#they see the things they've deemed morally wrong

[not-poignant]

Hi Pia

I've seen your posts (and other bloggers posts) about antis, and although i don't agree that anyone has the right to dictate what media people are allowed to enjoy i never actually believed that they could be that bad (since I'd never had any interactions with them) and thought their unhinged behaviour was exaggerated. Until I posted a fic with a controversial pairing and OH. MY. GOD.

I have never received this much abuse (and of such a vicious sort) in my entire life. I guess this serves me right for doubting other creators' claims of how awful antis can be. I could just never believe anyone could be this... this... diabolical. But now I'm experiencing it first and it is wild.

Like I'm receiving actual death threats? Because of a 2,000 oneshot? I'm being told that me and my whole family deserve to die slow and painful deaths because of the characters I shipped?? They're calling me a pedophile and an animal abuser because one of the characters I wrote about is a teenager and the other is a human-animal hybrid??? What?

Like, are these people ok? Are they mentally unwell? This is just... I'm in shock honestly that people actually think and behave like this. Holy hell. It's been a hug eye opener and not a necessarily nice one.

Sorry if this message was unwelcome, I just couldn't think of anyone else to share this with. I hope you're having a nice day/evening ❤

Hi hi anon,

Yeah, this is what it's sadly like, and in the most extreme pockets of anti-communities are people who have literally tried to murder other people over fictional characters.

It's truly unhinged.

You have people who just don't like what other people are shipping, which is fine and normal, we all have notps and things we don't like, and then you have the people who genuinely think it's okay to torment, harass, abuse, and bully another person based over something fictional, and those people need to be blocked.

These people coming after you anon, if they're on AO3, report every single one because it might take a while, but those people get banned from AO3. If they're on Tumblr, block but also consider reporting, because death threats get people banned and all anonymous IP addresses are logged on Tumblr's side. If it's on Twitter, block on sight. Don't tolerate them, don't give them the air to breathe, and make sure you get offline sometimes or go to online safe spaces and spend time with the people who love you for who you are, it's the best weapon against antis who have no idea who you are and feel like you're a great figure to bully and abuse.

Ultimately, at the very base of what an anti is, is someone who believes their emotion of 'don't like that' justifies them bullying and torturing other people over fictional characters. It is at its foundation completely delusional, and even people who get 'logical' about it are still going 'my emotions are real enough to justify hurting you over something that is a figment of our collective imaginations.'

Some of those folks are very young, and will grow out of it, and have just drunk the collective Koolaid, some of them are older and always wanted an excuse to bully others but feel 'righteous' and 'pure' for doing it. Some really believe they're doing the right thing, others know they're hypocrities but can be all the more vicious for it. There are many recovering antis, but they're often silent about the things they've done, or the ways they've tried to hurt people.

I'm glad you posted that story anon, but not glad about the response you're getting. Consider moderating comments if it's on AO3, just to choke out the antis for a while. And yeah, practice self-care, because abusers want to hurt and harm others, and if you feel hurt and harmed, the more you can act to look after yourself, the more you thwart their goal/s and give them the big proverbial 'fuck you' that they so desperately deserve.

They do, usually, die down after a while, especially the more they get starved out. They'll often hunt for more vulnerable people. But in the meantime you also might want to inform folks you trust irl that you're dealing with this right now, because antis are unhinged, and online abuse is serious. Take care of you!! <33333 I'm sorry you had to learn about this pocket of 'society' in such a horrific way.

Antis are the worst.

[zvezdacito]

Me and my friends were talking about some Glorious Masquerade Plot + Rollo character writing tweaks the other day and I decided to share what we came up with her 💃 So yeah💥

• Instead of wanting to exterminate all magic, Rollo instead wants to control what types of magic exists and that only who he perceives worthy to have it. This is because he sees himself as the only one righteous enough to deem what and how magic should be.

• He targets the NRC students, seeing them as wicked and unfit to wield magic because of all the times they've overblotted, and thinks Malleus especially should be stripped of his magic before he inevitably goes next to OB due to the pattern of events or does something like Halloween 2 again (Masquerade has no reason to be set on Halloween tbh it could be like summer in the timeline and virutally nothing would change. So Halloween 1 and 2 still happens here because it doesn't happen in Halloween anymore.)

Maybe just NRC specifically is who he targets to depower in this rewrite, but the other invited schools got dragged into it by being there when the flowers sprung, like how Frollo was only after esmeralda and the romani at first but his obsessive wrath ended up dragging all of Paris into it

• This is because he harbors an anger that he was the only one trying to warn his brother to not misuse his magic, and how he was inspired by the misuse of magic by other mages to die in his Overblot accident.

• He partially realizes this was his fault as his controlling 'holier-than-thou' behavior and manipulation (motivated by wanting to make him "see" the right way like Frollo to Jehan in the musical) is what fueled the negative overblot feelings of his brother, but he can't deal with the guilt and the fact that he might've been wrong, so he remains in denial.

• His controlling and manipulative behavior motivated by the belief his way is superior to others continues in the current time, as here he also manipulates Yuu to make them believe what he believes.

• He appeals to them by pointing out how the NRC students have done nothing but endanger them with reckless magic so far, and how they're all too selfish and probably aren't even using it to find them a way home. (More things to fuck up Malle+Yuu and challenge their friendship as well as make them both more paranoid and desperate in time for their drama in Book 7)

Yuu either purposefully helps him betray the others because of this or they were simply tricked into leading them to a trap. Either way it really looks like to the others that Yuu has turned on them because they lacked faith in them, which would sting more because of how excited they were to have Yuu being on this trip with them at the start of the event.

• This would also make Idia's confrontation and parallels with him make more sense, because like Idia he in a way was indirectly responsible for the death of his younger brother, instead of Rollo's brother just happening to perish in front of him.

• Maybe instead of letting him go completely scot free (they said the real punishment was having to live with his guilt but let's be real he felt no remorse by the end of it, he even said he'd try again☠️) Rollo's punishment when he reveals himself is like some kind of house arrest, confining him to not be able to move around without supervision or leave the grounds of NBC to do sneaky stuff again. Kinda ironic, since supervising and policing actions is literally what we wanted to do to the NRC mages and the entire world, but all it resulted in was it being enforced on him.

