I have always felt it quite out of character, I mean yeah no doubt he could agree that the Jedi should not be the ones leading the Republic army because he knows it's a bit hypocritical, but on the rest... I don't think Anakin would get along with him so well? What's your take? :)

I’ll start by being super honest: tcw!Tarkin creeps me out. I don’t even know why. He just does.  And I don’t enjoy his interaction with Anakin (or any other character) because of that. That being said, I don’t think there was anything OOC about his interactions with Anakin. I don’t see them as friends or even friendly. I see it more as a mutual respect type of thing. They are both pragmatics. They have their own agendas but they understand the seriousness of the situation and how ineffective the Jedi are in handling the war.

Also, I think Anakin’s respect for Tarkin involves more than just “he agree with me”. Anakin has always been different from most Jedi. His past (and Palpatine’s “lessons”) made him more critical of the Order and to hear a high ranking official openly criticize the Order probably made him feel like his owns ideas were legitimized.

No one was ever quite that openly anti-Jedi in Anakin’s presence before. All previously criticism came from enemies (Dooku, Ventress, Separatists, etc.) whom Anakin was taught by the Jedi are mad and shouldn’t be heard. Padmé and Palpatine might disagree with the Order’s methods but they are never THAT harsh.  Also, remember that Tarkin didn’t gave the Seps the information and, in Anakin’s book, that makes him a stand-up guy. So, to have his ideas validated by a loyal and sane GAR officer is what made him more open to Tarkin as a person.

We need to acknowledge the bias against certain characters and their criticism of the Jedi. we see characters like Dooku, Ventress, Tarkin and Barriss saying, pretty straightforwardly, what’s wrong with the Jedi and why they are losing and yet the Jedi (and most of the audience) dismiss those claims because of who is saying them.

The thing is, and it hurts me to say it, Tarkin was right (damn, this is something I never thought I would say). Let’s take a look at their interactions and see why Tarkin and Anakin were right and why they ended up respecting each other. 

Tarkin: I reserve my trust for those who take action, general Skywalker.Anakin: Then let me remind you, we rescued you back there. And I reserve my trust for those who understand gratitude, Captain Tarkin. [TCW 03x18]

Here it’s established their differences (and why they will never be real friends). Tarkin is contemptuous. He does not trust the Jedi and their ability to act the way he judges to be right one. Only the actions Tarkin deems right truly matter. Anakin, on the other hands, admires loyalty, friendly, humility. He may not agree with the Order but he doesn’t dismiss it. they are both practical men, willing to do what’s necessary to end the war, but their motivations will always keep them at odds.

Tarkin: I am concerned that the jedi have elected this child to lead the group. Rex: I’ve served with her many times, and I trust her, captain. [TCW 03x19]

Here’s a truth bomb that no one wants to acknowledge. Tarkin and Anakin were the only ones concerned by the fact a teenager girl was involved in a war. Again, they were worried about Ahsoka’s presence there for very different reasons but we can’t deny the Jedi’s treatment of children played a part in their downfall (especially this child). Anakin, like Tarkin, is aware that this is wrong. I don’t think they both discuss this particular subject on screen but Tarkin makes it pretty obvious that he’s not pleased with the situation (Ahsoka being there) and the Arc focus a lot on Anakin’s protecting Ahsoka so I like to see as a nice parallel there.

Tarkin: This ordeal only demonstrates how effective facilities like The Citadel are. Pity it ended up in separatist hands and not ours.Anakin: He has a point. [TCW 03x19]

I think this is the first time they openly agree on something. It shows how far they are both willing to go to achieve their ends. We (the audience) know what their ends are, however, they don’t. It’s important to remember that while we know what kind of man Tarkin, Anakin doesn’t. Anakin sees Tarkin as a respectable GAR office who wants to save the Republic and nothing else. He had no way of knowing the kind of horrors Tarkin would commit if he ever get his hands in a place like the Citadel. And Tarkin has no way of knowing Anakin is against imprisoning enemies without trial in secret prisons.

As I said before, their agreement is superficial. They agree the ends justify the means but they completely disagree on the ends and the means.

Tarkin: You may have earned my trust, general Skywalker, but my faith in your comrades is still lacking.Anakin: You lack faith in the jedi.Tarkin I find their tactics ineffective. The jedi code prevents them from going far enough to achieve victory, to do whatever it takes to win, the very reason why peacekeepers should not be leading a war. Have I offended you?Anakin:  No. I’ve also found that we sometimes fall short of victory because of our methods.Well, I see we agree on something. [TCW 03x19]

Again, superficial agreement. Tarkin’s secret solution is mass murder, torture and genocide. Anakin’s secret solution is for the Jedi to get more involved, fight corruption, teach communities how to protect themselves, etc. But since they don’t know that, thye believe they are on the same page. And for Anakin, to hear this sort of Jedi criticism from a “reliable” source validates his ideas and makes Tarkin seem like an intelligent and mindful officer.

