#like obviously these are immoral intentions and actions

[skallyeen]

GLaDOS's insults are interesting. Because they're so clearly prejudiced, right? She's making fun of Chell for being fat and adopted. These are scummy things to make fun of someone for, and things that would realistically be punching bags for prejudiced people interacting with this character.

But I don't think GLaDOS actually holds the sentiments she's expressing. Rather, they're a means to an end.

I get this mostly from her lines in co-op on the subject:

"Did you know humans frown on weight variances? If you want to upset a human, just say their weight variance is above or below the norm."

She calls Chell fat not because she thinks she's fat or that she personally finds anything wrong with weight variances, but because she knows calling humans fat makes them feel bad, and she's bitter about being killed and wants to make Chell feel bad.

Same goes with her being adopted. As soon as it doesn't emotionally or pragmatically benefit GLaDOS to make fun of Chell for being fat or adopted, she actively refutes Wheatley's attempt at bullying her for these things:

"And...? What, exactly, is wrong with being adopted?" "Also: Look at her, you moron. She's not fat."

She walks back her previous derogatory assertions as if they don't mean anything to her, because they don't. She never believed them in the first place.

She treats Rattmann's schizophrenia much the same way. She uses it to try and manipulate him, to make him doubt himself enough to come out of hiding where she can kill him, the same way she tries to make Chell doubt herself and turn back when she's escaping the facility back in Portal 1. The ableism she expresses is not a genuinely held belief, but a means to an end that she has no qualms about using.

Whether that makes it better or worse, I have no idea! I'd say worse on account of the intention to cause doubt or hurt to the target. But it's a very unique combination of values, isn't it? You're much more used to seeing the inverse: people being insulting, with no actual malicious intent, as a result of unchecked biases. Like, for instance, friendly little Wheatley unintentionally being super condescending about Chell's brain damage and muteness.

#for the record this isn't a condemnation of either character #in the 'therefore you shouldn't like them' sense anyways #like obviously these are immoral intentions and actions #but so is murder #moral slights are nothing new for her #i just found this really interesting #glados #yeenwords #portal #portal 2 #character analysis #portal analysis #skall got into the ramble jar again #i do think glados is legit ableist in regards to wheatley #but so is the writing itself #so it's hard to make a character judgement off of that

[starryluminary]

♪ Jane Doe - Alicia Keys

The EX Files finally!! The episode where Cody and Noah face the consequences of their actions (the consequences they frankly don't deserve)

I hope this is coherent. I had to add and change some things last second to tie it together and I reeeeally hope I managed to have it read well

Notes about this episode under the cut! (There’s extra detail I couldn’t fit in the doodles and needed context for future episodes, so skimming them is recommended!)

* (It’d be funny if Noah had a black eye this episode from Sierra’s backhand.)

* It starts off with Sierra crying and Courtney and Heather making Cody comfort her, which he does reluctantly.

* Cody's not entirely sure what to say to try and calm her down, but she retorts with “Whatever… it’s not like you're in love with him.”

* Sierra looks back at him… and he’s frozen. He doesn’t know how to respond.

* Sierra can take a guess, though. “…No you aren't.” She harshly grabs him by the arms and yells at him, desperately, “NO YOU AREN'T!!”

* Heather grabs Sierra and Courtney grabs Cody to separate them. Cody promptly runs away and Sierra promptly gets yelled at by Heather (not because she cares, but because Cody being injured would make him a liability.)

* On Team Chris’s side, Alejandro, Owen, Duncan and Tyler are huddled discussing the incident. Owen tries his best to be on Noah's side, defending him, but Alejandro twists the story to paint Noah as the one in the wrong. Owen doesn’t want to admit he’s making sense. Duncan is completely against Noah, backing up Alejandro. Tyler however doesn’t participate until Noah gets fed up of the not-so whispering and storms out of first class.

* Cast regroups for the challenge rules and Noah joins Cody's side, quipping something I can’t remember. Cody quips back. Sierra pushes Noah to the ground in response, pretending to be in on the joke.

* The “Courtney throwing challenges” bit is replaced by Tyler watching/paying extremely close attention to Noah to determine if Noah’s situation is sympathetic or immoral. Noah gets more mad the longer the episode goes on cause Tyler isn’t exactly subtle.

* Cody finds the cloning pod and makes Alien Cody like in canon. [I’m making him a bit more curious and a bit less initially threatening, like he has Cody’s thoughts and opinions and feelings.] Alien Cody approaches the real Cody slowly, and Sierra finds them. She’s shocked at first: “Two Codys?” Then she starts wondering, and asks the Alien Cody a question. “Do… you love me?” Alien Cody sticks its tongue out at her and scurries away.

* Once Sierra and Cody are alone together, Sierra tells him she’ll forgive him. Cody is confused. Sierra explains. “Obviously Noah got into your soft, easily manipulated mind, and that was wrong of him!” She grabs Cody’s face. “But don’t worry.” She leans in and puckers her lips. Cody looks at her horrified. “I can fix it.”

* Before Noah and Cody find each other, Noah finds Alien Cody. He thinks it’s the real one at first, approaching it casually. He then notices the messy hair, green tinted skin and the eyes (which I’m making entirely black cause these are pencil drawings with no color) and becomes more cautious towards it. “You’re not Cody. What… are you?” ET finger touch.

* Duncan sees this from afar and yells at Noah: “Are you *seriously* messing with Cody right now?!” Noah tries to respond: “I’m not! This isn’t-“ Alien Cody interrupts him with a growl directed at Duncan. He charges towards him with malicious intent and Duncan punches him, making him explode into goop. Noah does not falter. “Way to kill our winning ticket, idiot.” Duncan does not hesitate. “I’ll kill you. I swear I’ll kill you.”

~ *[Events of the comic]* ~

* Team Amazon makes it back to Chris with an artifact first and win the challenge. Cody looks back at Noah (whose team was only slightly behind his own) sympathetically. Noah looks back with understanding. I want to say Sierra’s slightly too loud and exited about NOT the Amazons winning, but of team Chris losing. Tyler (who’s paying way too much attention now) notices and comes to a conclusion.

* Owen gets voted off this episode for being dead weight, and he and Noah hug before he jumps. Owen tells Noah to “win for him” and Noah replies that he makes no promises… but he’ll try.

Sorry that’s. Like a lot. The story kinda got away from me

#I honestly don't have much to say about this one just read the notes #the veeerrrryyy long list of bullet points. so sorry about that #total drama #total drama world tour #tdwt #total drama noah #td noah #total drama cody #td cody #cody anderson #noco #total drama noco #td noco #world tour but noco are the only ones kissing #Starry makes art #total drama tyler #td tyler #total drama sierra #td sierra #total drama duncan #td duncan #thats all the characters im willing to tag #also!! in relation to the song!! #Noah is Jane Doe if that wasn't clear. Sierra is NOT willing to give up so easily and ESPECIALLY not to him #she'll be crazy to let her man go and let some z lister John Doe come and try to steal him you know #may not be the perfect man but she don't plan to let him go for Jane Doe.

