#morally justify voting for her

[c-rowlesdraws]

(Note: I’m writing this in good faith and not trying to come across confrontational)

Have u forgotten u can vote 3rd party? I know there will likely not be enough people voting independant party for a non red or blue president to be elected THIS voting cycle. But. If enough people vote independent maybe america will wake up and realize there are more than 2 shitty options. (It takes time to change, and change for the better)

Look the problem with the blue no matter who mindset is that these people know you are going to vote for them no matter what. Not because you necessarily like them but because at least they aren’t the other guy. Which gives dems absolutely no incentive to not be a piece of shit. Like do you get it? They will be awful and endorse genocides and all other terror because they know you will let them get away with it. Maybe biden isn’t as bad as a republican would have been but he is still pretty fucking bad. Personally, morally, I cannot in any way justify voting for him again.

voting for someone as damage control in an election does not mean you can't heckle the shit out of them once they are in office. You elect the officials you think you and groups you belong to have the better chance of pressuring into better policies, and who will do the least amount of damage in the meantime.

Democrats are relentless towards their elected officials-- at least the ones I know who are actually politically active are. They call, they protest, they campaign. Plus, as you're demonstrating, people on the left do not blindly vote (that's the other guys). It's totally unrealistic to say that elected Democratic officials just think they have an easy ride.

people can and should vote for whoever they want to in local elections, primaries, etc. But in the big one, the president one, the one in the fall, voting third party is like drawing up plans for a nice new extension on a house that is actively being set on fire. Voting for president is damage control. Voting is your hard-fucking-won civil right. Voting in smaller elections can also be damage control; when there is no-one to feel "good" about voting for, you vote for the less-worse one, because maybe that one is more receptive to the idea of climate change being real than the other one, and you can work with that.

Sometimes you get to vote for the option you align with the most. But sometimes voting is about picking the option with the cracks that you can dig your fingers into and pull open. Or at least the one who won't start taking a sledgehammer to civil rights and environmental protections (and, and) with all his buddies while you work to build support behind a candidate you can feel good about voting for in four years.

Biden has shown he can change his policies over time, with pressure. Democrats can be swayed in ways Republicans cannot. One major party can be pushed more left. The other one will drag us into a darkness that I don't even want to think about. The presidency is about so much more than just the individual sitting in the Oval Office.

Voting is strategic. It is strategic. It is not negative moral karma to vote strategically. It is one action amidst all the other actions you can take to fight for the future you want.

#please read my original post again if you're still unclear on my political stance #us politics #ask #catie talks #i don't want to publish more of these asks but I feel compelled to reply to at least some #this website was a fucking waking nightmare in 2016 and I'd feel sick scrolling through tag after tag on a political post #of people saying that hillary was a warhawk and a monster and just as bad as trump and they couldn't #morally justify voting for her #and seeing that attitude showing up again makes me want to throw plates

[tybaltsjuliet]

here's the thing about charles dickens. [discussion of his antisemitism, misogyny, and racism ahead.]

his last, unfinished novel, the mystery of edwin drood, features helena and neville landless, heroic and sympathetic south asian (sri lankan, specifically) characters, and the racism they endure in an english town is relevant to the plot to the point where neville ends up falsely accused of murder. in the wake of the indian rebellion of 1857, dickens applauded the english brutality against "that oriental race," and called for genocide.

fagin is called "the jew" 274 times in the first half of oliver twist. an article in the jewish chronicle asked why "jews alone should be excluded from the 'sympathizing heart' of this great author and powerful friend of the oppressed." at first, dickens dismissed this, and claimed he was just being accurate about london's criminal makeup. but he was moved enough by eliza davis's letters to him on the matter that he halted the printing of the latter half of oliver twist so he could change the text and remove the antisemitic language therein.

dickens was an abolitionist who despised chattel slavery in the united states, and called emancipation a "moral duty." dickens didn't think black americans were intelligent enough to vote, and he wrote an entire character in bleak house who is a joke to be disliked and mocked because she'd rather oversee charity missions to help children in africa than be a proper mother and tend to her own family at home in england.

speaking of one's own family at home in england, dickens smeared his wife, catherine hogarth, publicly so he could justify separating from her and taking up with a younger woman. catherine hogarth was likely mentally ill, likely living with postpartum depression. she was also an author in her own right and loved her family dearly. her reputation never recovered in her lifetime from the claims he made about her. in dickens's novels, time and time again, from nicholas nickleby to david copperfield to our mutual friend to the mystery of edwin drood, men who menace and take advantage of vulnerable women are portrayed as the worst kind of villains, deserving of whatever grisly ends come to them.

charles dickens was both privately and publicly a raging asshole in many ways and the world would be worse off without him, because he wrote for bourgeois, comfortable victorians, the very people who so often failed to "think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys." in the same breath that he calls agnes fleming, who opens oliver twist as an unwed mother dying in a workhouse, "weak and erring," he dares to add that "i do believe that the shade of that poor girl often hovers about that solemn nook-ay, though it is a church." he calculated jo's death to the page in bleak house for maximum effect. but when he wrote of the orphaned crossing-sweeper, "dead, your majesty. dead, my lords and gentlemen. dead, right reverends and wrong reverends of every order. dead, men and women, born with heavenly compassion in your hearts. and dying thus around us every day," people listened.

i dedicated years of my life to reading him and studying him and thinking about him and writing about him and his novels. now, i turn to condemn him; now, i turn to justify him. i wish i had a time machine so i could shake his hand. i wish i had a time machine so i could publicly debate him. i wish i had a time machine so i could break his nose.

charles dickens gives me courage and hope. charles dickens makes me want to tear my goddamn hair out. he is everything i despise and everything i love about the victorian age in one; the term "a man of his time" ought to have been invented for him. the leaps and bounds the victorians made for progress in the public good are only matched in greatness by the extremity of their atrocities against their "fellow-passengers" on this earth. the way we think about nearly every modern social ill can be traced back to the 19th century; the way we think about nearly every modern idea of social justice can be traced back to the 19th century. every last one is writ large and small in dickens's novels. he and his age are the greatest contradictions in human history and that's why i can't shut up about them, ever, even when i am exhausted by them, even when i am inspired by them, even when it was two centuries ago and it shouldn't matter anymore, but it does. it always will.

#filthy victorians; they made me what i'm made of. #;swan has a word. #;the long nineteenth century. #;they who call the whole world brother.