This penalty could be like a parallel to Esmeralda being confined to sanctuary in Notre Dame and Quasimodo also not being allowed to leave because he is a "monster" (in this case Rollo is a moral monster)

• Also, I think this would really kind of done a better job being a prelude arc taunting the audience and the characters for what's gonna happen to them in Book 7, and challenging how strong their newly formed bonds really are, as well as their resolve to not make these foreshadowed mistakes are. (We know they WILL make these mistakes, so oof lmao. It will make us and them confront whether Rollo was right or not that everything eould be better off if they had been defeated there and then)

Overall, I think this would make Rollo's whole character feel more connected and not just different random aspects the writer thought of at the last minute. His canon plan and reasoning is, for a lack of a better term, so corny and over the top, not in a "this character is meant to be crazy" kind of way but in a "the authors thought this would be more epic than it actually was" kind of way.

-> What was Rollo going to do if he was the only mage left, how was the City fo Flowers meant to deal with the diplomatic implications of harm befalling Malleus, how are in-universe essentials that run on magic supposed to go on if there is no more magic left.

-> The story never tried to point out the practical disastrous consequences of Rollo's plan on the structure of the world if it succeeded, so now it looks like it wasn't meant to be dumb on purpose and the writers themselves just never thought of it.

From what I remember the most they do is give Malleus a line worrying about what would happen to the Briar Valley if this comes to pass, and how Rollo is a misguided hypocrite for his plan. But that's kinda it😭

-> And why did him seeing his brother die from OB lead him to dislike magic in general and give him a superiority complex that he's the only one deserving of it? The reason they give in canon is because he feels weak for failing to save his brother. And through becoming the only mage ever, he will feel powerful enough to compensate for his failure I guess😭

This motive of wanting to be better than everyone can still co-exist with the rewrite motive but it's kind of weak and lame on its own, especially for a character who's meant to be based off one of the greatest Disney villains of all time😭

Plus no matter what the narrative tries to frame it with I feel like getting "I need to become better than everyone" from the experience of your brother dying kinda came out of nowhere, and isn't as connected to each other as it could be😭

So that's why I think giving him:

a) an issue of being manipulative in forcing rigid standards he believes to be "superior" on the people he wanted to "save"

b) wanting to blame the use of magic that these standards of his did not approve of for his brother's death, because he couldn't stomach the fact that the way he enforced these standards was also to blame

c) and his motive being more specific than eradication all magic

makes what they were trying to do more fleshed out and connect to each other better, as well as making more out of having Claude Frollo as his character's inspiration.

I get he's an event-only character so they probably didn't think too hard about it, but if you're gonna go out of your way to include a character based off Claude Frollo in the story at least go crazy and make the most out of it💃

Other than tweaks to Rollo's motivations and the scope of his plans, if I could edit something else about the event it would be the worldbuilding😭 I just put a screenshot from my Instagram story back when the event was ongoing because it pretty much sums up everything I would like to change about it

I still liked the event overall. I was so happy that Malleus finally got an event ssr and more story spotlight, but yeah I think they could've done more with the ideas it proposes

Maybe this post would be more relevant if I made it right after the event ended and not many months later when there's already a new event grabbing everyone's attention, but I'm cursed to never be on time to trends and etc so everyone is only getting this now💔

Ty for reading🫡

[blooevil]

seeing some of the things ppl have brought to light about gaon's character, I do feel a bit sad for him bcs while he is a genuinely good person, I can see how much professor min and soohyun wanted him to be a morally right robot, wanting him oblivious to see the bigger picture (especially professor min).

I think professor min's reasons for this is kind of odd because he wanted gaon to spy on yohan and gather information on his plans. I assume he was told to do so under sunah's orders, hoping to bring yohan down before he could rise in power, trying to gain the upper hand in the process. I also think it's odd for him to try and convince gaon that yohan was the bigger evil, yet he was working with sunah most likely before gaon was even sworn in as a judge. very hypocritical and gross of him to use him in that way when he knew gaon had thought of him as the closest thing to a father and had the up most respect for him as well. but of course professor min would do that bcs yohan is who he's going up against, making the enemy seem far worse than your own cause, looking the other way when something went wrong.

I find it absurd how he wanted gaon to be by yohan's side in the beginning but when yohan gave gaon the freedom to be true to himself without repercussions, all of a sudden yohan is deemed too dangerous. (???!!!) still treating him as a child. it makes me think that him and soohyun still see gaon as the troubled kid who acted out after the loss of his parents. it's unfair to gaon for them to try and guide his life just bcs he got into some fights, rode a motorcycle, got a tattoo and a piercing when he was in his mid to late teens. but they've seen him change as he grew up no? became a judge and made something of himself, so why all the push back ? hell even yohan tried to stop him from being too impulse and reckless sometimes but the difference between him and professor min and soohyun is that yohan gave gaon a choice, instead of backing him I to a corner trying to convince him of what is right and wrong as the final word without negotiation.

what I'm trying to say is that yohan never treated gaon like a child and let him think for himself without repercussions (unless he crossed the line with him ofc..) and never saw him as only a person who would act out bcs of grief driven anger.

[kittenpower05]

essay time

I just got through urban plague (library of ruina) yesterday and I'm thinking so hard I am rotating it in my brain like a microwave you do not understand

I love dystopia!! I love commentary on humanity by highlighting negative aspects of society!! And I ESPECIALLY love when there is a moral implication to it!! Spoilers for wedge reception cutscene but

The conversation between Philip and Oscar hits so hard when you view it with all the perspectives and parallels goin on like,, Philip WANTS to go back and retrieve the books of his dead coworkers, he wants to be able to avenge them for their death, and though Oscar agrees to go with him, he brings up the point that inherently, that thought is selfish, and that trying to do something under the guise of it being for someone else is a dangerous mindset

And like..... looking at the City? It's not an entirely wrong stance to have! It can be argued that people arent inherently selfish, or it could even be argued that even with people's inherent selfishness that doesn't diminish the acts of good deeds/doing things for the sake of other people. But in the City, it's a dog-eat-dog world where people kill to survive, to make a living for themselves. The only way to move forward is to force someone else behind. You're trapped in oractically an endless loop of trying and failing to increase status in the city. In that sense, if you ARENT selfish, you're as good as dead. So in Oscars eyes, trying to justify actions under the guise of emotion or for the sake of someone else forgoes safety, it puts oneself at risk, it can lead people blindly into situations they can't handle anf get themselves killed over something they shouldn't have placed upon themselves.