[electric-friend]

the amount of people who think that the folks who think the show textually gave us ed abusing izzy are just insane immoral dickheads is truly distressing. like. no, ed was not izzy’s abuser in season one. not like, clearly and obviously onscreen in my opinion anyway. and yes, izzy was verbally abusive and triggering to ed in season one.

but saying that in season two the show quite literally frames ed as izzy’s abuser does not cancel out those other statements.

it doesn’t mean that anyone thinks ed should be depicted as a violent man. it doesn’t mean that izzy didn’t do anything wrong.

like, you people understand there doesn’t need to be just one bad guy, right? that ed and izzy can both have done significant wrong?

you people do understand that people who think the show depicted ed as abusive are mad that the show did that and then didn’t resolve it properly because we think it was a disservice to ed’s character, right? you understand the reason we feel this way is because the way it was depicted was triggering to a lot of us because the scenario shown onscreen is deliberately evocative of abuse, right? ed did a bad thing. izzy did a bad thing. they both did bad stuff.

i hate the way the side of the fandom that thinks it’s wrong to suggest canon had ed be abusive towards izzy just seem to all believe that abuse is something that’s earned and deserved. or that if they "deserve" it, it's not abuse.

you can tell me about ed’s motivations of suicidality if you want but his intent doesn’t counteract the effect of his actions, much like izzy who didn’t intend to turn ed into the kraken, but still wasn’t right for his actions no matter his intentions and the excuses he made in his head.

you know what? i’m going to say it. just because ed didn’t deserve the way izzy treated him doesn’t mean izzy DID deserve the way ed treated him after.

we couldn't even get a story about a character with a canonically abusive dad doing something as simple as breaking the cycle of violence, huh. i just don't respect the writing or the narrative of season two.

#ofmd critical #izzy hands

[comradekatara]

i feel like it's worth noting that even though combustion man had every intention of killing the gaang, and therefore, sokka's actions are like, justifiable—there's no way he could've known a boomerang to the head would cause an internal explosion and kill the assassin. or that it would do anything besides knock the guy out so they can escape. like??? people do be wilding out here

also, i'm rewatching the show rn and i was wondering if you had any thoughts on the significance (if any) of zuko not having his scar in his dream after he frees appa?

I mean he didn’t know it would kill him, but I’m sure it’s the most desirable outcome for him, seeing as killing him means ending his pursuit (to quote katara) permanently. sokka has no problem with killing people if they’ve tried to kill him first. he wanted to let zuko die in the north pole. he sliced open melonlord’s head all “there. that’s how it’s done.” granted, he did spare azula on the gondola, but there were a lot of factors at play there. for the most part sokka has no qualms with killing enemy combatants, although he also does seem to want to minimize casualties as much as possible. he can be cold, calculating, and even ruthless, but he is not aggressive or bloodthirsty in the slightest. in that sense I think he and azula are similar, whereas zuko and katara are far more aggressive and out for blood due to their inner rage rather than any innate understanding of the necessary cost of war. they can talk a big game, but ultimately, sokka and azula will do what needs to be done, while katara and zuko talk about getting revenge but are too sensitive to actually take a life when faced with the prospect (and to be clear, I don’t think either approach is wrong or right, it’s simply how they are as people). acknowledging that sokka has a kill count isn’t a bad thing, but treating that fact as if it makes him immoral is also incorrect. he does not kill for the sake of killing. he knows he is in a war, and he kills out of necessity.

and yeah! there’s been a lot of great analysis of that dream sequence, as it’s obviously very symbolic and however you read it, it provides a lot of insight into his character arc. one thing to note is that besides this dream sequence, I don’t think zuko ever looks into a mirror. (and note that when azula does look into a mirror, she breaks it.) I don’t think zuko can stand to look at his own reflection. keep in mind that zuko’s entire dream sequence is a product of his body being unable to process the trauma of performing an act in which he disobeys ozai’s conditioning. iroh forces him to challenge what he thinks he should do versus his deeper instincts, and since he’s spent the past three years ignoring those instincts, burning them away and then snuffing them out with ozai’s lessons taking their place, his body doesn’t know how to process the action of him going against the dogma that has fueled him for years. his body is punishing itself in place of the punishment he feels he must receive after disobeying ozai’s orders. he’s recovering from a wound, only this time, it’s psychological (internal) rather than physical (external). (sidenote: this is why I hate seeing people joke that “zuko did one good thing and then promptly fell ill” like yeah it’s his body’s response to the severe trauma of his abuse haha hilarious!) so this is the context for zuko’s feverish reevalation. he’s undergoing the realization that in ba sing se, ozai cannot actually reach him, and therefore he is safe to be who he wants to be. of course, this isn’t entirely true either. he’s not actually being who he wants to be once he recovers from his fever, he’s being who iroh wants him to be. he’s replacing one father with another. he’s still scared of the consequences of disappointing his patriarch, so he plays the perfect son and pretends to be happy. of course this facade cannot last either, which is foreshadowed by the two dragons in zuko’s dream, iroh and azula. both of them have an agenda for zuko, and here he sits, scarless, at a crossroads.

#sincerelyjordan #asks #analysis #I’ve seen good analysis of this dream sequence recently maybe I’ll link it if I can find it #since this is obv barely scratching the surface #edit: added it! please read it it’s very good #but I think the point about zuko trading ozai for iroh is really important #maybe I’ll expand on this at some point #sokka #zuko #iroh&zuko #ozai&zuko

[rollercoasterwords]

you rly weren’t fucking around with the morally grey sirius huh !

he tortures and kills people for a fascist government i think we are past morally grey lol like. what he's doing is just straight-up immoral!! not trying to beat around the bush with that one

in all seriousness tho this is why i put my little warning spiel on the first ch of the fic abt how this story is like. not intended for a broad/general audience. sirius is not a good person!!! you're getting the story from his pov, which is obviously limited, and while he feels largely ambivalent towards voldemort + his family + can even recognize some of the wrongness, he is for the most part resigned to his work as a death eater. he has never deeply questioned any of the underlying, foundational beliefs that uphold pureblood supremacy, and he actively benefits from the privileges it affords him. he feels some level of guilt for what he does but does nothing productive to address it; instead, he buries it and hides from it and tries to alleviate it by projecting it onto situations where he can "do the right thing" without actually endangering his privileged status (see: remus lupin).