[transmutationisms]

I couldn't stop thinking about you pointing out the theme of eugenics in this season finale. Finding out Kendall might be sterile was the icing on the cake. And Tom, who doesn't sleep and can withstand physical pain ends up at the top... he's got a dick like a red sequoia and he fucks like a bullet train.

this is a really interesting line of inquiry imo, because you're right that the rhetorical appeal tom makes to matsson very noticeably uses the language of physical strength and bodily fitness. at the same time, we know this to be kind of a lie: tom's been suffering for lack of sleep, he dipped early from the funeral reception last episode, and he spent most of season 3 terrified of the potential violence he could face in prison. i don't say this to pass some kind of judgment on tom, but to point out what i think is a parallel to logan, who also relied on the language of strength, masculinity, and domination, yet was introduced to us as sick and was in varying conditions of sickness / disability throughout the course of the show. both these characters are living in human bodies that are susceptible to various forms of pain and physical limitation, yet their rhetoric and the fascistic demands of corporate masculinity mean they can only survive and succeed by denying these things about their bodies for as long as possible.

the connection here to fertility, impotence, and sexual performance is fairly clear. fucking and impregnating someone is a way to demonstrate not just your power / ownership of that specific person, but also your general bodily fitness and place at the top of the corporate and gender hierarchy. there's some degree of ambiguity about tom's actual sexual performance, but certainly he uses the claim that he has a big dick and fucks well as a demonstration to greg not just of how he 'got' shiv, but also to justify his general position at the company. also, although shiv's motives for voting against kendall are complicated, it is true that she ultimately had to choose between her brother and her husband, who is also the father of her child—so, in some sense, tom's ability to ejaculate and impregnate someone does eventually win him the company. as for kendall, his literal infertility is really the bodily symbol of his metaphorical impotence in logan's eyes. logan sees him as weak for being emotional, as morally lax for using drugs, as pathetic for stuttering, and so forth. logan doesn't talk about his infertility (in the show), but the way he frequently uses feminising language toward kendall, and accuses him of homosexuality, also shows how kendall's infertility is perceived as a failure of his masculinity.

for logan and thus also the rest of the roys, what this ultimately comes down to is a specifically hereditarian idea of bodily fitness, wherein parentage and bloodlines matter as much as environmental circumstances (all of these factors matter in eugenic discourses). logan has defined himself as worthy and physically fit, so his legacy has to be carried on by offspring who inherit these things from him. in this way logan subconsciously hopes to prove his own strength and ability even beyond his death, as the survival of the empire and the bloodline will continue to signal his personal bodily capacity. of course this also betrays a deep sense of anxiety in logan, who fears that if his children are 'weak' or 'unfit' in some way, it also implies something is wrong with his own body and reflects poorly on him. this is partly what drives his clear embarrassment of his children, like in 'tern haven' when confronted with a rival family dynasty that speaks the language of high culture more successfully than the roys. it's also implied that this is part of what made logan view connor as a failure so early in his life: having his mother institutionalised suggests that logan saw in her a mental weakness or defect that would potentially be inherited by connor. parentage can biologically secure the child's position, but can also threaten it; and the child's fitness or lack thereof also reflects back on the parent. this sort of biological anxiety is both a discourse of fixity and one in which loss of status is always a possibility, eg in the ever-present fear of disability.

also, the causality in the show runs in multiple directions: sometimes a power dynamic shifts and is then inscribed on the body (shiv tripping in 'honeymoon states'), other times the bodily event is itself a cause of a power shift (logan yerfing in 'argestes'). then there are threads like matsson being physically so much larger than roman and kendall, in conjunction with his team being specifically young people who are athletically fit and academically credentialed, and matsson flashing his abs to make a business deal. and of course, matsson telling tom he might fuck his wife, and tom basically just nodding along—which tells us a lot about the power dynamic matsson foresees between himself and tom. bodies on this show are explicitly part of the political and rhetorical field of action, and the characters' ideas about bodily fitness are supposed to cue us to these larger discourses about which bodies are 'correct' and 'deserving' of power.

#he doesn't even trust water

[ofbreathandflame]

“feyre is making the sister that she deemed was so mentally ill that she could not support herself then complete the tasks of a high lady? like how are justifying that? you can't say "this person has a debilitating addiction, therefore, she needs to be locked into a home, escorted, and policed" and then argue that this is the same person who should complete tasks that should be the high lady's job.”

THIS PART 👏🏼

hi anon!!!

right - either way the intervention fails. you could make the argument that it functions as a parallel to a mental health facility or rehab-- but then, that doesn't justify the the inner circle's constant dependence on nesta when it comes to court duties, or their inability to pay for said duties. it also doesn't justify the use of magic against nesta, the demolishing of nesta's building, and the decision to lock nesta into a home with the man she has consistently said she wants nothing to do with.

we could argue that nesta deserves it, and the the inner circle has every right to "punish" nesta as they see fit -- but then we are acknowledging that the intervention fuctions as revenge, and that completely undermines any moral justification. because then we are admitting that interventions only productive value is shame, humiliation and control.

we could argue that feyre's "good interntions" trumps the abusive nature of the intervention -- but then we would just be validating tamlin's abuse or just abuse in general. it also doesn't justify the abuse feyre just passively allows to happen in her face (i.e. rhys threatening nesta, rhysand using magic to scare nesta into submission).

the intervention, the house of wind, the court stuff -- none it can really be adequately justified. not even by the standards established in the story.

its just abusive - and feyre, rhys and the entirety of the inner circle are the abusers in this scenario. simple as that. its like - its always 'high lady feyre this' but when she has to actually be held responsible for her strategy and tactics then she's "just a 19 year old girl." if we're arguing she's logical enough to run an entire court, then we should be regarding as an actual nuanced character. we cannot empower feyre when its cute and then reduce her down to uwuuu victim when she is wrong. very weird behavior is you ask me.

feyre didn't have to vote; she could told nesta straight up about her swords - she IS THE HIGH LADY, HER WORD IS LAW. that is the difference between feyre's decision to withold that information from nesta, and nesta's decision to withold the pregnancy from feyre. feyre is the one who orchestrated the lock up of her sister - she is the one who forced the training. she is the authoritative voice. she does not suggest the imprisonment or the training - she mandates it as high lady of the night court. she is the one saying her sister is too ill to function in the world.

#anti sjm #anti feyre #anti rhysand #anti inner circle #anti acosf #anti sjm: pro nesta

[qqueenofhades]

as a woc (who is south asian, so i share that with harris), it's deeply upsetting to me that......nothing she could do would be right. i see people wondering why she isn't doing more, but then she does something, and then those same people pick that thing apart and tear her to pieces and it really does go to show that nothing we ever do will be "right".

i have yet to see criticism of her specifically that doesn't boil down to racism or misogyny (or a combination of both), and it's frustrating, especially in leftist spaces, because i do want to think critically and have conversations about what she's doing right and what she (and the administration as a whole) could improve upon, but i feel like i can't start or participate in those conversations without dealing with that same racism + misogyny. and this isn't even getting into the gop, this is about people who call themselves progressive/leftist/whatever. so much effort goes into maintaining the idea that they're better than the right, but i don't see nearly as much effort put into.....being better tbh

Unfortunately, among all their other problems, Online Leftists are a) often just as likely to be racist and misogynist as the GOP, and b) to strenuously deny that they are, weaponize that language in bad faith against people or candidates they dislike, and otherwise parrot abstract "social justice" talking points and Progressive Jargon while being absolutely noxious to the real, actual people that are involved. They do, as you say, assume they are Morally Righteous, and then don't actually interrogate that or question it in any way. So.... yeah. Yeah, pretty much. As I've said before and will say again, they are an absolute failure as any kind of practical or effective opposing force to right-wing fascism, and often inadvertently or even deliberately enable it in deeply disappointing ways.