And especially seeing Roland and Angela's commentary on it as well!!! Angela is against it obviously because she was hurt by this mentality!!! Ayin had her trapped in a basement, repeating the same day over and over and over for YEARS. She wasn't even given a happy end for all of her hard work since she wasn't deemed significant enough for one- she was forgotten in favor of all the other sephirot getting their character growth and happily ever after. It doesn't matter to her that Ayin was following Carmen's dream in hoping to cure humanity and fix depression or whatever- Angela and the sephirot and all the employees of lob corp had to suffer for it. Enjecting them with drugs to create horrid creatures, living in the same timeloop until the day turns out Just Right, is it worth it? At what point does the suffering of the few justify betterment for the many?

But even so this is not at all like the situation that Philip is going through! Angela had experienced a very severe case of this- Philip only wants to go back to the library in hopes of getting his friends books back. Yeah, there's the likelihood that he and the wedge order all die in the process, but he dies for his friends. That's honorable, right? After all, it was his fault in the first place so it's only fair that he does something to make up for that, right? Clearly Oscar disagrees- he's the head of an Extremely influential order, and if he went around helping anyone with what he sees to be a hero complex then he would quickly lose reputation, he would be overrun by lower class fixers with meaningless revenge requests.

I do have an opinion and many other thoughts on this argument- but that's not my point here! My point is that morality is extremely complex, and I love esp in dystopias when morality is discussed and characters clearly have a different view of it based on who they are or the experienced they've went through! The game has a clear stance on the topic and it's because of the setting that all of these characters are living in- and I think that's beautiful

[dindjarindiaries]

While I find those takes about Din's relationship to the Armorer and the tribe to hold a lot of weight, and I think it would be a very interesting subject to be explored that we don't get to see on screen often, I don't think this is where they're going. Listening to the cast's interviews, she's clearly a ''good guy'', no real moral ambiguity anymore. And Emily Swallows herself doesn't know any more than we do about her character's history with Din. It kinda sucks because there's a lot of stuff there to discuss, but it doesn't feel like they've planned it to be that deep. More like ''Din's with his family again, yeay, ok know let's move on to those cool space fights''..

But I really hope I'm wrong on this.

We'll just have to see, you're right!

At the same time, I found the point someone made about when we started calling the COTW a "cult" to be really interesting. None of us really thought any differently about it until Bo-Katan deemed it a "cult," and season 3 showed us that even she doesn't believe that truth anymore.

I'm not really sure it's anything Din needs to escape from or leave behind, necessarily. I think the helmet rule is really the only thing that ought to be grappled with and changed, but we'll see. It's certainly been interesting getting this religious nuance within the Mandalorians as a whole.

[agro-carnist]

One thing that's come from this is that it's shown who is actually interested in the truth and who isn't. The fearmongering, dramamongering crowd don't care about any actual research that's been done on the topics they passionately attack people over. Have they ever bothered to ask what the professionals that study and treat kink, paraphilia, and paraphilic disorders have to say? What their position is? No, they care what other people online believe. They don't let the evidence lead to a conclusion. They look for any "evidence" that supports the conclusion they've already made. They let what they think makes sense to them design the argument rather than anything tangible. They see what big name online has been called out and say that's the proof. What FEELS right is proof. What I consider "normal" is the proof. They very easily brush off any actual evidence shown them as not worth their time, or clearly made by pedo apologists because it doesn't confirm "common sense," or grasp for any tiny reason to dismiss it as untrue, while also providing absolutely nothing to support them. People that care about aligning with what is true actually look into what has been said by people that know what they're talking about, even when they don't come to the same conclusion. They are able to see that there are many potential outcomes and choose the one that they feel has the best supporting evidence, but are willing to change their mind based on new information. This situation isn't just having an opinion or disagreeing with someone, it's specifically anti intellectual and fear mongering. It's designed to paint your enemies as the worst people based on the most bad faith interpretation of what you see, without any room for anything else, no matter how much the evidence disproves you. It is no different than how the ARAs or other fear-based groups function. The goal is to set up a person that does not exist but give it someone's name, and then destroy it. It is not about learning or the truth or protecting anyone. It is about using alarmist tactics to depict yourself as a morally righteous hero by casting out regular people you have deemed as too deviant to be worth human decency. Create a sense of danger based on emotional responses, build that up, and then attack in a blind rage. There is only room for black and white thinking in those groups. Never believe there is a possibility you could be wrong. That's the thinking of predators. Anythinf and everything the enemy does is proof of their monstrous nature. No matter what they say or do, it's bad. And these predators are all around you. They are master manipulators. Once someone is labeled a predator, you can't trust anything they say. They are Bad and we are Good. They don't act like WE do, and we are Good, so they must be Bad. Anything you do, it's for the good of children and animals. Think of the children. Think of the animals. The world is full of predators. Deviancy is predatory. Destroy deviancy at all costs.

But never step out of line and show a whiff of anything your friends have decided is unclean, unacceptable, immoral. They will cannibalize you. This way of life leads to everyone turning on each other at some point. Anyone that doesn't adhere to the arbitrary rules will be attacked. Consider another point of view or ever question what has already been decided as true will make you an outcast. Ever suggest that maybe you are wrong and you'll become a monster too. Because it's not about learning and growing and discovering a better outlook. It's about punishing an imagined evil and maintaining a Visage of righteousness. And what we feel is good must be good, and what we feel is evil must be evil, not matter what anyone, even the experts, say otherwise.

[mushroomminded]

actually answering the discussion questions before I give my opinion so you don't have a stroke

1. Where is this information from (in universe?) Might the source have underlying motives in propagating this message?

good point. We don't know where the info comes from, so it could be inkfish or Grizzco propaganda depicting the salmonid as having "savage" or "uncivilized" traditions in order to raise anger among other species.

2. Does it really matter whether or not this is true? Why or why not? What other acts deemed as "immoral" would be made moral under consent of the receiver?

again, you're right, issues such as s*x offenses between an adult and a consenting minor are NOT ok, among other things where "consent" is given because the receiver doesn't have full knowledge of the immorality of the action.