and the thing is, sirius doesn't think of himself as a villain. he doesn't think of himself as "dark" or "evil" or even "morally grey." we get more backstory on how and why he joined the death eaters in ch 7, so i'm gonna refrain from saying too much, but like. the narrative he has internalized is basically that things are out of his hands; he had to become a death eater, and he has to marry dorcas, and he has to have heirs, and he has to carry on the family name. he feels trapped and resents it, but refuses to acknowledge that he could walk out of the cage if he really wanted to, because to actually do so would place himself in danger. at the end of the day, although he himself suffers in certain instances under voldemort's regime, he is also granted immense wealth, privilege, and power--at the expense of those less privileged, like remus.

and the point of all this is not to say that you should be reading sirius as a villain--because he's not. i think the category of "villain" in and of itself is not a very useful tool for approaching this story, because my focus is less on like...a Single Figure of Evil and more on systemic oppression. as a writer, i want readers to sympathize with and relate to sirius because i think it's important to understand that determinations about whether a person is "good" or "bad" which are based on evaluations of like...nebulous internal morality or intent are rarely reflective of the ways in which a person's actions materially contribute to systems of oppression. like--if sirius in ch 4 went "oh yay i love killing people" then everyone would immediately go "oh he's a bad guy!!" but because he went "oough...i am a gutted fish....i have no choice...." he becomes "morally grey." the outcome of his action is the same: he kills. the material impact is the same. so why would we place the emphasis on the internal mindset behind that action? in doing so, we lose the focus on materiality that is necessary to address systemic oppression, because the truth of the matter is that many "good" people contribute to and are invested in these oppressive systems.

anyway this has become a whole rant lol i'm so sorry but basically just....yeah. sirius is not a Good Guy. that's the point!!

#ask #was just sending voicenotes abt this 2 my sister earlier so i have. a lot of thoughts lol #obviously it is just a silly little fanfiction but i am also. getting v political w it so there is a lot of intention behind like #why i chose to write sirius this way!! #if u would prefer not to read stories about bad people then this is not a good story for u #(not that i think ur saying that anon but just. feel the need to repeatedly reiterate that point) #(considering what fandom we are in) #wfrau

[mourninglamby]

Are you like, still ok with dsmp lore/character analysis asks? Cause i want your thoughts around sam real bad but don't wanna be rude.

If you're still ok w those kinda asks but dont wanna write a bunch just saying where on the spectrum between vilifier and apologist you are would be really cool too! (Gonna take a wild guess that you're somewhere near a critical sympathizer? Like you understand why he did stuff n dont think hes evil but still think he made very immoral choices or something)

brah ur good. i dont mind dsmp asks at all!! also im glad u asked.

this is gonna be long oops

c!sam is one of the only characters where i have nearly full faith in regarding authorial intent, for starters. Sam The Dude (bringing that back) is obviously very self aware of his characters morally ambiguous and sometimes straight up ethically bankrupt actions, and everything he does with consideration for his character and the plot makes sense to me up until. Well.. c!sam's prison arc. But all of the consequences of that arc are still up in the air and I still stand by sam's understanding of the metatextual implications of his characters actions. Because oh boy does sam GET CONSEQUENCES. However for now I'm keeping my distance from that until we get some more c!hotelduo shit.

I think Sam The Guy is an expert at writing his character's hypocrisy compared to, say, c!techno's. C!Techno does things selfishly and impulsively, and doubles down on the decisions he makes regardless of how destructive or hurtful they are to anyone who isn't him or his friends. This is largely in part perpetuated by his character never reaping the consequences of those actions. That's a fact, not an opinion. So his hypocrisy in relation to his principles (his hatred for any form of government) feels antagonistic and almost goofy when you realize that makes him the defacto government, if he is to be the judge jury and executioner of the smp's organized communities. See the syndicate and snowchester or literally any ctechno stream post bedrockbros arc.

Now look at C!Sam. Sam does everything to follow HIS principles, but has extremely little regard for himself and other people, aside from C!Tommy. While attempting to make things more safe, his downfall lies in that code becoming an obsession, leading to him to justify mutilating his ex and stopping tommy from killing dream in C!wilburs revival stream for the sake of containing the real threat. And most notably, we figure out that sam somehow found out about c!ranboo's association with c!dream, which is a concept that explains a myriad of fatal errors with pandora's vault security and some experiences inside it. C!Sam killing c!ranboo is awful, sure, but there's this thing called DRAMATIC IRONY, where we know it wasn't truly c!Ranboo (debatable, given how ranboo The Guy abandoned his damn character) who carried out the plan with the explosives that lead to c!tommy's death and subsequent revival, but c!sam doesn't. And once again, the cycle of violence is repeated. However, for all these things, C!Sam faces dire punishments. Probably more than any character on the server.

C!Ponk and c!sam will probably never heal their relationship. As much as C!sam may regret it or feel remorse for hurting them, c!ponk has every right to be scornful and hold resentment towards him for the rest of their lives. C!tommy, someone c!sam has held dear throughout the entire show and arguably values the most, HATES him and never wants to see him again after his incidents. C!tubbo and his murder squad put him in the prison HE OVERSAW SECURITY FOR.... punishments left and right at this point.

And this is why his character and his hypocrisy are more tragic to me. All of this comes to a head when C!dream, someone he shouldn't even feel remorse towards, kills him after he wakes him up to his own cruelty and murders him for the keycards. C!Sam is constantly hurting himself and others and being brutally punished afterwards, without learning much, because he feels like his principles justify his actions. But now he has no need for these principles, since the prison has been rendered obsolete and he's lost everyone he wants to protect.

Which is why I feel his redemption arc would be the most rewarding at this point in the story. He seems to finally be recognizing his errors. sam feels like the type of character to not want this guilt to destroy him more than it already has, and if I had control over this story, or even the room with sam The Guy, I'd ask him to start with c!tommy. His redemption starts back at the beginning: protecting this kid from a monster. Except this time, he does it right, and he does it because he not only cares for him, but he owes it to him, as both the adult and as someone who is distinctly aware of c!tommy's suffering at the hands of c!dream.

#dsmp meta #dsmp analysis #c!sam #sorry if this is worded weirdly i have a cold im half awake

[fangirleaconmigo]

O HAY, I had a question for you: Triss? I really enjoyed her in TWN season 1 -- I thought it was interesting to have a sorceress who had implicitly rejected Aretuza's lessons about compassion being a weakness, etc, who had *chosen* to remain tender in a world that wanted to harden her. But then I met her in TW3, and found out about the SKEEVY dubcon shit she pulled with amnesiac-Geralt in TW1, and it seems like they took nothing of her character but the name for TWN?? So, book!Triss thoughts?

Hello my dear! So, I was holding onto your ask because I have every intention of doing a full Triss Merigold character breakdown like I did for Eskel and Milva and Aiden.

However, I'm taking so long getting to it that I figured I'd answer your ask and then just do my char sheet in slower time. (I'm working on Lambert first and I'm only like halfway through that).

So, Triss. Triss, Triss, Triss.