It's funny that in all my posts/answers on the topic, I stated multiple times that if people could provide me an actual reason that made empirical sense as to why they didn't like Kamala, I was happy to have that discussion. Instead I got a lot of weird angry asks from people clearly still trying to justify their Hillary Clinton Derangement Syndrome (I only answered one of them because I have better things to do with my life), accusing me of being "emotional," "angry," "trauma-dumping" and God knows what else. And like. I'm sorry that pointing out a clearly verifiable fact (misogyny is what doomed HRC, anti-Obama backlash/racism was what enabled Trump) triggered y'all to that degree, but I think that fact is pretty illuminating on its own. And no, actually, I don't have to "get over" HRC's loss or "just accept" that people had "reasons" (conveniently never articulated, but they were real! They totally weren't misogyny! PEOPLE HAD REAL REASONS FOR NOT LIKING HER WHY WON'T YOU BELIEVE ME AND ACCEPT THAT!!!) for disliking her and/or not voting for her when her opponent was Donald F'n Trump. Like, I know they live in the magical realm of the Permanently Online where the real world suffers no consequences from their bullshit and the argument about why 2016 was not their fault changes daily, but that's not the case with us here on Earth. And yeah, we're pretty mad.

Kamala has, in my view, been doing a perfectly fine job as the vice president. She has been able to give a few powerful and relevant speeches about race relations, gun violence, abortion, and other topics. I occasionally see news articles from "anonymous sources" who "don't like her" or want to cause trouble for whatever reason, which I treat with the usual degree of skepticism that I employ when reading anything the mainstream media writes about Democrats (which is then repurposed and reused in the Online Leftists' "Democrats Terrible!" screeds in equally bad faith). Yet again, I repeat my offer for anyone who wants to complain about her for an actual and clearly articulated reason to explain what that reason is and why it's not a double standard, why it's not attributable to racism and misogyny (even and especially the unacknowledged sort), what they expect she should be doing differently, and why this is any kind of big deal for the actual mainstream electorate. But judging from previous experience, this will just trigger another round of anonymous WE HAVE GOOD REASONS FOR NOT LIKING HER!!! whines with cheese, and to that I say, yeah, don't even waste your time.

#anonymous #ask #politics for ts

[sincerely-sofie]

you shouldnt need some get-out-of-bigotry-free card from your religious doctrine in order to be a good person. thats not how good people decide things. good people do something to help rather than explain how theyre definitely not associated with bigots because of the fine-print.

do you even care about all the injustice and pain and murder in the world because of christian hatred, or do you think is all a rules-game and we all get to go to a morally-acceptable afterlife in the end? do you give a s*** or are you going to keep making excuses for yourself so you dont have to re-examine what you believe and why?

you cant excise out the hatred and shame from any of it. every institution in the world was built on that- the original intent of god or jesus or whoever the f*** doesnt matter, because thats lost. it has been for a long time.

you want to believe in god? or a doctrine of harmony and acceptance and justice? make one up. you can do a better job.

This was quite the message to wake up to. I'm sorry for taking a while to respond, I wanted to give it as much care as I could while also being punctual in my response, and those are some tricky things to juggle. I'm putting the rest of this post under a cut for those who'd like to avoid this discussion.

I'm assuming you're responding to my previous posts where I talked about my being Christian and my perspective on people's divine right to choose the way they live and believe, and answered some responses to my initial points. But I'm really confused as to what “get-out-of-bigotry-free card” you're referring to. Are you talking about how I described agency? That wasn't intended to be seen in any way like you've described it. I also didn't ever boast about being a good person as this message seems to imply. I try to be a good person, but I don't wave it about on a flag to brag about. 

I'm sorry if this is presumptuous to say, but you're coming at me with a very hostile, angry tone while assuming many things about what I've said and who I am as a person. I'm sorry that what I've said has clearly hurt you in order to have gotten this reaction, but I'm a human being as much as you are. If you are hurting, I want to talk about that hurt in a calm way. We don't need to sling curse words or accusations to do so. 

For the first point of your second paragraph— do you even care about all the injustice and pain and murder in the world because of christian hatred, or do you think is all a rules-game and we all get to go to a morally-acceptable afterlife in the end— yes, I do care. It disgusts me that people have warped a message of love and charity into something so repulsive that they can use to justify acts of malice and hatred. Christian hatred is a fundamentally vile phrase to me, because Christianity is defined in my religion as “taking upon you the name of Christ”— which essentially means striving to live to be as much like Jesus as possible. Jesus wasn't hateful. Jesus wasn't cruel. Jesus was shown a woman who was set to be stoned to death and told the people who brought her forward to mind their own business and think about their own lives, then bent down and offered her compassion and comfort. As for myself, there's circumstances in my life that prevent me from doing much concrete advocacy for many causes, but I speak and vote where I can to make the world a happier place, protect people's rights, and defend them against predatory behavior. I'm unfamiliar with the phrase “rules-game” and couldn't find a definition for it, so I can't answer that portion of your question directly, but I believe that the afterlife is fundamentally morally acceptable, yes. I wouldn't be following a religion that I found immoral on a doctrinal level.  

For the second question of that first paragraph: I'm not going to use the same phrasing as you, but I do give a hoot. I also didn't try to make any excuses for myself. I'm confused as to where you felt like I did so. I do regularly consider my belief system and why I believe it, as well as consider the journey I've taken with my faith. I've identified myself as an atheist and an agnostic at various points in life before coming back to Christianity. To put it in a nutshell, I've done a lot of thinking on the subject throughout the years and have grappled with a lot of things about my religion that I didn't understand when I was younger, until I got a better recognition of them. I am not a blind follower of my faith. 

You said “you can't excise out the hatred and shame from any of it. Every institution in the world was built on that- the original intent of God or Jesus or whoever(…) doesn't matter, because that's lost.” I don't think we'll agree on this point, because we're coming at this from two very different worldviews. My church doesn't believe humanity is a gaggle of kids that God left in a hot car in some cosmic parking lot. We believe in God communicating with people throughout every era— He's still talking to and guiding humanity. We call ourselves the restored church because we believe in continuing revelation, that God isn't done revealing the Gospel to us in its entirety. We've got the fundamentals, yes, but we're still learning the deeper stuff, and God is here to hold our hands along the way.