Ahsoka: Why did master Piell have to share half the intel with that guy? It’s like he’s not even grateful we rescued him.Anakin: Captain Tarkin feels the jedi should be relieved from the burden of leading the war effort.Ahsoka: That’s ridiculous.Anakin: Maybe, but we aren’t soldiers. We’re peacekeepers. The jedi code often prevents us from going far enough to achieve victory.Obi-wan: A rather simple point of view.Anakin: Either way, he is a good captain. [TCW 03x19]

This right here is exactly why Anakin listens to Tarkin. Every time Anakin criticizes the Order this happens. His thoughts are dismissed. The Jedi, being peacekeepers, shouldn’t be involved in war? that’s ridiculous! Now remember that Anakin spent 10 years of his life being told the Jedi couldn’t help his mother and fight slavery because their are peacekeepers and not law enforcers. THAT’s ridiculous. Anakin knows first hand the hypocrisy of the Jedi Council and every time he tries to point it out he’s dismissed. And suddenly, this officer appears and he’s saying all these things Anakin always tried to say, so, of course, Anakin will listen to him. That’s exactly how Palpatine got to him the first place. By pointing out all the wrongs Anakin already knew existed and acknowledging them.

Anakin, like everyone else, wants to have his feelings and ideas acknowledged. Here’s an exemple: Anakin wants people to acknowledge that slavery is an issue because the Republic doesn’t care about slaves. The Jedi tell him it’s not their problem and there’s nothing they can do about it. Palpatine tells him it’s a problem, the corrupt senate is the reason why and that he’ll try do to something about it. Which opinion will Anakin deem more sensible? Of course, he’ll respect the one that acknowledge his suffering.

If the Jedi were more willing to discuss “uncomfortable subjects” and teach their students to think for themselves Anakin would’ve never been in this situation. He ends up gravitating towards guys like Palpatine and Tarkin because they are the only ones to seem to recognize the problems he knows exist.

Tarkin: I’ve fallen into favor with the chancellor.He shall support me.Anakin: Oh, I happen to know the chancellor quite well, myself. [TCW 03x20]

This was the nail in the coffin. If Palpatine respects and listens to this guy so why shouldn’t Anakin?

Tarkin: I wish more Jedi had your military sensibilities. Perhaps I can inform the chancellor of your valor.Obi-wan: I’m not sure what to think of your new ally.Anakin: Well, I think we need people like him. This is a war. If we aren’t willing to do what it takes to win, we risk losing everything we try to protect.Obi-wan: Unfortunately, war tends to distort our point of view. If we sacrifice our code, even for victory, we may lose that which is most important: Our honor. [TCW 03x20]

I love Obi-wan with all my heart but this is exactly why they failed. They already sacrificed their code. They did long before the war started. And even if they hadn’t, they sacrificed when they, the peacekeepers, accepted to fight the war. The Jedi are not worried about honor or their code. They were willing to assassinate their enemies (that’s canon btw). Jedi hypocrisy strikes again. This is already way too long so I’ll try to keep it short:

Anakin and Tarkin do not know each. Not really. They agree the Jedi Order is making mistakes and that is it. They have no idea how far the other is willing to go or what they really want. They respect each other’s opinion but they are not friends (because they don’t truly know each other).

I don’t think it’s out of character for Anakin to agree with Tarkin because Anakin has no idea what he is agreeing with. Anakin has criticized the Order’s methods before, so he siding with someone doing the same is natural. Besides, Anakin remained in character by defending Ahsoka’s abilities (and everyone else’s too). Anakin’s only agrees with Tarkin on the political aspects of the Order. He still respects the Jedi abilities to overcome hardship, to save people and get the job done.

[knightofbalance-13]

http://dudeblade.tumblr.com/post/166306713456/maggyfall-dudeblade-maggyfall-dudeblade

Heh, even you try apologizing, you still look fucking obnoxious.

Baseless statements. Right. Like the fact that Jaune had more lines that Yang or Weiss was nothing more than a lie. The fact that there are people who are still upset over Pyrrha’s death has no base.

A. OP outright says “This, of course, isn’t a perfect way to measure how much dialogue a  character has. Shorter lines such as Weiss saying “Hey!” end up counting the same as a longer lines from Ruby.” So your point there is in fact a lie by omission.

