"Of COURSE I'm the good guy Of COURSE I'm the one who can be trusted with nuclear bombs If I weren't the one with the right to have nukes, then how come I AM the one who has nukes, huh?" (This is literally the message of The Incredibles and that's also fucked up)
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @loudpenitent and
I mean in the case of Orwell's take on King Lear, the tragedy here is simple Lear wants to have his cake and eat it too He wants to magnanimously give away his power and retire He also gets mad when the people he gives his power to start using it against him
1 reply 1 retweet 20 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @loudpenitent and
Well, don't give it away then You could've prevented this whole thing by just not doing that If you don't want people to do things to you against your will, don't give up your power That's what "power" means
2 replies 1 retweet 19 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @loudpenitent and
People want to be *proven right* when they do things out of principle, they engage in a certain degree of magical thinking You leave your door unlocked and some primitive part of your brain thinks that by doing so, you will inspire people to be good and not break into your house
3 replies 3 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @loudpenitent and
But that's not what having principles actually means If you really have principles, you have to prepare that those principles will fail in the material world If you really decide to trust someone, you have decided to allow that person to harm you
3 replies 3 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @loudpenitent and
The one thing in Rowling I can’t throw away is the moment when Harry and Cedric take the cup. It is morally the best thing either of them can do and it ends up having the worst possible outcome of all options. And that is no one’s fault but the bad guy’s. And that *CAN HAPPEN*.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @muddlewait @arthur_affect and
Well the thing is there, too, it's largely a function of whose story it is right? It doesn't end up "all right" in the end, but it isn't the end either. But it is Cedric's end. It's only not crushing because of whose story it ultimately is.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @loudpenitent @muddlewait and
And like this is why TLOU2 *really* ticked some people (myself included, to a degree) off; its "lack of moral clarity" as the article proclaims it is *really* just refusing to assign a clear, absolute protagonist and antagonist. Giving the antagonist their own full arc & quest.
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @loudpenitent @muddlewait and
And that is saying something pretty fundamental about the falsehood of narrative, isn't it The game would be less "morally gray" if we cut Abby's half of the game You're saying you want me to withhold information so your moral decisions are easier to make
2 replies 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @loudpenitent and
(That's slightly unfair, since after all this is all fiction anyway Even so though It's a trite point but I think it's a true one -- if showing you a full biopic about this enemy soldier's life would make it unacceptable to kill him, then you need to quit the Army)
2 replies 1 retweet 16 likes
It's just, like Sure, if I try to rub your nose in every negative moral consequence your choices have, after a certain point I'm being an asshole We all need a little bit of obliviousness to get through the day But it's not a good look to be *that* allergic to knowing things
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @loudpenitent and
Like someone who performatively goes "I'm an empath, I can't stand to see or hear or even think about a living thing in pain If there's an animal dying on TV you have to turn it off" "But do you eat meat?" "Yes but I could NEVER kill an animal myself"
3 replies 1 retweet 13 likes -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.