The fact that there is any hatred or shame involved is not something God wants for us. That's something that came into religion from humans, because we're mortal, and we have vices, grudges, flaws, and temptations. We're not perfect, and we bring imperfection wherever we go. That's why we have God directing us to try and improve constantly— to turn the other cheek and remove the beam from our own eye before commenting on the mote in our brother's. We're on individual paths to God, and it's not any one person's place to judge another's life. That's what God's here for, and He's the only one qualified to do it by virtue of knowing us so well that He recognizes the struggles and reasonings behind where we unwillingly fall short. He also recognizes when people act with intentional malice even where we wouldn't see any, and is able to judge accordingly. 

Judging by your final paragraph— you want to believe in god? or a doctrine of harmony and acceptance and justice? make one up. you can do a better job— if I'm reading this right, you believe the concept of God is fundamentally discordant, unaccepting, and unjust. We're coming at this from opposing worldviews if this is the case, and aren't going to agree. I believe in a God who is kind and wants to see us succeed. It doesn't seem like you feel the same. I'm sorry, but I don't have much else I can say on the subject. I won't change your mind when this seems like a very vital facet of your belief system, if the conviction you write with is any indicator. You won't change my mind when a caring, present God is something I've experienced so frequently that I can't see the world through any other lens.

I'm sorry that what I said previously seems to have hurt and upset you. It wasn't my intent. I hope that this response is able to communicate that along with my perspective.

#sofie answers asks #swear warning

[bonefall]

Do you have any clear ideas of how bluestars trial would go?

I DO still working out narrative order though. I'm dividing it up into my head as "evidence" and "exhibits" and still shuffling them in a way that can weave perfectly with Blue's life.

The POV of Bluestar's Flowers opens with her death and an Intro to StarClan Trails. It jumps back and forth between the trial in StarClan of modern times, and Bluestar’s youth when she made the choices she's being tested for.

I may even end up having 3 points in time per "chapter." Life in ThunderClan/Friendship Scene/StarClan Trial. Still WIP.

Lizardstripe must fight an uphill battle. StarClan will see Bluestar's life of disloyalty, defiance, and the cruelty of her final year, and condemn her. She has a shot... IF she can turn this trial around and make it about how AWFUL Thistle Law is and how justified Blue was to oppose it!

Give them the Old, as they put it, Razzle Dazzle.

So, the evidence and exhibits so far, in no particular order. (And subject to shuffling)

Defiance of the prophecy as something that avoided bloodshed and saved dozens of lives, even the very Clans themselves. Goosefeather getting Moonflower killed in accordance with fate. Implying a moral duty to do all we can. Goose agrees-- a contrast to his life where he supported Thistle.

The death of Snowfur. The effects of Thistleclaw's mindset brought out her worst tendencies and made her disrespect the code. She chased that ShadowClan warrior past the border, with intent to kill.

Warmongering in general. Gonna be making Thistle responsible for some more deaths-- mostly of rogues and cats in other Clans. Scourge being bullied is cut so something else will be here. Sunfish specifically will be brought up, the patrol he dies on

At some point, Lizard makes Bluestar testify on her own so the Thistle supporters accuse her of awful shit. Blue thinks this is betrayal; Lizard is actually just letting them talk and show how merciless they are

The violation of Darkstar's Commandment, Thistle accusing the kits of being HalfClan, the endangerment and death of Mosskit/light.

In the end, after Thistle has had one final, frothing tirade, the council votes. Suspense as it ends-- a final chapter about the last time the Forget-me-Nots ever assembled, to steal Barley's nespring from BloodClan after the death of Violet Senior.

And then the ruling. ACQUIT. Bluestar is let into heaven with great fanfare, but Thistle and his supporters are SEETHING. Petulantly declaring that StarClan has become degenerate and is no longer the entity it was, Thistle and his supporters leave in a fit of rage, refusing to share heaven with their "enemies"

(Maybe ill bring Mosslight's prophecy full circle by having Thistle try to attack Bluestar, and Moss disarms him, casting him out of heaven.)

Blue realizes that Lizard was always on her side. They had always been friends, and she'd saved her afterlife. She pushes past the crowd of congratulatory family to see Lizard.

She's laying sprawled out with Oakheart, staring up at the nebulae beyond even StarClan itself. When she parts her paws, she has grown a blue forget-me-not from the ground. They never gave up on her. Not ever.

#Bluestar's Flowers #Bonefall Rewrite #Still not PUNCHY yet. I have ideas and a fuzzy outline but the order #It's still not flowing.

[alfiely-art]

I'm voting Kotoko Guilty this round for quite a few reasons. First off, the only other two characters who have been voted guilty are Haruka and Muu. Yk. Minors. Who are already in a shitty mindset, who's verdict will most likely make that worse? Yeah. I would rather not have them beat up by Kotoko. And she WOULD beat them up- she would have beat up Amane if she hadn't been stopped, and Amane is much younger than Haruka and Muu.

I don't even mind her fighting injustice to feel good about herself. I mean, she's still fighting injustice. Regardless of her personal feelings about it, she's still doing good things. It's the way she goes about it that worries me. The article she was reading on her phone states that "more violence than necessary was used". Of course, the article could always be biased, but Kotoko has shown herself to be a violent person. Her call to us to vote everyone else in Milgram as Guilty, regardless of their crime, is a request for us to give her permission to make them her enemy and crush them. She would apply the same amount of force to, say, Yuno- someone who simply had an abortion because she didn't want the baby- as a person who kidnapped a child.

Kotoko sees everything in black and white. Yuno's "crime" of an abortion is just as evil as Haruka's crime of murder. Here's a reminder of the character's crimes (from my understanding):

Haruka: killed out of desperation to be seen, to have his mother finally acknowledge him after he wasn't good enough (ie, neurotypical) to keep up with the other kids.

Yuno: Had an abortion because she didn't want the baby. She didn't have some tragic reason why, she had a normal life. She was simply doing as she pleased.

Fuuta: Took part in cancel culture, which ended up doxxing a minor and she took her own life. He didn't want to accept responsibility for this, but it was clearly weighing on his mind.

Muu: She bullied others with her friends, and then her friends turned on her. She reached out to a classmate for help, but didn't receive any. Muu stabbed her in a panic, after alluding to either her or the classmate dying at the end of all of this.

Shido: Medical malpractice ? I think ? It's still not clear to me idk

Mahiru: Abused her boyfriend until he offed himself due to her sheltered life and toxic positivity. She feels as though she can't change, and she wants someone to love even if it hurts both of them.

Kazui: Lied about romantically loving his wife so that he could fit in to society at large. When he finally opened up about his feelings, the shock of it all caused his wife to end her life. He cared for her, but can't continue lying like this.

Amane: Killed her abuser, and is clinging to religion to both justify it to herself and comfort herself.

Mikoto: Still unclear whether he or John did the murder, how many murders there were, who was murdered, etc. The focus isn't exactly on the murder, moreso how mentally ill people are pushed to their limit with no support or help from others and the unhealthy coping mechanisms that can arise from that.