B. Yeah...said person si also a manipulator and tried silencing me whne I speak out against him then faked being suicidal then tried to use it to enforce an echo chamber. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t count. Meanwhile, said reviews of Volume 3 have shown that people agree it was the best so far and most people enjoyed Volume 4 (https://fullmetalnarcissist.com/2017/06/24/my-review-of-rwby-volume-4/)

So you still have no base in saying your universal statements as fact when you are just a very loud minority

Let me break it down for you: Nobody is asking Miles to kill himself. They’re just asking when he’s going to die or leave.

I’ll address this all later. I will say that telling someone to kill themselves and asking when they are gonna die are two different things. One is more frontal and direct while the other is more passive aggressive. It really depends on the person which is worse.

Next up, “Properly write minorities.” Look, Miles is the HEAD WRITER. He has more power than Kerry. If someone has that link to the Buzzfeed interview where it was stated that Miles overstepped Kerry about the whole “Silver Eyes” thing, I’d appreciate it.

Which means you have no proof and considering your shown bias against Miles here: No one is gonna believe you. Next!

Also, can you re-word that whole “Trying desperately to get her not to fight Phyrrah” thing? I don’t know what you’re talking about. Are you talking about how he failed to even TRY to help Ruby when she was about to be attacked by Tyrian when she was cornered? Y’know, after he had just complained about “Being tired of losing people.”? Look, Jaune is allowed to mourn Pyrrha, but the fact that he’s the ONLY one mourning her is just annoying.

A. Help Ruby. Against the Scorpion Fanaus. One of Salem’s Elite. That through thrashed RNJR not ten minutes ago. While beig several feet away. Here’s a simulation of such an event: https://youtu.be/Up6o9r92PPk?t=10m37s

B. Ah yes because Jaune is never allowed to complain about losing the one person who believed in him after seeing some hope that they’ll make it to mistral while watching a live operson die in front of them. Because Jaune must be a sociopath.

C. Um...Volume 4, Episode 2. Volume 4 episode 11. Also: Ruby barely knew Pyrrha, Renand Nora were far off from her when she died and had bigger problems and Pyrrha just kind of denied him any chance of not getting suvivor’s guilt.

Yeah, wanna explain to me how your argument is valid again?

- Up until we only saw just Jaune mourning Pyrrha, Pyrrha’s death was like Schrodinger’s Cat. She wasn’t killed for manpain until we only saw Jaune bemoaning he loss of life. And remember how Ozpin said to Call Glynda? Why did Jaune call Weiss instead? If he really wanted to help, he should’ve followed his teacher’s instructions.

Except Ruby showed Trama at Pyrrha’s death first in Episode 2 so Pyrrha would be “woman-pain.” Also: Thanks for showing that you think no male characters should be allowed to mourn detah at all lest it be “man pain”: Guess if Qrow or Taiyang, the two teammates of SUmmer who actually cared about her, mourned it’d be man pain but if sociopathic bitch Raven did its suddenly fine huh? Get your msiandric ass out of here.

Yeah I do...I also remember he told PYRRHA that, not Jaune. In fact, Jaune was recovering from Cinder whooping his ass. (https://youtu.be/pT1XiUbJu_Y?t=15m28s) So...How you gonna twist that about being Jaune’s fault?

Look, Jaune acts as if Qrow was the entire reason why Pyrrha got into that pod. The narrative is set up as if we were supposed to side with Jaune, but it gets muddled when we, the audience, are more aware that it was Ozpin that had a bigger influence of pushing Pyrrha into the pod than Qrow. So no. Our criticism of Jaune isn’t baseless. Unlike your baseless claims that that one asshole is the voice of the entire rwde tag.

And Qrow was one of the people who gave Pyrrha, a person who is selfless to a fault (literally, its a character flaw of hers), a decision that could destroy the world. Playing on one’s psychological flaws is basically the same as holding a gun to their head: You don’t really have a choice at that point.

And if you were to pay attention to the narrative you’d notice two things: A. Jaune didn’t know that. he was onbly around for the parts where a girl died and Pyrrha screaming and Pyrrha rocketing to her death. And B. JAUNE WAS ALSO WRONG! Just because Qrow was getting called out doesn’t mean Jaune was right. The narrative portrayed him as going too far and being overly hostile as no one backed him up. That’s just the narrative you call canon in your head.

Not that any of this matters: You’re a sexist towards and a racist towards white people Dudeblade with an admitted bias against Jaune also: Your opinion is worthless here.