3. Would you argue that respecting traditions is more important than pursuing human (ha. human) rights for all? How do you determine exceptions?

Which brings me to the final point. They're not human. Despite whatever human desire crystals they have leaked in their system, /they're still sea creatures/. A robot coded with human values would still have a different background and needs than humans. An alien would have different societies. Just because white supremacy is a "tradition" in the United States doesn't mean it's okay. It's horrible. There shouldn't be exceptions. But inkfish and salmonid aren't fully human.

I agree, inkfish exploiting salmonid for profit and committing mass genocide is bad. This is inherently wrong. Whether or not they eat salmon isn't the largest issue here? In a different time, centuries in the past, I'm sure eating war spoils [see: bodies] would have been very widespread. A modern aquatic culture would have moved past the need for that. There's not much difference between unevolved salmon and salmonid meat than the fact that one of them was once sapient. Which, is an issue. You shouldn't eat people. the difference is in moral value.

Is it like someone donating their body to science? They're not subject to typical funeral rights, they've submitted their body for study and experimentation after death. You can't ask a dead person if what you're doing is ok, so receiving consent in life is how they do it.

Eating someone would be different. We don't really have a proper equivalent to this, since we're the only species on earth with sapience and regularly farm unintelligent animals for food. It's similar to cannibalism, I guess?

I see your interpretation of inkfish society as very human, which is fair, and you're entitled to that. It's just... Splatoon isn't fully human. They're still fish. However, they're very good at being extremely racist and divisive like humans, interesting to see /that / as one of the human traits passed on.

I'm sure you're very pissed from all the asks you're receiving about this but I just felt like writing a bunch of paragraphs about inkadian/splatlandian society. Sorry for the uncodly long ask

I'm not following your logic because I don't understand how you can say "inkfish exploiting salmonid for profit and committing mass genocide is bad. This is inherently wrong." and then make a case for situations in which eating salmonid might be morally okay. Where does the meat come from to make it ethically sourced then? If the only means of acquiring a meat is by murdering an intelligent species then uh, yeah! its still wrong to eat people!

And okay, say eating other intelligent beings is okay in fish society as a whole. Why don't inkfish eat each other? (This is "my interpretation" specific, but even eating their own hair is taboo!) Why does this logic apply to salmonids but not to themselves?

You can tell me inkfish aren't human, and they aren't, literally speaking, of the human species. But to speak of being "human" in a greater sense, yknow, intelligence, culture, spirituality, yeah, yeah they are. And so are Salmonids.

[themissingnumbers]

Hey, y’all! I just had a couple questions, if that’s okay.

First, the idea of Legendary Pokémon being seen as Deities/Religious Figures is cool as heck. I would love to see that expanded upon at some point. But anyways, onto the question. You said that the Legendaries can only be caught when they want to be, but can they be forcefully captured by Master Balls? Or are they immune to all forms of capture via Pokéball?

Second was about MissingNo/Ketsuban. Is MissingNo sentient? It was said in the “Types of Glitch/Anomaly” thing that Malfunctions like MissingNo are “the most unfiltered version of a Glitch’s will,” and as a result, are the most malicious. Does (he? she? they? it?) it have a goal when it comes to corrupting things? Or is it its chaotic nature that makes it so dangerous?

(Would it be wrong of me to think of/see MissingNo as some sort of a parasite?)

[Master Balls, I imagine, are something of a hot topic because they can catch any Pokemon- including legendaries. It's why they're so rare- not only because an item that powerful is so difficult to manufacture, but because of the moral arguments of a Pokemon captured so forcibly, and potential for misuse.

Pokemon and humans live harmoniously- they give each other assistance and benefits when working together. Often, a wild Pokemon that is caught allows itself to be caught and choses to follow its trainer, once their strength and ability to lead is proven to it in a battle (though the effectiveness of a used pokeball still is a factor).

Legendaries take this to the highest extreme. Often in the games- particularly the box legendaries- they'll be captured at the peak of the story, where working with the protagonist is necessary to stop a greater evil. At this point, they've likely been watching for a while, having seen the hero's heart for what it is. The battle in which you can catch them, in my mind, serves as a "final trial-" to weaken it before it officially joins your party, having deemed you worthy and aligned with its goal, duty, desires, etc! Effectively, this means the protagonist is something of a chosen one. Fun, huh?

Postgame legendaries and mythicals, I imagine, follow a similar rule- it's a matter of, you've already proven your strength, and they are willing to bow if you seek them out.

However, I do believe most of this is a temporary arrangement. They've still got a duty to fufill in most cases, whatever that may be- they'll follow, obey, and remain allied with a chosen trainer, but I think that often soon after their journey ends, they'll head their seperate ways and return to the wild. And a good-hearted trainer, like the heroes they would choose, would gladly let them go.

If they don't, these Gods are more than powerful enough to put them in their place and leave by force.

Anyways this is why you can just casually see box and other regional legendaries in seemingly unrelated games later on. They don't remain with one trainer forever (they just still really like that One Guy)!]

[As for MissingNo, well. Can't say much.

But, y'know... All animals have simple goals when it comes down to it.

Survive. Spread. Thrive.]

[... Ace has a lot of theories regarding glitch Pokemon, though. Of course their knowledge is limited, but maybe they'd be good to ask, too!]

[brettdoesdiscourse]

I don't see how people can claim to be "acab" but still be pro capital punishment and death penalty

I think there's a lot of different factors at play and the death penalty is one of those things where I understand very easily how people end up supporting it.

A: They view it as being fundamentally different from acab situations.

They see unarmed people of color, primarily black people, being brutalized by police and they can obviously see why that's wrong.

They see an innocent person being tortured or murdered in the street or in their own home and it's very easy to care for that victim.

It's very easy to say acab and blm because it's a more clear cut issue.

When it comes to punishment that they deem necessary, it's not as morally clear cut for them. They have to employ their own critical thinking and try to find out what they personally believe in. What's too far for them?

With acab, it's very easy to see two moral sides. You can ascribe acab and blue lives matter/all lives matter to different political parties, you can see tons of people speaking out about it on either side.

When it comes to the death penalty, that's not really the case.

You'll see tons of democrats and liberals who support the death penalty, you'll see tons of republicans and conservatives who support the death penalty.

Being pro death penalty isn't a primarily left or right belief in the way something like acab may be.