She tells us to throw away our sympathy. But understanding and kindness and sympathy are so so so important- not just in Milgram, but everywhere else, too. Yes, these are just characters, but a popular theory is that they represent societal issues. And I do believe that's true. They may not be real, but they represent real problems real people face. By ignoring the nuance, we blindly swing at whatever we're told is "guilty". Kotoko only attacked the prisoners we announced as Guilty. She won't act on her own moral code, merely the law. We are the law in Milgram, so she follows us.

I adore Kotoko, but her mindset is genuinely dangerous. While this is unlikely (cough, Amane) I hope her Guilty vote will help her. But it probably won't- Guilty votes destroy a person. But I can't vote her Innocent, either. I don't forgive her for her black and white thinking. Thus, she is Guilty to me. I'm very curious how she'll develop after this. I'm a little scared, too, but oh well.

#milgram #textpost #milgram kotoko #kotoko yuzuriha #opinions #milgram voting #if you disagree id love to hear your perspective #about kotoko i mean. shes the focus #i adore her but she scares me also

[valkyrieandstrangeridingaragorn]

This particular sub is a fucking goldmine for terrible MCU takes.

Oh man, so much crap in one place 🤦‍♀️

There is a strange subset of people that are convinced Wanda did nothing wrong

Are they convinced she did nothing wrong or are they trying to contextualize and explain her actions and you're taking that as them justifying what she did?

The military guy saying (rightfully) that she is imprisoning and puppeteering hundreds if not thousands of people

Do these fans seriously think Hayward gave a damn about those people? His beef was with Wanda. He tried to provoke her at Sword's HQ and when that didn't work he kept trying to go after her with the armed drones + his words during Woo's introduction to the Sword agents + when he entered the Hex and started firing at kids. Not to mention this guy was turning Vision's body into a weapon. Hayward was many things but 'good' was never one of them.

90% of people that didn't vote for Wanda never saw WandaVision, MoM or AoU

Wanda was corrupted by Waldron the Darkhold in MoM. She enslaved Westview, yes, and she also let them escape in the end. And she tried to get the Avengers hurt in AoU and joined Ultron, but she also ran away the moment she found out what Ultron wanted to do and she teamed up with the Avengers instead to save innocent lives.

If you don't want us to focus on the good she's done in order to claim Wanda is good, then don't focus only on her mistakes to call her evil. She's a complex, morally grey character. Face that and stop searching for a black/white reading of her, ffs.

She enslaves a town to live out a perverted fantasy with her dead robot boyfriend and her non-existent children

Oh, the dehumanization of Vision and her kids. A classic. Also, didn't these stans love BARF? What Wanda did was pretty much that except she has such power that she could make it real. (In case it's not clear, I'm not defending her actions in Westview. But if we can understand Stark's trauma then I assume we can understand hers.)

Tony fights for his belief the same as Cap does

Fighting for your beliefs doesn't automatically make you a good person. You know who else fought for what he believed in? Thanos.

Stark spent years mistaking safety for control, and since no one in Marvel was ever allowed to call him out or correct him, he kept on doing that over and over again first by helping with the helicarriers of Project Insight, and later with Ultron and Edith. Wanda was only a few seconds in his head and she saw it so clearly.

He tries to save as many people as possible

That sounds like a line said in CW... oh, but it's Steve's, not Stark's. Funny that. But I'll say this again, controlling is not saving. Oh, and saving isn't just showing up during a battle and kicking ass. Saving is so much more than that and Stark's actions hurt a lot of people - the difference is that, unlike WandaVision, those victims were never part of the story so you don't care about them.

Cap and the others were criminals, he couldn't just release them from the Raft, they broke the law he's trying to enforce

I don't understand, where is Stark's authority to even attempt to release them anyway? He had retired from the team, he was a civilian throughout the entirety of CW. He couldn't have released them, only broken them out like Steve and Nat did. And... I got a question: was he trying to enforce the Accords when he broke them to fly to Siberia?

And if he didn't want to break them out of the Raft, he could have at least told Steve that they were there. But he said nothing and let them rot there.

When did he ever do anything close to what Wanda did in WV and MoM, she is straight up evil

And he made a fortune out of selling weapons for war, and he refused to tell the team about Ultron and that robot ended up destroying an entire country, and he signed and I'm pretty sure he also promoted the Accords even though he knew they would violate the civil rights of all the enhanced in the world, and he built Edith with full access to satellites and missiles upon request.

Sigh. This is what happens when a character has full narrative protection for so long. People start thinking he never did anything wrong.

#wanda maximoff #anti tony stark #pro wanda maximoff

[theenpcbracket]

Seeding Round: Poll 1

Image IDs are included, click each for the full image please!

More about each NPC below the cut!

Character Descriptions are in the order of their appearance in the poll!

Character 1

Name: Angtha Reinhardt Party: The Fosters Relationship to party: Previous pest, current comrade. What makes them the best NPC: She's a butch anarchist three-quarters orc cowpoke, just to set the stage. Though she started out morally dubious and doubtfully loyal, she's worked through some stuff and has become a dedicated, passionate, and good-hearted friend to the party. Part fighter, part bard, part homebrew caster, Angtha is an all-around heavyweight in battle -- whether it's bashing heads, inspiring her friends, or coming in clutch with last-resort counterspells, she's got your back. Other quirks include her inability to cook (her favorite dish is medium rare chicken soaked in whiskey), her love of ridiculously huge weapons, and her ultimate desire to help people make the world a better place for everyone (except for CEO's). Quote: "I didn't say 'hey,' I said 'howdy.'"

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Character 2

Name: Hellen Highwater Party: Team Kill Relationship to party: A party member's girlfriend, a party member

What makes them the best NPC: She's very silly and makes so many puns, she's a dragonblood sorcerer whose dad is a copper dragon. For most of her life she could spit acid and thought it was just because of the specific ancestry she had and had no clue it could have been related to her copper-y scales. She was the first person to really get to know the party's resident edgy man. Originally she was supposed to be a minor part of the plot, sending the party letters from her home, but the party and the DM liked her so much she managed to stay in the party.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Character 3

Name: Prince Indus Party: Tesser's gayest soldiers Relationship to party: Prince of the kingdom the party finds themselves in, and also the man betrothed to one of the biggest lesbians in the party

What makes them the best NPC: He's a war criminal. He's aroace. He's socially inept and filled with guilt over the aforementioned War Crimes. Surprisingly though he desperately tries to make his relationship with his (supposed) future wife go smoothly even though neither of them want to go through with the marriage - also his PC wife has no clue that she's in an arranged marriage with him. Also he might want to kill his dad (somewhat justifiably).

#seeding round #dungeons and dragons #d&d #dnd #dnd oc #dnd npc #ttrpg #pathfinder #powered by the apocalypse #indie ttrpg #dnd stuff #dnd character #character tournament #oc tournament #homebrew #dnd homebrew #d&d 5e #d&d 5e homebrew #polls

[galactic-glamour-girl-posts]

Things I'd like to see in season 3

Slight Spoilers Ahead!