The thing that makes Witcher book characters feel so real is that they are complicated. They can be very nice but not a good person. They can be a good person, but not nice at all. They can be heroic to strangers, but shitty to loved ones. They can be devoted to their loved ones and brutal and inhumane with strangers. It's just like real life.

Triss in the books is undoubtedly heroic and very sweet. She represents the kind of person who believes that good can be done using the mechanisms of politics. She is a 'give a shit and get involved' person. A 'doing nothing in the face of evil is complicity' person. She gives incredibly moving and persuasive speeches to the wolves on helping people and getting involved. And she isn't just full of shit. She puts herself at risk. She sacrifices some of her most important tools of power (her 'perfect' beauty) and she shows herself willing to sacrifice her life on MULTIPLE occasions to rescue innocents and civilians. But her heroic values, take to the extreme, cause her to make some deeply (to me anyway) immoral decisions. The witcher will always show you the pitfall to every approach to trying to do good. In that way, she is no different than Geralt, on the opposite spectrum. His 'don't get involved' approach has it's shortcomings too.

Her sexual pursuit of Geralt can be interpreted on a whole spectrum. The phrase in the books about her 'use' of magic can be read literally or figuratively. Either way, he is clear that he is not interested in her romantically, but without a doubt she is dogged and persistent. Some people interpret that as messy and desperate. He does care deeply about her as a person, he did sleep with her, and she is very young. Yarpen in the books characterizes her actions as basically embarrassing to herself because she misunderstands Geralt's kindness as interest. He sees her as a person who is just taking Geralt's kindness the wrong way.

Other readers see it as sexual harassment. How many times can someone tell you no before it is seen as such? What else do you call an opportunist, who sleeps with an emotionally vulnerable person regardless of the literal/figurative interpretation of "magic". And why doesn't she just s t o p when she's been told to stop? Obviously, in real life, I would call that sexual harassment. But of course we aren't talking about real life.

I think the show interprets her actions towards Geralt in a way that is complimentary to her character. She takes no for an answer in the scene in TWN. I also think Anna Shaffer does a beautiful job portraying her sweetness and kindness and heroic nature, and the script hasn't really had her do the things that make people think of her as predatory. I also think the shit Anna has gotten for existing while being a woman of color is absolutely revolting, and she portrays the version of Triss that is by far the easiest to love with your whole chest. (the books purposefully make you struggle to find a 'perfect' person you can unreservedly love)

I haven't played the games, but if Triss takes advantage of his amnesia, then clearly the game makers interpret her the other way, as a person who is predatory (whether they think that story line is predatory or not, I think we can agree that lying to an amnesiac is predatory)

I think depending on the story you want to tell, you can stretch that depiction either way, using the source material.

The other question is, what kind of friend is she? Throughout eight books, you see her think admiring things of Yen, worry about Yen, and speak highly of her. Regardless, she sleeps with Geralt knowing full well and having been explicitly told that he loves Yen and that he is with her.

So, in my view, she is a terrible friend to Yen. I don't think there is any doubt about that. I mean, some people may think sleeping with a friend's partner is cool, I do not.

So. It's complicated. I love Triss's character because I think she plays an incredibly important role developing the most important witcher themes. I relate to her political approach, seeing as I believe in organizing for the betterment of regular people. (Though I think it leads to some horrible decisions)

And regardless of her breaktaking betrayals, she always has her reasons, and Geralt never really stops seeing her as a friend, and neither does Ciri. It's almost like family that way. They can be absolute nightmares, but they are your nightmare. But Yen never forgives her for turning her back on Geralt and Ciri when the chips are down. In fact, the scene where Yen tells her she will never forgive her gives me fucking chills. It is so powerful a scene.

Yen is real one. She is a real ass bitch who will fight a god for her family. Someone like that cannot fathom how Triss can make the choices she makes, no matter how lofty or virtuous the motivations.

And I'm with Yen on that one. It is infuriating watching her hurt Yen over and over and over and seemingly just not care. It's devastating to see her leave them out there at risk.

So. It's complicated. It's a little from column A and a little of column B. But to be fair, almost every witcher character is like that. They do heroic, admirable, touching, kind, beautiful things. Then they turn around and do something that is just reprehensible. It's why they feel so real.

But Anna Shaffer is my fave Triss and when I put Triss in fics I'm always picturing her and her lil freckles.

#triss merigold #the witcher books #the witcher #asks

[chromatic-lamina]

chapter 1079 early scan spoilers

Okay, if you're reading this, you've read the early scans, and it's ridiculous that I guess the raws were available from about Tuesday (a day after official release), and I could read the actual early scans from late last night (Wednesday).

It's just too early. I blocked a bunch of people. I'm sorry. Like, I don't filter out the tag 'spoiler' cos you'll never see anything on tumblr, and I read the scans usually on Thurs or Fri to stop myself from getting spoiled.

Anything that came across my dash that wasn't under a cut, or without a long lead-in got the writer blocked. I'm sorry. I'm sure that I'm blocked on a number of lists too.

Alright, Sabo is not confirmed dead as yet, so I'm not taking this as Kid's demise until we get a further "Marco talking to Raizou (was it?) about Izou and loss" scene as some kind of confirmation. We've got a break next week, and then knowing Oda, this won't be mentioned again for some time.

Maybe Shanks will be pirate king, or having the road poneglyph will help him help Luffy. He's powerful, I'm still not convinced he's evil, perhaps amoral (which sometimes sounds worse than immoral) / super pragmatic. (Edit in): In his defence, he saw the future (destruction of the lesser fleets) and did check if Kid was healed before he "fought" him. Also, reports of Kids' rampaging (but the reader should be shown more of that too so that it carries weight).

The actions of Dorry and Brogy as retaliation for Kid's intention (so wipe out Victoria Punk and send all the Kid Pirates into the sea, Kid unconscious and Killer) were brutal, but Luffy really respects or views Kid as on his side and a strong fighter. (End of edit).

Oda has to give Shanks a show of strength, and Hawkins, Apoo and Drake were dealt with in Wano. Bonney's in Egghead, and we don't have enough of a back story for Urouge.

Okay, but Kid wasn't a small time player in Wano, and not way back in Sabaody. If we give him parallels with uncelebrated or under-acknowledged deaths, he played a bigger role than Izou, I'd say, but I'm a bit biased, in that Izou had a fairly big supporter's role in the Oden mini-arc. All the same, with the Big Mom defeat, it's messy for Oda to wipe Kid out so quickly and effectively, BUT then we saw Shanks stop the war at Marineford and stop Aramaki, but Kaidou gave him those scratches, and Kid was able to at least scratch Kaidou.

I am sure that the dudebros are now saying that because Shanks so easily defeated Kid, that Big Mom is obviously a lesser yonkou and Kid and Law's actions against her meant nothing. But she is and was terrifying, and Kid and Law did defeat her, and she has caused death and destruction wherever she went, so in opposition to all the pathetic power scalers out there, none of the three are or were weak.