B: They have a disconnect about the judicial process.

I think ignorance is a big motivator for a lot of people to support the death penalty. They don't know exactly how corrupt the court system can be, especially if they've never had a personal situation going through it.

Acab is extremely televised and prominent in media. You can't really turn on the news without knowing about black people being brutalized by police. You can find countless stories of police injustices that are very publicized and talked about by a lot of people.

With court injustices, you don't really see that as often if you're not looking for it or in a specific circle that discusses it.

A lot of people still have the belief that's hammered into them of, "well, the justice system is professional and has at least some moral integrity and/or fairness."

They see a black person being killed in the street and they may say, "that's bad, they deserve a trial and a fair punishment."

Person killed in the street: No trial = no fair justice

Person killed on death row: Trial = fair justice

C: They are having an emotional reaction.

I feel like this is the biggest reason people support the death penalty.

When the death penalty happens, it's almost exclusively as a result of a murder. This is an extremely sensitive topic for many people and gets an emotional reaction to it. You also see this happening when someone wishes death on someone who commits a sexual offense.

I see the argument of, "well, if your loved one was killed, wouldn't you want the death penalty?" and I feel like this is very indicative of how emotional a response pro death penalty arguments can be.

A lot of people have a really hard time looking past the idea of "well, if I was a victim's loved one, I would want the death penalty for the killer" and that leads them to supporting it.

They also tend to cite very clear cut cases of murder where they feel justified in it. They look at cases where there is no real doubt of what happened and they feel good in supporting the death penalty because there's no blurriness there.

Dylann Roof, for example. There is no real doubt that he is guilty of killing nine churchgoers after opening fire against a primarily (or entirely) black Bible study.

People will look at this and be (rightfully) outraged and ask, "well, how can you look at that and not think he deserves to die?"

I don't blame people for having a hard time separating their emotions from the issue, it's definitely not easy. But it is very important.

[feverdreamjohnny]

Nowhere, MI - Story Goals

This post talks about my goals with the narrative and the themes I want to go over with Nowhere, MI. There is a major spoiler regarding the second act of the story, but it's been helpfully marked with big spoiler tags so you'll know what to skip if you want to enjoy the game blind.

Why am I writing this? I think it's fun to have little scraps left over so when a game's done you can laugh at how quaint some of the ideas were when they've been run through the wringer to the point that they can no longer be recognized. Consider this a little personal journal.

On a final note, if you do read the spoilers, recognize that what's there probably won't show up in the final game in the way I've talked about it. Nobody can predict the weather. More than a year from now the final ending could be extremely different than what you're going to read.

With that said, let's get cracking.

The main thing I want to focus on is that James' sole objective is JUST to rescue Alex. He initially does "good things" solely because they aid him in getting closer to saving his brother in order to alleviate his own guilt for having driven him away from home. I don't want the game to turn into one of those "okay I want a bottle of milk" to "now we must kill god to save the multiverse!!!" type stories because I despise that format immensely. It's an overplayed narrative arc and it sucks. "Hero from humble beginnings with basic goals having to own up to his legacy as the true hero of fate or whatever" crap. It's abysmal and plays into some kind of weird idea that every person who motivates major events in the history of a narrative is some kind of fated hero/villain who embodies some vague universal concept of good or evil. That idea doesn't really translate to real life, people's motivations are complex and typically don't just converge to "hero of destiny." Not every historically "good" action comes from a place of moral righteousness.

James is selfish. That's the main thing I want Nowhere, MI to convey. He's rescuing his brother because he was the one who drove him away, and the guilt of having done the wrong thing is what compels him to try and rescue him. He's not here to save the world or Nowhere itself, he's here to get his brother and go home because he thinks it can redeem the negligence he showed his family during their father's decline.

Concord serves as James' missing conscience. He's optimistic and upbeat, he's sensitive and empathetic, he's everything James fails to be. The reason he exists is to try and help James improve, but the point the game makes is that there isn't just a simple cure for being a bad person. An adventure in a fun and strange town doesn't fix years and years of learned behavior. James is initially so adverse to helping people who don't benefit him that he's willing to abandon Concord in the Nerve Cradle because he doesn't deem him as "useful" enough in the search for his brother. James doesn't want a talking gun so he can play hero, he just wants information towards finding his brother so that he can leave. It's only because Concord might know something about Alex that James considers taking him along.

The adventure that follows is James having to help people through their individual struggles because in return they can help him continue his search for Alex. The process of doing this is the initial breakthrough for helping James grow as a person once the adventure is over, but the adventure itself isn't where James makes a 180 and turns into a beautiful shining hero. He's still just focused on fixing what he did wrong for his own reasons.

This next part is a MAJOR spoiler for the second act of the game, so please skip it if you want to wait for the full game. You'll know when a spoiler's about to happen when you see a block of text between two [!SPOILER!] tags:

[!SPOILER!]

During the end of Act 1, James and Concord find Alex's body. He died in a freak accident while trying to find a cure for their ailing father. What's left of Alex's body is reanimated and feral, and attacks James and Concord using the surrogates Alex found during his own journey to Nowhere. Once it's defeated, bright fragments escape from the body and collect in Concord.

Suddenly, Concord regains his memories and it's revealed that Concord is actually Alex's soul trapped in a gun. The two brothers speak face to face for the first time (well, first time that Alex was whole again after running away from home) and James reveals that their father died while Alex was gone, rendering his entire "journey for the cure" futile. The two resolve that they can at least try and save Alex by finding Nox, a god of entropy who Alex believed had the ability to undo their father's illness.

The adventure does culminate in James having to kill a god of sorts, but it's not some heroic journey to save the world. Nox, who's power results in the miraculous inky rot that allows human souls to possess objects, just wants to be left alone. His powers are volatile and inherently against life itself. Despite being a god of entropy, he's extremely guilty about his past actions in the town and doesn't want to hurt anyone ever again. He's not sealed away because some council of elders dared to stop his horrible reign of terror, he sealed himself away because he's afraid of the nature of his own existence. James undoes Nox's own efforts because he's desperate to save Alex, disregarding the fact that Nox's imprisonment was probably for the best. Nox - being as courteous as he is - hears the brothers out, but declines their request because undoing Alex's transformation into a poltergeist could have unpredictable consequences. He wants the brothers to just seal him back inside the tomb and leave. While Alex is willing to accept this because he understands what's at stake, James is blinded with rage and decides to fight Nox and make him yield.

