#so tma mostly seems to set the standard that intent matters more than deed

[thermodynamic-comedian]

i guess my point is that i want to explore the human aspects of inhumanity but most of you guys are only interested in the moral aspects of both. as if being more human is the same as being more morally correct. as if morality can be fairly applied to something distinctly non-human.

#you guys are so stuck on wether a character is good or evil that you completely forget that those are human terms #humans get a choice to do good or evil things. you can't say a character simultaniously is not human #but is also evil #i don't wanna be an 'apologist' or a 'defender' i wanna explore this character inside out #i wanna look at everything they are and everything they aren't and everything that they want or don't want #but i just end up doing character apologism anyways #i wanna have discussions about wether a character is human or not human or sort of human #without having to preface everything with ''i know they're evil btw'' like man does that matter? #i'm interested in how you guys would react if i applied the trope of the protagonist doing something bad because they can't control it #to an antagonist instead #this is mostly about tma because i noticed this really interesting pattern in tma #where everyone who chooses to do the wrong thing is considered an antagonist #whereas everyone who is forced to do the wrong thing is considered a victim #so tma mostly seems to set the standard that intent matters more than deed #i wanna explore that idea without people accusing me of apologism