SO, if Oda is in a race to the finish and just wants to get opposition out of the way, he'll need to wipe out Law too, I think. BUT, Blackbeard not only has Law, he has Pudding and Koby (and he might not have Law). Garp's on his way there, Helmeppo and others tagging along. So, yes, he's got about 6 (hundred) background storylines going on, but I feel that it would be messy of him to finish off Kid here. Or lazy.

Crossing my fingers that it's a Sabo kinda situation (cos I'm sure he's still around, or let's choose Pell, instead), rather than Pedro, cos that actually makes sense more than wiping out Kid for the sake of wrapping things up.

#one piece #eustass kid #chapter 1079 #one piece spoilers #opspoilers #op spoilers #akagami no shanks #red haired shanks #shanks one piece #chromameta #chromalami #chromanga #op meta #one piece meta

[rollsoffthetongue]

BAD ACTORS

Idiomatic Meaning: A person, group, or even a country who purposely and usually repeatedly engages in very bad behavior (such as committing crimes, causing harm to others, or behaving immorally); ill-intentioned, mean, ill-tempered person; individual or entity with a prior criminal conviction.

Literal Meaning:  One or more people with little or no talent, appearing in a theatrical production.

Usage:  Informal spoken general American and British English. Often used in legal cases as well as International Affairs.

Origin: Late 19th - early 20th Century – American English – “Actor” originally meant “A guardian, a steward; a person who acts on behalf of another,” The Oxford English Dictionary says. And though that meaning is considered “obscure” by the OED, doing something for something or someone else is still a part of “acting,” be it in grammar, where the “actor” is a subject performing the action of a verb; in law, where it’s the instigator or part of a legal action; or on the stage. Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary traces the first use of “bad actor” to 1901. But an 1889 Sanskrit dictionary also includes a definition of the word with the synonyms “wicked” and “a bad actor.” [Thanks to the Columbia Journalism Review].

Why is this funny?  In the photo, we see three actors on a stage. Apparently, the scene has something to do with a farm because one actor holds a chicken, and another holds a balloon shaped like a cartoon cow. We also see the backs of the audience members’ heads. We can see the audience’s negative reactions. One says the play is terrible, another audience member says it is the worst thing they’ve ever seen, while a third member says it reminds them of some evil politicians. Obviously, these poor performers are bad actors, but they are also reminiscent of evil acting politicians whom we can also dub “bad actors”.

Sample Sentence: Countries which have refused to sign the Non-nuclear  Proliferation Treaty are mostly “bad actors” on the world stage.

#idiom #english idiom #tesol #elt #esl

[kitkatopinions]

One of the most frustrating fandom trends that I've seen over and over in just about every fandom I have been in is people seeming to view characters as threats to their favorite characters, ships, or the perception of the show itself and therefore deciding that no one should like the character and going out of their way to read the character's every action as evil and intended maliciously. This is also usually paired with doing whatever they can to put the actions of the characters or ships they do like in a favorable spin and getting angry at even the knowledge that there are people out there with a different opinion. This happens all the time and it's so annoying. I'll see it in fandoms I'm literally not even part of lol.

People ship Character A and Character B together, but Character B has had romantic moments with Character C? No worries! They can just find a way to twist all of Character C's actions into something ill intended and harmful even if it makes no sense and goes against canon, insist that Character B actually dislikes Character C or was just tricked into it, repeat over and over that Character C and Character B would be horrible for each other, and then say that anyone who ships Character C with Character B is ignoring Character B's 'choice' or is an abuse apologist or something. Oh, and don't forget that they can excuse and defend anything bad that Character A ever did, but if you so much as condemn the bad thing Character C did but headcanon that it never happened, you're disregarding canon, hate the writers, and people lie about you and say that you like that the bad thing happened.

People really like Character A, but Character A and Character B have a history and Character A did something wrong to Character B or did something wrong and was called out by Character B? No worries! They can just find a way to 'explain' how Character A never even did that thing or any other even sort of vaguely bad thing despite the fact that it's canon that they did, because they can just say that people were biased, or misremembering! They can just say 'Character A wouldn't do that,' and accuse you of not knowing canon or of hating Character A or of being a toxic hatedom fake critic making up lies. And if Character B seems to have ever done something good, they can just say they were pretending because they're evil and were just trying to use people. And then obviously, if you like Character B - even if you acknowledge their flaws and mistakes - then you're an evil apologist who deserves to be harassed. And you can point out that other characters they like do the same things they condemn as completely evil in Character B and use as reasons why no one should like Character B, but you're told that that person actually meant well and Character B is just clearly too badly intentioned at all times.

People really a show, but some people are criticizing the handling of Character A and saying their arc was bad, so because that character is now a threat to the show, they'll act like everyone who likes them is immoral, despite the fact that they have nothing to say about the fans of terrible evil villains - sometimes they'll even defend terrible evil villains in order to try and make Character A look worse. They decide to start out and out attacking people who like Character A, they decide everyone who likes Character A must secretly not only love every action the character was written to take, but must also probably be secretly bad in tones of others that they can't prove at all, so that they can defend how much they hate them. Character A gets put on a blacklist where either you talk about how much they're a horrible awful piece of crap every time they come up, or you're not even allowed to be considered part of the fandom anymore. People will just make up whatever they can about Character A in order to defend the writing, and take it as a personal slight towards the writers and/or themselves if you so much as say that you think they could be handled better.

It really reads as insecurity. It reads as them not being able to understand that the character does not exist and them having fans is not actually hurting the other character or ship or the whole show. People liking a character or ship or disliking aspects of how a character was handled isn't hurting other people's blorbos, or 'ruining the experience' and it isn't automatically bashing of the character, ship, or show they like either. There's so much defensiveness, and I honestly think part of it comes from a place of not wanting to admit that the character they like, the ship they like, or the show they like has flaws, or is not just officially The Best. They act like seeing opinions they don't agree with or facts they don't like about what's actually canon is going to prevent them from liking the character or ship or show they like. They act like they have to fight back against personal slights to themselves, or have to fight for the honor of fictional people who don't exist.

To be honest, I feel like if people need everyone to like the character, ship, or show they like and can only ever hear good things about them and need to only hear bad things about any character that poses the slightest threat to them... Then they're not mature enough to consume media. And they actually legitimately might not like the character or ship or show as much as they want to like the character or ship or show, because when I at least actually like something, I can hear criticism or bashing - even if I don't agree with it - without it 'ruining it' for me and without feeling the need to hate on other characters in order to fuel me. I like Spider-Man, I don't need to hate on Harry Osborn or Gwen Stacey's dad for threatening Peter's happiness, and I don't have to make it my business to try to convince everyone they must hate Harry Osborn or are secretly a murder apologist. I love the ship between Merlin and Arthur, but you won't see me acting like Gwen is some stupid jerk Arthur probably never liked in order to convince myself and others that the ship I like is good. I like Tangled the Series, but I'm not going to wage wars against fans of Cassandra because the way that she was handled puts the show runners in a bad light. Because I can see criticism without it making me insecure. The defensiveness in fandoms that leads to picking some characters and deciding that no one should be allowed to like them is off the charts and I am so sick of seeing it.