James doesn't end up killing Nox because he's a hero, James kills him because he's enraged that he's being denied what he believes he and Alex are owed. Despite all of the effort to improve, at the end of the day James is still selfish. In the aftermath when James sacrifices all of his surrogates to revive Alex as a human, Alex doesn't get to confront him about what just happened because James has fallen asleep thanks to Nox's powers draining his body of energy. The final sequence is a montage of Alex dragging James back through all of the levels to the truck, pilfering James' keys from his pocket, and driving them both home.

The point is to have enough of a character arc to feel like James is growing as a person the more he explores Nowhere, but I want to emphasize that at the end of the day, old habits die hard and that a couple days won't be enough to fix years of troubled thinking.

[!SPOILER!]

Anyhow, that's all I have to share for today. I can't predict if Nowhere will live up to the planning document I wrote, but regardless of what comes out of it, just know it comes from the heart.

Thanks for reading.

[flightofbats]

Alright so I don't know if anyone else has already made a post about this or not, but do y'all remember when we split into pieces the last time and a bunch of us decided to be birds?

And those birds decided to take the WORST parts of our discourse that we had already talked through and figured out as a group and let it simmer and fester among them and become irreparably harmful sticking points in queer Fandom?

Yeah uh, some of those bitchy ass birds think they can come back here with their radfem/TERF/SWERF BS and we'll all just welcome them back with open arms. Be diligent. Be vigilant.

I'm going to impart some advice to all of you that I learned while I was a bird watcher.

DO NOT ENGAGE THEM. If they are chirping about harmful shit, DONT EVEN ENGAGE THEM FOR THE "GOTCHA" REPLY. literally JUST BLOCK THEM. Reblogging only spreads the hate.

THEY DONT NEED TO BE EDUCATED. They know they're shitty people. They're trying to find others like them. Don't let them spread out. Report the heinous shit. Block them. Move the fuck on.

IF YOU GET PUT ON SOME KIND OF HATE LIST OR CALLOUT POST for something that seems perfectly "normal" (like being a pro-shipper) scroll the other usernames in that post. See who else is being called out. See what they're being called out for. And BAND TOGETHER. FOLLOW THEM. If you know for a FACT you're getting attacked for something that's literally not an issue, stick together. Follow them. Message them, if you can. Make sure they know they're not alone.

Switch your box to no-anons for a while. Turn off submissions. Turn off messages from non followers for a minute. You might get brigaded.

IF YOU FIND THE INSTIGATOR OF THE HATE CAMPAIGN: there are courses of action to take into consideration.

If you are a minor and the instigator is also a minor: report them and block. Use screenshots, links if you can. The safety folks here at Tumblr have traditionally been far more responsive than on other apps. See above steps.

If you are a minor and the instigator is an adult: report, block, and try to find an adult you trust that can talk through this with you. Beware of adults that label themselves as "safe adults" or "Fandom mom/dads" this title has been corrupted in recent years by radical adults who want power over younger, vulnerable minds. See above steps.

If you are an adult and the instigator is a minor: SEE ABOVE POINTS. It is not YOUR DUTY to explain to a CHILD trying to cancel you why you haven't done anything wrong. Put away the older sibling/cousin/parent energy and remind yourself that the kid is not your responsibility. Report, especially if they have posts stating they're underage to be on here, and block. That's it.

If you are an adult and the instigator is also an adult: I can't tell you what to do with any sort of authority, but I can tell you that trying to argue, reason, educate, or counter-harassment just doesn't work. They don't care. They have a cultlike sense of power and think they have moral superiority over you, which is extremely dangerous if they also have a small army of minors that they've spread their bullshit beliefs to. The most hurtful thing you can do to fight back is to just keep playing whack a mole: report, block, repeat. These are extremely angry, spiteful people that don't give a damn who they hurt. They want to control people because of their discomfort with content they deem inappropriate.

For the record, these people have warped the term "proshipper" to mean "someone who is okay with really morally reprehensible, """illegal""", or just serial content of a nature I feel uncomfortable with" and tend to throw around words like lolicon, pedophile, and groomer. They come up with straight up BIZARRE things to fight over that at the end of the day boil down to "I am uncomfortable with sexually or romantically toned content that may or may not have to do with fictional characters that have the slightest potential to be interpreted as underage."

We're talking things like a character being under five foot five. That's supposedly grounds for being considered child like, and then therefore incapable of feeling anything other than warm fuzziness about going to the park or petting a cat. It sounds legitimately nuts, but it is something I have personally witnessed.

Proship literally means "fine with shipping, and against harassing people for what they do in their spare time relating to their favorite fiction" that's it.

Yknow. The opposite of what these people do.

(This is also the part where I point out that most of the attacks and hate go towards people of marginalized societal groups because it's a good way to act on a "universal stigma" to hide the real reason all this is happening: bitchass, convoluted adults that want to be able to prey on kids without people that would stand up to their bullshit getting in the way)

Anyway. I'm sure I'm rambling and maybe no one will see this, but this is something I wanted to pass on as someone who has been fighting a losing battle against a rising tide of youngsters who reject our notions of safe, happy, considerate Fandom and instead want us to cater to their corrupted, conservative leaning views. I've been doing it on tiktok for 3 years and I'm fucking tired. No one listened to me on this there, so I'm hoping folks will understand me better here. I just wanted to warn all of you that not everyone who is moving here (or coming back) has the best intentions.

Uh. Here's a gif. When I was here last, that was customary to end a post with.

[saiibeo]

// Seeing Scream stuff again is making me wanna ramble before possibly rolling away for the night but also because of being on the topic of unhinged so don't mind me-

Remembering the fact that Corvus inherently in every verse is kinda unhinged, but it's never passed the point of "I'd murder someone for the fun of it" and they always have a reason for it- that includes their Ghostface verse. In their eyes it's justice and they're completely valid doing it. That people like that shouldn't be able to exist within society so they see it as a service along with their revenge. Is it delusional? Yeah a little they shouldn't do it regardless of what happened murder is still murder, but they never do those things without some kind of a reason that they deem important.