--A callback to "A Pinky and the Brain Christmas" in "How The Brain Thieved Christmas". Nothing too big, I want the two-parter to do it's own thing and not be a rehash, but it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be a reference to it given that the reboot often references events that happened in the first show and the PatB spinoff. Maybe reveal that Brain still has the globe keychain, something like that.

--If Slappy does indeed return (and it seems like she will), for Slappy not to be softened. Not that I think it will happen, but this is their first time writing for Slappy in the reboot, so I expect her characterisation will be at least a little different. Which I'm fine with as long as they don't change her morality. I say this mostly because the last time she had dialogue was Wakko's Wish, but she felt a bit too mellow in that. She's not like the Warners who, while I won't deny often act in self interest, do tend to help people in their own zany, annoying way ("La La Law", "Hooked on a Ceiling", "Magna Cartoon", etc). Slappy, on the other hand, only really looks out for herself and Skippy, and can be way harsher because she lacks their moral code ("The Sound of Warners"). This is the same woman who tried to blow up up a critic's house whilst she thought he was inside all because he didn't think she was funny and threatened to blow up a jury if they didn't vote her not-guilty on a crime she technically did commit...and then when they did she blew them up anyway. Not that she's never justified, she keeps to herself often only does this type of thing in retaliation (the previously mentioned jury were clearly biased against her), but still, let her be mean and violent!

--Assuming Slappy comes back, for them to include Skippy. He was already in "Good Warner Hunting" and was shown to still be a kid, so aging him up isn't an option, meaning he's either gotta be left out or be re-casted. I'm really hoping they just recast him, there's no need to write him out just because his original voice actor is no longer a child. I don't like it when characters are written off or killed off just because their original voice actor can no longer do the voice, it feels unnecessary to me. If Slappy is on her own then fine (because let's be honest she's the one we watch her segments for), but Skippy brings out the best in her, I think he should be there.

--More Scratchansniff in general, but specifically him acting like a father towards the Warners (in more than one episode). Nothing too cutesy, the Warners will always find ways to stress him out, but I much prefer it when he's attempting to take care of them.

--Hopefully a satisfying ending to Julia's story, but given that they didn't know season 3 would be the last when writing this season, it's not likely. Not their fault if this one doesn't happen, I'd be happy enough to see her return.

--A FULL WAKKO SONG. Multiple Wakko songs actually, that would be great. I do prefer the other two Warners over him but they each have multiple songs in the reboot whereas Wakko only has one so far-"Gruesome Ol' Gruel"...and it's like 50 seconds long. I think he deserves more (Yakko got four in season 2 alone!) Scratchansniff has more songs than Wakko in the reboot so far. Granted, he didn't sing much in the original series so it's great that he sings more here, but him getting more new songs than a main character is kinda weird. Well, I guess you could count "Hot Washed Buns", but I don't (that one's even shorter than "Gruesome Ol' Gruel" anyway). I think this one is likely, season 1 focused a lot on Dot and season 2 focused a lot on Yakko, so maybe season 3 will do the same for Wakko!

#animaniacs #animaniacs reboot #animaniacs 2020 #animaniacs season 3 #yakko wakko and dot #the warner brothers #the warner sister #the warner siblings #pinky and the brain #a pinky and the brain christmas #julia animaniacs #julia patb #slappy squirrel #skippy squirrel #slappy and skippy #dr scratchansniff #animaniacs spoilers

[catinfroghat]

Synopses copied from wikipedia below.....

Crime and Punishment follows the mental anguish and moral dilemmas of Rodion Raskolnikov, an impoverished ex-student in Saint Petersburg who plans to kill an unscrupulous pawnbroker, an old woman who stores money and valuable objects in her flat. He theorises that with the money he could liberate himself from poverty and go on to perform great deeds, and seeks to convince himself that certain crimes are justifiable if they are committed in order to remove obstacles to the higher goals of 'extraordinary' men.

Six years after the events of The Talented Mr. Ripley, Tom Ripley is now in his early 30s, living a comfortable life in France with his heiress wife, Héloïse Plisson. The lifestyle at his estate, Belle Ombre, is supported by Dickie Greenleaf's fortune, occasional fence work with an American named Reeves Minot, and Derwatt Ltd. — an art forgery scheme that Ripley helped set up years before as a silent partner.

One of Kafka's best-known works, Metamorphosis tells the story of salesman Gregor Samsa, who wakes one morning to find himself inexplicably transformed into a huge insect (German: ungeheueres Ungeziefer, lit. "monstrous vermin") and subsequently struggles to adjust to this new condition.

The novel is set in Sri Lanka in the 1980s, and written in the second person. The central character, Maali Almeida, is a dead photographer who sets out to solve the mystery of his own death and is given one week ("seven moons") during which he can travel between the afterlife and the real world. In this time, he hopes to retrieve a set of photographs, stored under a bed, and to persuade his friends to share them widely to expose the brutalities of the Sri Lankan Civil War.

I love you if you vote ❤️

#🫡

[dragongutsixofficial]

Why you should vote Edelgard for the FE3H tournament

Come on. We all love Dorothea. She's an absolute queen and if it were against anyone else, I would defend her teeth and claws.

Now that that's settled, here's a bunch of reasons why Edelgard should wreck her in the finals:

1- Let's start with the obvious: Dorothea is a bisexual icon. Guess who else is ? Edelgard. What's more, the Crimson Flower route is centered on Edelgard leading a war against an oppressive religious system in order to ensure people are judged based on their own actions and not birth or status; so they can rise up for themselves and decide their own fates. This narrative has resounded with a lot of queer FE3H fans, who find it freeing not to have to conform to the standards of a society who would want to lock them into a certain role. 

2- When you see the Fodlanese geopolitical system as mostly dominated by feudal monarchies, Edelgard's project, though implemented by means you might disagree with, is more egalitarian and gets rid of the old privileges, which is always a good first step when you want to get to a democracy. The fact that she's also the only one to want to step down from power once her vision for Fodlan is put in place reinforces that.

3- Edelgard is also an abuse survivor icon. A lot of CF fans find Edelgard's more radical approach to change a nice change of pace- especially regarding religious trauma, but also familial trauma. Edelgard showed that even an abuse survivor who has to do bad things in order to survive, such as cooperate with her abusers, can and still deserves happiness. For irl abused survivors who couldn't just split from their abusers because the situation is not that simple, Edelgard's gradual taking over of the situation regarding TWSITD provides hope that they can do the same in turn. That they deserve it .

4- Edelgard is an amazing antagonist in routes that are not Crimson Flower. And even for people who dislike her, she is a very well written character, whose moral grayness sets the tone for the whole story. Edelgard forces you to think about if the end truly justifies the means, because she is such a multi-faceted character.