I’m ware I fucked up in that regard. I know that I shouldn’t have typed it. But in my honest opinion, I want Miles fired. He writes so shittily, that I have ZERO faith in his ability to write anything that doesn’t revolve around his precious pet Jaune at all well.

Also, I wasn’t thinking straight. All I saw was someone basically claiming that the RWDE tag is a hivemind and I retaliated

Wanna know what’s missing here?

A fucking apology. 

Dudeblade admitted he was wrong but then completely missed the important part of actually saying “I’m sorry miles for defending your sucide baiting” to instead JUSTIFY his opinion without any more admission on being wrong to show he still knows what he was doing is wrong.

So considering your bias against Jaune, against Miles, against men and against white people: no dice here Dudeblade.

I don’t. That’s why I call out Knight-of-I-defend-nazis-and-am-a-pedophile-apologist all the time. I’m not deleting it though, I’m aware that it will stay up forever in the internet archives and that I’ll have to deal with it at every turn until I do something equally fucked up that will draw attention from it. I’ll live with what I said.

A. that's a lie and your own link proves that.

And more importantly, B. STILL NO APOLOGY. You talk about how you take responsibility for your actions and lord over my so-called “suicide baiting” and yet you don’t say a single word of apology and immediately, as in: in the same fucking breath, go back to your previous attitude.

So good fucking job: You just proved that you should be ejected as far away from RWBY as possible.

[thisdaynews]

Is It Ever OK for a President to Ask a Foreign Country to Investigate a Political Rival?

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/is-it-ever-ok-for-a-president-to-ask-a-foreign-country-to-investigate-a-political-rival/

Is It Ever OK for a President to Ask a Foreign Country to Investigate a Political Rival?

Here’s the big question on which the potential impeachment of President Donald Trump could turn: Is it ever appropriate for a U.S. president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival?

Democrats seem to assume the answer is no, that this kind of request could never be proper, given the implications for our electoral system. “Smoking gun” is what they say about Trump’s urging Ukraine—and now also China—to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. Republicans, meanwhile, contend that it is perfectly normal, and justified, for Trump as president to ask the Ukrainians to look into potential corruption that involves Americans and could, in theory, affect U.S. relations with that country.

Story Continued Below

“This is not about politics. This is about corruption,” Trump told reporters outside the White House on Friday.

But the real answer to this question is more complicated. History shows that a president sometimes might be justified in asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival, including a former vice president. So, the mere fact of Trump’s request for an investigation into the Bidens, without considering the circumstances of the request, is not enough to impeach him.

In order to prove Trump abused his presidential powers to the point that he no longer can be trusted in exercising them—the constitutional standard for impeachment—Congress must establish Trump’sintentin making the request. Was it done in good faith, with U.S. foreign or domestic interests in mind, or in bad faith, merely for Trump’s personal and political benefit? To prove the latter, Congress can’t rely on Trump’s words alone; it must show that the charges of corruption against the Bidens are baseless and that Trump’s request to Ukraine is part of a pattern of bad faith demonstrating that the nation no longer can tolerate his incumbency.

Going back to America’s early days, there have been occasional instances in which presidents would have been justified had they sought foreign investigations into political rivals. In 1804, Aaron Burr contacted the British government, apparently to peddle a plan for severing part of the United States to form a new country in western territory. In response, President Thomas Jefferson had Burr prosecuted for treason, and he was found not guilty. We can stipulate that Jefferson was excessively involved in the treason trial. But had he instead simply asked for Britain’s assistance in gathering more information about Burr’s involvement in this plot, that would have been entirely appropriate given the high stakes for the country.

This is true despite the fact Jefferson was seeking reelection at the time and Burr, an incorrigibly ambitious politician, might still have coveted the presidency. It was unlikely that Burr would have been a serious rival to Jefferson’s reelection; the Federalist Party, which opposed Jefferson, hated Burr for having slayed its hero, Alexander Hamilton. But Burr was still active politically and could not be discounted completely. Whatever the circumstances of the electoral rivalries at that moment—and campaigns back then were, of course, very different from today—Jefferson as president would have been acting responsibly if he had requested Britain’s assistance in the investigation of Burr.

For a more recent example, look to 1968, when Richard Nixon was the Republican nominee attempting to wrest the White House from Democratic hands. During the campaign, Nixon went so far as to encourage an emissary, Anna Chennault,to intervene with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s peace talks to end the Vietnam War. Johnson by then had dropped out of the Democratic primary, but his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, would end up the party’s nominee—making Nixon, in effect, a political rival. Even so, it would have been completely legitimate if LBJ, who did get wind of what Chennault was doing, had decided to ask South Vietnam for information about whether Nixon was directly involved in this ploy.