But that also doesn't mean they won't go after someone getting in their way if they haven't exhausted all of the options to get someone off of their trail. I've always deemed them an anti-hero for a reason. Just because others don't see what their doing as morally correct or okay doesn't mean it'll stop them from doing it as long as they deem it a necessary evil to their cause and for the greater good. They also didn't jump to the conclusion of murdering the group first. They were just going to ruin their lives, but considering they came from wealthy families themselves, Corvus knew it would just get swept under the rug somehow and felt they deserved to feel the same fear and anguish their brother did when he was wrongly killed. I also feel like if they saw fit they'd continue doing it if they were targeting people who they knew were doing horrible things because they don't feel bad about it at all. Their thought process is 'If it's equal to what they've done who's to say it's truly wrong? I'm just doing what the justice system failed to do.'

But it also goes to show that Corvus isn't really above murder or manipulation in any verse if they feel it's what needs to be done for the sake of others. As silly and playful as they seem to be, that fact is always going to remain even in their main BNHA verse. The only exception to this are people they are close to/care about which they'd never put in harms way no matter what.

[betterw1thapen]

8/9/22 Diary of Thoughts

It's been such an odd and busy day. As I get ready for bed, my mind is just a racing. I've been using social media (after my 4 month hiatus) to publicize my site and just market myself. I was mindlessly scrolling and came across a picture of my late friend that passed six years ago. I was instantly brought back to the time when I would visit them at work on their break and to take them or drop them off when they were having car troubles and I was just sad. Life is so fragile. There is so much complexity and uncertainty of not knowing what's going to happen from day to day and who we won't see tomorrow. It's also utterly frustrating that the people we hold dearest to our hearts are frozen in that time period while we move on without them. Memories are only but so comforting.

A lot of the things that bother us or that agitate us from day to day are trivial. A situation arose at work where my colleagues are continuously combatting each other, but politely, and instead of really sitting down to hash out their differences and communicate - they passively aggressively speak to each other and carry on and remark (either sarcastically or indirectly) about how the situations and the person bothers them instead of just stating that when face to face. I speak my peace about how it should be handled, ways to approach the situation, but nothing has come to pass yet.

It got me thinking too about how angry I was the other day. I precede this with: I have a strong stance on what I deem morally and ethically right or wrong. I have strong stances on drugs and alcohol and a persons responsibility (drinking and driving) when using or abusing these substances. I made a vow to never do anything hardcore and after my friends passing - to never drink and drive. During a party we had (for tots) my kiddos parent decided he would drink - knowing we drove separate cars, they've had issues with DUIs, and that they needed to help with other things after. I felt like my boundaries were crossed and my stance on these two issues were made clear in our several discussions, but perhaps not. They go to get in their car (to help with the after party things filling it up etc) and our kiddo is behind their car blowing bubbles being the aloof tot they are. I stand behind the car just to ensure that they can see me and our kiddo doesn't get ran over by accident since I was told they didn't just have beer, but liquor as well. They start backing up and hit me. I am enraged at this point and yell at them. They continue to back up into the tree (our kiddo runs screaming after they hit me to a safe spot 'yelling carrrrrrr!') and takes off down the driveway. I take my kiddos home with me and we just wait for them to get back. Hours have gone by and no call or text - so I message the person they are with and ask their wherabouts (I guess they were sobering up there before coming home).

After all of this - I haven't spoken to even reiterate my feelings on this, the drinking and driving, the past DUIs, the agitation, hitting me, the thought of them of almost running over our child had I not been standing there, hitting the tree with everyone watching. the sheer embarrassment of the situation, the lack of responsibility on their end to drink AT HOME and have a DD if they drink, and the sheer fact that the day was about celebrating our tot and they couldn't do that sober. My boundaries were crossed then. I know we're not together and choose to co-parent, but it's hard when I feel like I am overreacting and pushing my beliefs, worries, and stress on them because if that's what they want to do - I should let them since they're grown and we're apart. I just know I cannot sit around and watch things like this unfold - what would I even tell the kids?! There's less anxiety in not knowing and not worrying, but it's hard to not push all of this on them when I care about them so much and they have an example to set for the kids.

In ways, I think back to how life is short and I should forgive them and meet them where they are. I've done what I could to help with the drinking, the driving (this isn't the first occasion), and the substance abuse. In the end, we all have to make our own decisions. It's just that what they choose to do impacts us all.

One of my favorites at my job left today - let's just say I will miss her dearly. There are a lot of new beginnings happening today - it's bittersweet.

Anywho, Happy 4th Ducky; I love you.

J - you will always be in my heart and I MISS YOU so damn much. I don't know why things happen the way they do, but it would be nice to hear your voice and hang one more time. This life is so different and I miss the simpler times, porch hangouts, and random trips w. you and B, too. I am so happy to have made memories with you. <3

[sketchncanto]

Actually from what I understand, proshipping was made in response to so-called "anti-shipping", which is when people are very much against certain ships or elements in media that they deem "problematic."

A famous example of this is those who are anti-Reylo (like, the people in Star Wars) and they apparently had a reputation of calling out ANYONE who even remotely liked the ship because of its problematic aspects (power imbalance, they've tried to kill each other a bunch of times.)

This behavior apparently made some people go "hey, we don't like that you're harassing people over a fictional couple because at the end of the day, it's just make-believe and we don't actually condone the awful things depicted in this kind of relationship" so their response was to be "proship" or to simply let people ship as they please as long as they're not being actually terrible people IRL.

In a way, there really isn't a way to know what someone's morals are based on the fiction they like. It reminds me of the "video games cause violence" argument from way back when. Obviously it doesn't. Just because I like playing GTA by getting into the nearest car and causing as much wreckage as possible, doesn't mean I'll actually go out and do that in the real world.

Honestly, the people in the wrong here are those sending death threats to either side, no matter if you're a "proship" or "anti" person. Live and let live. Don't hurt people is the real moral.

Ahhh, I see. The whole thing is complicated.

Yeah, I don’t agree with incestous/pedophilic ships and I don’t understand why people do, but I’d never send someone a death threat over it. We can’t read peoples minds, we don’t know their true intentions. All I know is that… I don’t like it, I don’t wanna see it, block.