5- She is essentially Daenerys and Daenerys deserved better. Don't let Daenerys down like the writers of Game of Thrones season 8 did.

6- It's what Dorothea would want. She simps for the Empress. She would have a musical written about her.

7- Edelgard's route is the only one where Byleth is explicitely given a choice that can radically change the course of the story. Now don't get me wrong this doesn't mean that Byleth is any less "free" in the other routes ; but it does symbolically give them more control over who they want to be for themself, instead of accepting the role that was meant to be theirs. Then again, highlighting the main theme which makes CF an inherently queer route: finding your identity, while making a found family of people who understand you and love you unconditionally for who you are, not what they want you to be. For people that Rhea reminds of some abusive figures in their lives, Byleth's arc in CF was, as such, especially appealing and not at all a bad route for Byleth.

Now keep in mind this is funny propaganda for my blorbo- don't take it too seriously. I might have also missed some things. But in my opinion at least, best girl Edelgard 50000% deserves this win.

 If you do want to add more, feel free to do so ! =D 

#fe3h tournament #edelgard von hresvelg #dorothea arnault #edelgard sweep #fe3h tournament finals

[qqueenofhades]

With 2016, people just don’t understand how everything works. Getting the popular vote isn’t how the game is played, getting the electoral vote is. The popular vote doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things because candidate’s strategies would completely change if they were trying to get the popular vote rather than win individual states. Did I vote for Hillary? Yes. Do I still think she didn’t approach the vote with the right strategy and played it for the popular vote rather than the electoral vote and lost as a result? Also yes.

Okay, but you do get how that's a flawed metric for an argument, right? Hillary DID win the popular vote by three million plus, and in any sane system, that would have been enough to net her the presidency. "Hillary ran a flawed campaign" is to some extent, a true statement, as is "Hillary didn't focus enough on Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania because the Democrats assumed she had them on lockdown and didn't take into account the amount of Midwestern white people voting for Trump because of white backlash against Obama." But that is something that a) only became clear in hindsight and b) yet again, in any sane universe, should not have decided the election. Because:

Hillary was, and is, possibly the single most qualified presidential candidate the Democrats have ever had;

Voters were predisposed to hate her not because she "wasn't likable" or was "too corporate," but because the Republicans had been running literal decades of virulent smear campaigns against her to poison the well for this very eventuality;

The media almost never bothered to point this out at all and spent endless airtime on BUT HER EEEEEEEMAILS and doing sympathetic pieces about Trump voters, implying that their vote for Trump was a justified or moral protest against Both Sides Badism, and this was even the so-called "mainstream" media;

Fox News, of course, pumped out endless hit pieces and then some, all of which was echoed in some degree by those outlets;

James Comey announced TEN DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION that suddenly oops, he was investigating her emails again;

Even though there was nothing there and it is absolutely small potatoes compared to the much worse things Republicans are doing on the regular, because SELLING NUCLEAR SECRETS TO FOREIGN ENEMIES is okay as long as it is Trump doing it;

America is still so fucking racist and misogynistic that even after Trump spewed off terrible things about every non-white group, scapegoated Mexicans and Muslims and black people, and was caught on tape bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, this didn't actually make much of an impact on people planning to vote for him, because they evidently figured it "wasn't real" or "he would change" once he became president, while for others, the open hatred was the main attraction;

Bernie refused to concede until the actual convention, implied that if you couldn't vote for him, you shouldn't vote for anyone, and generally fanned the kind of I'll Take My Pony and Go Home rhetoric that is a poison in "progressive" online circles today;

Almost 10% of Bernie voters voted for Trump instead of Clinton;

Gary Johnson and Jill Fucking "Russian Asset" Stein were somehow treated as valid "protest vote" options, even while Hillary was warning everyone left and right about how much Trump sucked, how much SCOTUS (AND SPECIFICALLY ROE) was at risk, and how much democracy would be damaged if he won, which -- GUESS WHAT -- happened exactly as she predicted;

Speaking of the Russians, they were interfering the hell out of it, whether through Wikileaks/the DNC email hack, social media psyops, organized troll farms, or anything else they could think of;

And on and on. Against the backdrop of sheer and unmitigated fuckery that was the 2016 election, and the fact that so many people couldn't be bothered to vote for Hillary because she was a Smart Woman who was Too Corporate when the alternative was literally Trump, "Hillary didn't campaign enough in MI/WI/PA" is.... hardly a valid way to explain or excuse the many, many bad-faith actors, bad choices, and general lethargy, misinformation, deliberate destruction of faith in democracy, racism, Russian interference, misogyny, and white fragility that fucked us over and continues to do so.

#anonymous #ask #politics for ts #hillary clinton was right about everything: the redux redux redux

[daisiesforkate]

I think the most important skill/quality you need to have to be successful in society is…Storytelling

Being a good storyteller. Seriously. Being able to tell a good, captivating story is the make-or-break skill in creating strong relationships in society in my opinion.

Storytellers are our mentors, guardians, parents, teachers. Our most famous celebrities are storytellers: actors, singers, artists.

Almost every greeting is a prompt, an invitation, for you to tell a story.

“How was your weekend?” Boom. Story.

“How was your day?” Story.

"I haven't seen you in so long! How have you been?” Story.

The first words we say to each other when we meet are rooted in storytelling. And it makes sense; it’s in our nature, our blood, and our history. It’s how we, as humans, taught lessons to our children, seated around a fire, listening to elders tell stories and not caring what was true and what wasn’t; or maybe truth wasn’t what mattered in those moments.

Stories were how we measured history, recanted wars- both great wins and devastating losses. It’s how we remembered our fallen brethren. It’s how we learned not to fall the same way.

Stories are how we explained the world. Our creation myths, the spirits in the trees and wind- stories of how those spirits came to be there and who they were before. We had stories to explain why the sun rose every morning, why it rained for days and days, why wolves howled and birds chirped.

We had stories for why we fall in love and what happens when we die.

Stories are how we protect each other. Women would tell stories of men in the village and it was how they knew who lied, who cheated, who beat their wife, who to avoid after sunset or when they were drunk. Stories made women powerful. It wasn’t just gossip, it was accountability. It was reputation. Stories were how we kept our daughters and sisters safe, how we influenced politics, how we crafted the morals of the next generation from the time they were in diapers. Women had no land, no money, no jobs, no vote; but through stories we clawed our way into society from the bottom up and gave ourselves as much influence over our communities as we could. We put fear into people’s hearts every time we whispered in each other’s ear.

Stories are how we kill each other. A frantic phone call to 911 with a rushed story of a black kid in a gray hoodie playing with something in his pocket. An accusation by a wife told to her husband of a 14 year old black child violating her in the grocery store. A lie about a jewish underbelly rearing up to wage war on the modern way of life. That’s not to say that these things happened BECAUSE of stories, there are many complex factors that contribute to any event. However, stories do play a big role in the mentalities of people who commit these atrocities and our reception to them. Especially when only one side of the story is/can be told, and especially when that side is passed through big news outlets and corporations before it gets to us. Stories have been used to propagandize and justify every conspiracy theory and outcome thereof. A story passed between two people over dinner can incite events that permanently shape the world; for better or for worse. Stories of boogeymen far outlast those who tell them.