[cithaerons]

why is new and shocking information? this was a defamation case, no? it literally wasn’t an action for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, as it says, and severe emotional distress is not an element of defamation. like obviously i think d*pp’s legal team are very evil and did their job in a deeply immoral and unethical way but this seems completely standard? also this was in regard to a medical examination.

#i guess i got !!! seeing the title #and was disappointed / confused #to say defamation is not my strong suit would be putting it mildly but defamation and infliction of emotional distress are two completely #different claims….

[theliteraryluggage]

The Magician, Justice, and Seven of Cups for the author tarot asks please!

Ohhh thank you!!

01. THE MAGICIAN: SPARK OF MAGIC (What inspired you to write your novel?) 

I'm going to brazenly interpret novel in this case to mean my current longfic Vox Populi because... I do have a novel WIP and I could talk about that, but I'm not currently actively working on it so it's not on my mind. And Vox Populi will be easily novel length.

SO

I am thrilled to be able to say I was inspired to write Vox Populi mostly by spite. I saw and started reading a fic that had a very interesting sounding premise, but it was centred on a different character than my blorbo who I most like reading about (i.e. Ed). And obviously there's nothing wrong with that, it's just not what interests me right now. And then the fic made some choices for Ed's character and role in the story that I couldn't agree with so that made me a bit bitter 😂 I stopped reading, but it wouldn't get out of my mind, so I decided to write a fic with a similar premise but with Ed as the central character.

The idea has since morphed and grown and would not, I think, be still recognisable as a version of the fic in question, but that's how the initial idea was born.

As I was trying to work out the plot, I thought of a few questions that I think are very interesting but I have never seen adressed in Fullmetal Alchemist fic before, so I decided to adress them myself, and the combination of those three questions essentially brought the story together.

11. JUSTICE: TRUTH (What is the 'truth' of your novel i.e the prevalent themes or overarching motifs?) 

It absolutely tickles me to be able to apply this particular question to an FMA fic. Very fitting!

This is actually something I recently wrote down when I went through a questionnaire to try and help me bring my plot together. Here's the major themes in Vox Populi:

What makes a person "good"? How do our actions and intentions influence how "good" of a person we are?

Is there such a thing as an inherently immoral act? Is there such a thing as sins?

Is it possible to fight for a good cause without being cruel in the process? Can change be brought about without violence? Does the cause justify the means?

How do you weigh the lives of those important to you against the lives of many?

The physicality of sin--Can sin be something tangible? What marks does it leave on our bodies and lives?

28. SEVEN OF CUPS: OVERWHELMED BY CHOICE (How do you decide which story idea to pursue? How many do you have?)

Unless I am writing for a specific event or open call, I don't think I really decide. It's just gonna stick with me.

When I first have a story idea I write it down in the broadest terms. For some ideas that's more or less it--I never really touch them again or perhaps read them again every once in a while and think ah yeah I should do something with that sometime.

For other ideas, they will keep coming back to me. I will keep opening that note and adding bits and pieces as I think of them. I will lie in bed at night and my mind will automatically drift into that story. I will listen to music and recognise themes and feelings of that story everywhere. That's how I know it's the story I have to be working on right now.

As for how many I have... I suspect not as many as a lot of other writers do. Where original fiction is concerned, good ideas are actually a very rare thing for me. If I ever do finish my novel, I don't really have any other original ideas in the drawer right now to pull out and dust off.

It's a bit easier for fanfiction, because I will have ideas inspired by canon itself--I want to look at this part more closely, what if this was different, what if I put those character in this situation. But even then I wouldn't say I have an abundance of ideas.

For FMA, in addition to the two WIPs I'm actively writing right now (Vox Populi and Eldritch Elrics) I have only three ideas written down that I want to explore in the future. A few more are probably hiding in my inspo tag here on tumblr, but yeah.

Thank you so much for these questions! I hope I didn't ramble too much 💜

Send me some Author Tarot Questions?

#ask #answered #nihi writes stuff #aliteraryprincess #ask game #vox populi #fma

[iggy-hands]

I only watch the ofmd fandom from afar but some people give the impression of not conciliating well how the show is light hearted and comforting but also deals with heavy subjects in a general violent contex. the fact I've seen people say there's no homophobia when it's the central driving force of the plot is the most exaggerated example. but it's also in this attempt to flatten characters into "uwu baby" and "who's right vs who's wrong" (or at worse who's an abuser) when the show clearly does its best to create a likable flawed cast. Stede is extremely insecure and a horrible father/husband even before he abandons his family. Ed is an abuse survivor and he struggles with anger. Izzy is an asshole and it's funny- I mean he's a brit working class caricature. those things interact and its what makes the show human and interesting. why try to smash it into a simplistic dichotomy. it won't work 😭😭

and obviously you know all of this. so I guess it's: thanks for having braincells 😘😘

I don't actually know how old this ask is, but, it's been in my inbox for a while lol, sorry!

I think observing from a distance might be the most enjoyable way, it's been years since I was this close to the centre of a fandom and it's wild.

But yes, you're absolutely correct, it's a show about flawed characters and their ability to realise they're in the wrong, and change themselves - if that's what they want! Obviously not every character is given this opportunity, nor should they be, but I think my main issue with people coming down on the characters either way is that currently, they're unfinished!

...maybe Izzy will get worse next season, maybe his racism/general abusiveness and manipulation will become his main character traits, maybe his arc is that he rejects offers of kindness and belonging because of his own prejudices/self-importance and in the end this destroys him. I'd love to see that play out, but I'd love to see whatever they do with him play out too.

Taking a break for a while really made me realise that actually, this is a comedy show about pirates? What Are We Doing??

I love the meta and the drawn out explanation - I am an English Literature and Media Studies graduate, like literally I dedicated years of my life to this stuff! But one of the main reasons for these analyses is that it's supposed to be a discussion, there are supposed to be disagreements and alternative theories, and you should look at whether the evidence is actually in support of what is being said.

It isn't about deciding what is moral/immoral content to consume. Especially in a comedy show, where the character people are angry about is so cringe-fail within the show itself, and who's worst traits seem only to be evident through close-reading.

One of the first things you learn if you take Lit/Media in higher education is that you can be wrong about a text. You can't just say whatever you want without actual textual evidence (and, pet-peeve, but I personally do not count interviews etc). And sometimes, completely contrasting information can be true - because of the ambiguity! Whether these meanings are intentional or not - this is unknowable. And of course you can have your own personal opinions or readings of a text, but it's weird to decide that because you are right, everything else must be wrong.