Sometimes, there is an inevitable tension between the president’s obligation to defend the nation as commander in chief and the president’s role as a candidate for reelection. But presidents, unlike subordinates, cannot recuse themselves from their commander in chief responsibilities. Rarely, but occasionally, acting in good faith as commander in chief might require an incumbent president to seek foreign assistance in pursuing an investigation of a former vice president—like Burr and Nixon—who is opposing the president’s reelection. As long as the president acts in good faith, critics reasonably can question the soundness of the president’s decisions, but there would be no grounds for impeachment and removal of office.

What about Trump’s requests for foreign investigations of former Vice President Biden? Can they be defended from an impeachment charge on the ground that Trump was acting in good faith?

Maybe good faith wouldn’t be an adequate defense if Trump violated campaign finance laws by seeking a “thing of value” from foreign governments in support of his reelection campaign. But I would argue that some presidential conversations with foreign leaders must be considered beyond the scope of campaign finance regulation. The exercise of commander in chief responsibility in pursuit of the national interest should not get caught up in the interpretation of regulations that fundamentally are designed to protect American elections from foreign money.

Nor is a quid pro quo offer—if that is what Trump made to Ukraine when asking for an investigation—necessarily a sign of bad faith. Such an offer could be considered legitimate if it is in the service of a valid foreign policy objective, as Michael McFaul, President Barack Obama’s ambassador to Russia, recently observed.

These points are not to suggest that Trump was justified in requesting foreign investigation of Biden. Rather, they help point the focus of the inquiry where it belongs: on Trump’s motive. Congress must determine whether the president had a good-faith basis for believing that Biden engaged in any impropriety, comparable with Nixon’s or Burr’s, that could justify the kind of requests Trump made to Ukraine and China. From all the available evidence right now, it strains credulity for Trump’s defenders to claim he is acting in good faith, but Congress must make an official judgment as part of any formal impeachment proceedings.

How can Congress establish that Trump’s motive was nefarious? For starters, the House will need to show that the Biden allegations are so spurious as to be necessarily made in bad faith. That will open the impeachment inquiry to whatever contrary evidence Trump can muster, unavoidably making Biden a focus of the inquiry—something Democrats presumably would prefer to avoid.

Members of Congress also will need to draw on their assessments of Trump’s character and behavior generally. For representatives in the House deciding whether to impeach, as well as potentially senators deciding whether to convict, if Trump is viewed as regularly acting in bad faith, then it is easier to rule out any defense of good faith as exonerating his conduct with regard to Ukraine.

Impeachment advocates will need to decide how much general character evidence they wish to pursue as a formal part of the process. Because impeachment is not a conventional criminal prosecution, they could rely on more of it than would be permitted in a courtroom. But doing so would go against the strategy of keeping impeachment proceedings narrowly focused.

This puts impeachment advocates in something of a procedural bind. They can limit their evidence solely to facts that directly relate to the president’s request for foreign investigation of the Bidens, like the recently revealed text messages among U.S. diplomats working on the issue. This strategy might end up being enough, but it risks leaving wiggle room for those in Congress inclined to give the president the benefit of the doubt on the Ukraine matter. Conversely, impeachment advocates could widen the range of evidence—pointing to all the ways that Trump has arguably abused the powers of the presidency for personal gain throughout his time in office—but this approach risks the accusation that Democrats are just relitigating matters that the voters want to decide for themselves at the ballot box.

The Goldilocks approach to impeachment evidence might be to focus on facts that demonstrate a specific form of bad faith and why it necessitates impeachment. This evidence would show not merely that Trump acted for reasons of personal electoral advantage in his dealings with Ukraine and China, but that he can never be expected to exercise his presidential powers on behalf of the public, as his oath of office requires, in the midst of a reelection campaign when his own interests are at stake. Proof of his incapacity to elevate national over self-interest can help convince the public that impeachment truly is about the future, not the past—and, even more important, that the remedy of impeachment is necessary, because voters’ power to choose their president without improper interference cannot be safeguarded otherwise.

Of course, Trump might end up, in a sense, impeaching himself, if he continues to act in ways that can be only construed reasonably as bad faith. And evidence of U.S. envoys saying things like, “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” would go far in demonstrating that Trump’s sole motive is (and will continue to be) an improper desire to secure an electoral advantage. Yet impeaching Trump for seeking a foreign investigation of Biden will require the conviction to be based not on his words alone, but on what was in his heart when he uttered those words. That is a tricky—but not impossible—bar for Congress to clear.

Read More