Stories are how we connect. Stories of our pets over covid interfering with our work-from-home setup that helped us realize that even if we didn’t share language we did share something. Stories of my trip to London in summer of 2016, and a realization that the new girl on the frisbee team was there at the same time and “hey look at these pictures, we must have been 50 feet from each other.” Stories of our family, our parents when they were young, and realizing that maybe you got your propensity for hair dye from your teenage mother who dyed it orange in the 70s and pissed off her dad. Or maybe your typing speed is from your typewriter-wizard grandmother who gave up being a secretary to raise 7 kids.

Being a good storyteller isn’t just a measure of how entertaining or extroverted you can be because to say stories are just entertainment is a discredit to the versatility and impact of our words. Being a good storyteller means knowing the power you hold to change lives for better and worse. Being a good storyteller means knowing when to choose your words wisely, and when to be outspoken. Being a good storyteller means keeping part of each person you’ve met with you, maybe even remembering part of their life that they themselves have forgotten. Being a good storyteller means protecting those around you, passing on lessons, handing out knowledge. Being a good storyteller means tucking your kids in at night with a fairytale and a kiss on the forehead so that they can sleep without nightmares. Being a good storyteller means being able to distract your best friend from the terrible day they had and maybe even get them to laugh a little. Being a good storyteller means cherishing the relationships you make, being responsible with your words, and finding a story in everyone’s life to tell, including your own.

I’ve used some pretty extreme examples in here to get my point across, and it probably sounds preachy, but it’s an opinion I’ve held for a while. I try to take any opportunity I can to tell stories and further the skill, including being a better listener when other people are telling their stories.

Why Storyteller isn’t a job in today’s world I don’t know. It’s a failure of ours that the craft of storytelling is not as respected as it should be and HAS BEEN throughout history. The most important method by which we shape our children’s values is largely only distributed by multi-billion dollar companies pushing multi-million dollar movies, shows, and content. The methods by which we tell stories have been co-opted by capitalism and the demand for a profit. I think social media is bringing storytelling back, and small, independent creators and studios. Shows like Bluey gaining traction show that people still crave these earnest stories like those that used to be told thousands of years ago around the fire. They give me hope that my child (if I decide to have one) won’t derive their morals from a YouTube ad or AI generated content that only mimics the ancient tradition. I think many people don’t even consider storytelling to be a skill that one could have/not have. But it is. And it should be honed and crafted like anything else. Good storytellers are my favorite people. They are the people who I, and many others, gravitate towards. The ones who seem like they hold so much experience and make me excited to grow older.

Being a good storyteller is the most important skill to have to create strong, long-lasting relationships, and perhaps a stronger, longer-lasting society, too.

#this got way longer than i intended #and more philosophical too #story #storytelling #feminism #bluey #history #propaganda #activism #movies #disney #ai generated #hollywood #extrovert #introvert #friendship

[ryehouses]

I don't remember clone wars SUPER well, but wasn't Bo's whole goal to get Viszla on the Mando throne, not Maul? She did accidentally help Maul get there, but it was never her goal, and she did immediately fight to dethrone him. Like Qui-gon is pretty responsible for creating Darth Vader but we don't blame him. Am I missing something???

hold on let me put on my philosophy hat! star wars meta under the cut, because this is way better than looking at contracts:

tldr, for folks that don't want to read a treatise: clone wars era bo-katan is like the shocked pikachu meme, in which bo-katan is running around with a bunch of terrorists, doing terrorist things, and then is surprised when doing those terrorist things has led to, like, the socio-political collapse of mandalore's government. she's the "'but i didn't think the leopards would eat my face!' sobbed the woman who voted for the face-eating leopards party" woman, except the face-eating leopard is a sith lord with attachment issues and moderate megalomania who kills bo-katan's sister to make his already desperately sad archenemy even sadder. she's an australia that has introduced a non-native cane toad to control a native beetle in order to more efficiently maximize a brutal capitalist system and now is upset that her house is full of huge toads with no natural predators. the toads are poisonous and the ecosystem is collapsing. i got carried away here, but you get the gist.

too long did read, for my reasoning: in this case, i'd argue that no matter what bo-katan's reason for going along with the maul plan is -- possibly installing pre vizsla to the throne of mandalore, but mostly just destablizing the neutral mandalorian government -- her reasoning is secondary to the action because she is fully and consciously participating in death watch, which is doing terrible things (not just on mandalore, mind; there's a whole little arc with ahsoka and... the one kid... lux? where death watch has just casually taken over an enslaved a random settlement because they can and think that they deserve to).

whatever bo-katan's original intentions were, be they good intentions (also arbitrary; the neutral mandalorians would disagree than any attempt to return to mandalore's more violent ways is not good, while dw could and does argue that they're just upholding their cultural traditions and fending off a government they didn't elect or support, how can that not be a good?) or not, intention is secondary to an action that does harm, especially to an action that does intentional harm. maul's name, like, means intentional harm. it's very on the nose. even if maul usupring vizsla was a surprise, the whole "building a super crime syndicate" thing is objectively a bad, immoral action, and imo it's pretty hard to "the ends justify the means" that away just because bo-katan didn't mean for what maul did to happen.

also, leaving morality aside for a minute, imo bo-katan holds additional culpability for what maul does because she knows that it's a bad idea to ally with him from the start, but knuckles under and lets it happen in order to get what she wants from the situation. i could be misremembering, but i'm pretty sure she knows that sith lords are bad news and tells pre vizsla as much, but ultimately falls in line because she wants what maul is offering. that's a conscious choice that she makes.

i think it's also important to remember that she does not abandon death watch because she thinks that maul's actions are immoral or bad -- she leaves because she doesn't want an outsider to rule mandalore. she says it out loud, to the viewer -- it's only after maul takes over and betrays pre vizsla that she bolts and lets obi-wan go, presumably to that obi-wan can rally some jedi to help him pry maul off of mandalore.

(I'm not touching the qui-gon thing until after I've shared it with the discord, because we've honestly never seen a "qui-gon is pretty responsible for darth vader" take and have to dissect it over the course of 4-5 buisness days.)

#a meta far far away #ask box #i think the key difference is that bo-katan doesn't accidentally let maul take over mandalore; #she intentionally agrees to ally with him in order to get what she wants and then underestimates maul's ability to rock pre vizsla's shit #yes pre vizsla is the one who makes the alliance in the first place #but bo-katan goes along with it and only bails AFTER she realizes that dw collectively miscalculated #all of this to say: bo is a complicated awful person and disney trying to pretend that she's not awful does a disservice to her character