I also see posts that essentially read - "this character is deep and multifaceted and we should look closely at them. But this character sucks and if you engage with content that looks closely at them then you suck too!" And I can't help but feel that that's worse than if we weren't to engage with textual analysis at all. Ignoring the actions of "evil" characters, who shape the narrative, feels very dismissive to me - disrespectful both to the text itself but also to the real world issues that it draws from.

I suppose in conclusion, everyone continue to think critically, consume media critically, but also, touch grass sometimes. and maybe read a book too.

#woes of emily #hhhh should i main tag this?? #ofmd #is that. was that. a mistake? #long post #thank you for this ask/ a reason to say all of this essentially lol #i probably am wrong about some of this and that's fine. a lot of it is quite simplified and not universally true #thats because this is a response to an ask on tumblr and not an academic essay #i do think that fiction can affect real life. i think this is why things like copaganda exists #media is also a reflection is real life - whether we intend it to be or not. it's impossible for it not to be #but i also think the only way to combat this is to consume critically #and not write things off as problematic and simply ignore it like it's not there? #but i ALSO understand that engaging with a text in this way takes extra energy that we don't always have #especially when its for a silly. comforting. diverse. comedy show #that also just happens to deal with some big issues in a really engaging and often subtle way.... #it's a complex issue!! #im a big fan of giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things #and maybe that's one's on me but #I'd personally rather assume that other people also. have braincells. as the anon worded it here #than swathe entire sections of the fandom in accusations of supporting racism/homophobia/abuse etc etc #🤷‍♂️ idk #it's a complex issue i guess and i dont have the answers #and ive not even been actively looking for them #I'm just a guy #ask #anon #ask to tag

[snow-and-saltea]

sorry imma put this one on here, i wanna reply to it but i won't be able to without watering down my intent, and if i do my point loses its weight

edit: nvm LMFAO i worded it nicely in the end, under the cut tho cus this is mf long

(context: in this chapter of a manhwa, the sister of a criminal who attempted to kill the main protagonist talked with her and told her about how her other brother died in interrogation for being part of the revolutionary group against the monarchy. his death was happening in tandem with the main character's violin recital, of which her father left his duty from interrogating the brother, just so he could attend. it was framed in such a way to show how oblivious she was to the political climate surrounding her, how her privilege kept her sheltered, and how even when the criminal's sister went to their gates she was detained and shooed away and dismissed as "causing a fuss". their eyes meet from the MC being up high on the balcony, and the woman from down low past the fences, officers manhandling her into going away as she was a commoner and could be seen as an ally to her brother as part of the revolutionary party. the woman says specifically that she doesn't think that the mc is guilty, she just wants her to know what happened. and the mc reflects on all of this and realises how clueless she's been, how sheltered of a life she had that, until now, she couldn't find the common thread between the two of them, and she starts crying and apologising. later on, when she calms down, the weight of her privileged birth and its responsibilities hits her, and she's steeling herself, and the chapter ends.)

first of all. hmmm?? "what exactly is the FL's fault"? of course, if we were to go by straightforward, linear logic, SHE hasn't done anything wrong. she never ordered her dad to kill people. she doesn't even know people are dying. no one has been put under harms way by her direct actions. all these things would be enough to clear your conscience.... if you are a child, that is.

if you are an adult, like she is, you will eventually realise that you have the power to impact people and things and your surroundings. if you are an adult with a moral conscience, you will feel BAD about your obliviousness to others' suffering that makes you rethink about what your blindspots in perception are; how could i have missed something so vital - how long has this been going on - why did this continue to happen? and this is the stage she is getting at. by our estimates as modern people living in modern world standards, it is very late to be living this long and not realise that you are not the only unique occupant of the world, blind to other people's perspectives. but that's besides the point, because everyone has their own path and pace to follow. it doesn't matter how long it took to get here, we're just glad you're here now to do the good work with us.

do you not feel some sort of revulsion knowing that a family member of yours is acting in immoral ways, and you've been the unwitting beneficiary to that immorality? does it not burden you with responsibility when you realise you could have had multiple opportunities to speak out against the hurt being inflicted onto others, while you were in a position to do so safely and without extreme repercussion? THAT is what she's feeling. she knows that she technically do anything wrong, but she didn't do anything right, either. and it is not enough to know suffering exists, but to strive to heal it, whenever you are able.

this is obviously a fictional story so it doesn't have to be that deep; except it can be, and it's trying to be, because this story is set after the revolution has toppled over the monarchy, so themes like classism, privilege of birth and how to quantify someone's 'value' will be present.

nevermind i wrote all of this but i got so heated instead that i actually managed to write a pretty polite sounding response to the comment, leading with curiosity abt their perspectives and trying to sound friendly and Open to Discussion. the proofreader in me will never die as long as im pissed off at people but trying to find a constructive way of communicating that upset 💪😎👍

anyways. this is what i wrote instead

i don't do zines these days but my proofreader ability for real saves my ass so many times in writing communication. fr i think i would've made some very regretful choices if i were trigger happy ajdhskdjkdjd i'm quite satisfied w what i wrote, i lined out what i got different from them and expressed curiosity on their perspective, posited positives to recontextualize things so that i'm not just going "no ur wrong and Here's Why", gently went "we can agree to disagree!" and remained pretty lighthearted throughout, with no accusatory or pointed language. i'm p proud of myself!! i am able to engage in discussions without pissing myself and other people off!! hurray!!

#yuu rambles #i for real could FEEL the elitist part of my brain going IF YOU WANTED THINGS TO BE CLEARCUT AND SIMPLE WHY WOULD YOU READ A TRAGEDY / WAR #GENRE MEDIA. GO READ ROMCOMS. but then i was like calm down man... nothing good will come out of being mean... it's Fine #and i was like. mb you're totally right. we can talk like human beings and exchange opinions in discussions and enter convos in good faith👍 #and the logic part of my brain was like okay lets combine our powers with Social brain and proofread this so we act w more diplomacy nd tac #yeah. idk that was a wild ride to go on for like half an hour LMFAO #alright see ya!!! thanks for readin my rambles!! #EDIT: SOME OTHER PPL COMMENTED UNDER THE THREAD AND WAS SO STRAIGHTFORWARD BEING LIKE BRUH WTF ARE U SAYING #KAHDKSHFKFK HELPPPPP THSIS ACTUALLY SO FUCKING FUNNY. I WAS TRYING SO HARD TO BE NICE BUT PPL OUT HERE STRAIGHT UP WAS LIKE #SHUTTING THEM DOWN. not even trying to be overly respectful or anything just really 'what the hell are you saying?' #yuu reads #my beloved oppressor #<- title of the manhwa btw LMFAO

[ahopkins1965]

What are the Issues of Life?