You’re right though. Bullying isn’t acceptable, no matter what side you’re on— you’re not gonna get your desired result by doing it so what’s even the point

[seaofashes]

WWX stans (who hate JC and kin LWJ, naturally) clearly do not understand the concept of loving a character without excusing the bad things they've done because they are unironically out here trying to prove that torture and violations of body autonomy are morally correct when it is WWX that is doing them. Talk about protagonist brain rot.

I would have to agree with that, of course that doesn't go for everyone but I definitely think this is the reason I didn't really put my thoughts on characters out there for so long. I absolutely love and adore WWX, LWJ, LXC, and JC but it's really hard to find people to talk to about the series due to so much conflict that comes with liking characters. There's definitely hypocrisy among it because people will excuse the wrongs of one character while damning another for it. Meanwhile I'm sitting here well aware of everything they've all done and accepting it while loving each one. There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with who you enjoy and who you dislike, but it does become a problem when you start being a hypocrite or shaming others for liking a character you can't stand. Like WWX? Has done some pretty fucked things. JC? Yeah he has too. Like... honestly there's so few characters that I can think of who HAVEN'T crossed the line into fucked up territory and y'know what? NONE should be excused for it, if you like the character stop excusing what they did and just be like "Yeah they did that, I'm not trying to say they didn't HOWEVER that doesn't take away from the fact they are a well written character and I enjoy them. I don't have to justify and defend liking them. Liking them does not make me a bad person, just like liking *insert character* doesn't make you one." Because that's how liking characters SHOULD BE! I've seen so much around the fandom across platforms that say you can't like WWX or you can't like JC or LWJ or LXC and if you do you can't also like certain characters and quite frankly? That's fucking stupid. I'm going to like everyone I like and no one can stop me! I love WWX Because he's so interesting and his story is crushing at times and he's such an interesting character to see and his path hurts because no matter what he does or how he tries to help it seems everything is stacked against him. I love LWJ because he's a character who makes me laugh but makes me incredibly sad and his path is so lonely at times and there's so much to this character who doesn't say all that much verbally. JC I love because I see myself in him. I genuinely think so many people dislike him because it makes them uncomfortable seeing characters react realistically among so many characters who suffer in silence. He's very vocal about things, he hurts and cries and screams and gets angry and lashes out and doesn't always think things through. Whereas other characters suffer in silence, they keep it to themselves and don't say anything. And I think some folks seem to deem that as him being an awful person among the others Because "he's making a scene why doesn't he just suck it up like the others" well that's because not all of us can like some of us genuinely have a difficult time keeping our emotions and actions in check. I've lashed out at so many people when I'm in a state of immense physical or emotional pain and I feel terrible about it after but it still happens? Among all of these characters who suffer quietly, you have one who just doesn't. He processes things differently than the others and that's okay because that's how people are. Some shoulder things and keep quiet, others are vocal and make their pain known. I genuinely don't understand the issue! Like so many people have so much discourse about who you can and can't like, excusing one characters actions while damning others for similar things and just it doesn't make sense at all. I crave the day we can all just agree to like characters we like, acknowledge their flaws and wrongdoings and not judge others for it. So many MDZS characters fall into the grey area, are neither good nor bad and I think the faster folks realize that the better things would be.

[freddieandersen]

Hello! I know you posted the stuff about “G-d wanting Adam and Eve to eat the apple, that’s why he told them where it was” thing a while back, but I’m extremely curious as to if your rabbis said why he then punished Adam and Eve (and the rest of humanity) for doing exactly what he wanted. I understand if this is too big a question and I can go research this elsewhere; just curious bc that’s the first time I’ve heard of anyone saying that theory directly!

hey anon there's like a 97% chance u will never see this but thanks for asking and i really wish i could remember what my rabbis said about this (because it definitely came up in the discussion)-- my best (but extremely loose) recollection is that it's got something to do with reframing the "expulsion from eden" not as a punishment but as an assumption of responsibility. like, you're mature enough to make your own choices, which means you're mature enough to take on the work of the world/tikkun olam. and with that comes some discomfort and struggle. moving out of your parents' house is a big step that comes with a lot more freedom to make your own choices and to act as you deem right, but also a lot more mundanity and responsibility to handle (in this analogy the pain of giving birth is basically having to pay your own bills).

there's also an understanding in (some) jewish tradition that sometimes g-d is straight up wrong! there's a talmudic moment where the rabbis are trying to solve a problem, and g-d shows up, and they tell g-d to leave because by giving the torah over to humans, g-d has relinquished a degree of control over what we do with that torah-- g-d, being not a human dealing with the reality of life on earth, doesn't get to decide what we do with the insights we've been given. which i mention in order to say that if the expulsion was intended as a punishment, and not as an element of a larger lesson about personal responsibility and independence, that choice by g-d doesn't necessarily have to be taken as morally right. g-d is extremely not just like, a person with extra knowledge and power, but also g-d doesn't have to be understood to be infallible.

as for the snake getting delegged tho i got nothing. i remember that i have gotten an explanation and i also have no recollection whatsoever of what it might have been

disclaimers: 1) not a rabbi! just a person doing their best to reassemble something that they've been told. 2) i am sorry that i don't have any textual citations on hand for this 3) other jewish interpretations may vary widely, so like, this definitely isn't The Jewish Perspective TM. it's at best /a/ jewish perspective. probably not even a dominant one, just one that i find particularly compelling 4) some traditions take the torah as literal. some take it as a series of stories and analogies we tell ourselves to help us understand ourselves, our communities, and our world better. this particular interpretation is loosely "if this did happen as it's told, why would it have happened like that, given a modern understanding of morality"

if you wanna look into torah stories that involve making decisions that are morally gray at best and that involve having discussions with g-d about what the fuck is up, i'd recommend reading about the akedah/binding of isaac, sodom and gomorrah, and the relationship between the two (abraham argues with g-d on behalf of sodom, but a few chapters later, doesn't do the same for his own son-- and our sages note that g-d doesn't speak to abraham ever again after the akedah. one relatively prevalent take is that the akedah was a test for abraham, and that by failing to protect his son, he failed. a related take is that after arguing and bargaining and trying really hard to avoid the destruction of sodom, and watching it burn anyways, abraham was traumatized and resigned to the idea that he wouldn't be able to protect his son even if he did try, so why bother. shoutout to mary oliver for the quote "that g-d had a plan, i do not doubt. but what if his plan was, that we would do better?")