What are the issues of life? A definition of something like this consists of trials and tribulations that we face each day. According to Proverbs 4:23 it says; above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flow from it. This means that we must watch what we say, think, and do. Our brain and heart is intertwined. It obviously works hand in hand. What the Bible says is that the mind itself controls everything. The heart is an organ that sustains life of an individual. It is the mind that controls the heart and everything else. Scientifically speaking, what the brain process as information is based on what we see, smells, touch, taste, and hear. It also has a whole lot to do with the information that is acquitted from our environment. A definition of an environment is one own surroundings. The issues of life are based on how we are able to have the ability to adapt and cope with conditions.

When we speak about conditions it states that it can be anything based on behavior. A condition is a state of mind. Our state of mind each day of the week is based upon how we feel as individuals each day. Issues of life consist of how well we deal with other people who are inside of our environment. I know for me when it comes to maintaining a certain state of mind each day has a lot to do with how I feel each day. Issues of life can be traumatic in nature. It can be something that happens in our life such as natural disaster, death, loss of employment, and marriage as an example.

Matthew 15:18-19 says: But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. This means that we must watch what we say; do think because it can lead to consequences. Anything that is defiled is expelled from the body and rejected. According to Matthew 12:36-37 states; But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word that is spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted and by your words, you will be condemned. This is very serious because anything that is spoken out of the mouth as speech goes directly into your Book of Life. Your book of life is based on the day that you were redeemed, saved, sanctified and filled with the Holy Ghost.

However, we all must give account of ourselves in the Day of Judgment. This is still a review of your actions, thoughts, and works for God. The issues of life are very serious. Issues of life have a lot to do with the ability of each person to cope inside of their own environment; in spite of what is going on in their personal life. Proverbs 23:19 say; understand my son, and be wise, and set your heart on the right path. We all must focus all of our attention on God. Jesus Christ is the reason for the season!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When the Bible talks about the heart it consists of our emotions, motivation, and inner being. It is very important that we stay solid and strong in our convictions and standards. We have to stick to our values!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answers.com has a better interpretation and history of the heart. It reveals that in both Hebrew and Greek culture, the heart was thought of more as a symbol of ultimate purpose and motivation. Emotional concepts, like affection, were associated more with gastrointestinal organs. Hebrew symbolism used the body as an analogy of the whole person. The strength of a person was their outward behavior - what they do WITH their body. The conscious mind, in that culture did not as easily separate thought, emotion and volition like we do. They recognized the conscious mind was engaged in thoughts, feelings and intentions but they tended to see these as different facets of the conscious mind. The heart is the organ more at the core of the body. That culture used the heart as a symbol of the inner man, the deepest thoughts, the deepest feelings, the deepest intentions. So deep at times they were incomprehensible, and in some ways, unknowable and difficult to observe - known only by God.

So the heart is, in that language, a word that represents the core or ultimate intention, ultimate value, ultimate motivation. These were also analogous to concentric circles. The inner man is center-most. This is the heart. Surrounding the heart is a larger circle called the mind. The mind included all conscience thoughts, decisions and feelings. The outermost circle was the body where all the behavior took place. Spirituality starts at the center and works it way out, hence the admonishment to love God with all your heart (the very core of your being), all your mind (the most accessible part of your conscious life) and all your strength (the behavior that flows from the heart and mind).

Early Greek was not too different, especially the dialect of Ko

[mediawithmann]

Gender/Sex Within Ex Machina

        Society is often depicted within film through, at face value, outlandish ideas that capture aspects of humanity often exclusively imaginable. Despite the market being saturated with futuristic and fantasy based plots, delving into their themes often reveal elements of truth, or flaws, within reality. A prime example of this is represented within the film Ex Machina. Protagonists, Caleb (portrayed as a male by Dohmnall Gleeson) and Ava (portrayed as female by Alicia Vikander), are essential to capturing key aspects of the movie. In illustrating the stereotypical heterosexual relationship, it is evident Ava is intended to exhibit the gentle, wistful, and submissive woman, whereas Caleb embodies the lustful, protective man who “saves the day” as per cliched social norms. This allows audience members, who are used to these personas, to appreciate social and gender based biases and issues and recognize them, hopefully to improve upon their own actions moving forward. Including Nathan as the cunning, aggressive male character in addition provides the three archetypes that are commonly the basics of storytelling. Complying with pre-existing expectations of men and women (hero vs. damsel) also establishes greater impact pertaining to the finale and the way in which Ava ends up being the scheming, dominant figure who saves herself, as opposed to aligning with what the film leads audiences into believing. 

         Within Ex Machina, stereotypes regarding men and women are in place from the top of the film, being that Caleb, Nathan, and Ava create a platform for these to flourish, and further ingrain themselves within audiences to fully drive through the main themes effectively. Speaking specifically about Kyoko and Ava, the “women” in this movie are utilized and viewed as servants and sex slaves. Kyoko is the embodiment of “better seen and not heard” (obviously through the eyes of the men), pinning her as inferior at face value, which can be accredited to her gender, and likely her race as well. Although Caleb appears disturbed at the blatant mistreatment toward the AI women, he says little in protest to Nathan, again demonstrating the way in which men are viewed as the dominant creatures throughout the course of Ex Machina, and are apparently deserving of more respect and fear. The women are degraded and objectified by being put on display in glass cages and through being stored in bedroom cupboards without clothing, insinuating that Nathan believes they are so insignificant as to be subjected to a lack of privacy and personal choice, instead exercised as sex dolls.

          The reason Nathan’s project, and therefore Nathan as an individual, are immoral, is not due to the fact that he mistreats “hunks of metal” which could hypothetically be interchangeable with any kitchen appliance, but as a result of the principle upon which he bases the experiment. Nathan’s intention is to develop robots into entirely conscious beings, meaning that to some extent, they can be characterized as living beings and members of society. Considering the mistreatment of the AI women largely pertains to sexualization, Nathan is evidently acting upon ideals of his that would otherwise be hard to manage with legalities coming into play. The key note here is not that the robots are not scientifically/biologically/medically women, but that they are purposefully made to resemble real women as intimately as possible, meaning treatment should mirror the treatment real women (and all human beings) are entitled to. 

         Had the AI robots been men as opposed to women, I would argue the themes concerning sexism toward females would not have been adequately conveyed. Of course, men and all other genders are deserving and have the right to equivalent value, and objectification cannot pertain exclusively toward women, but it is undeniable that society is tailored to males, so it does not take movies, media, and social movements to convince people of their worth. This is proven by the in class discussion held in which many boys in the class disregarded the treatment of Kyoko and Ava once the girls advocated for them, arguing it was “just a movie”, however these issues are prevalent in real life and often challenging for men to understand because they do not experience the hurdles of being a woman on a day to day basis, hence why I am firm in the mindset that Ex Machina is profound in its essence due to the presence of female AI robots rather than males.