i just can't with the moral in this show

You know, if Soma does die, at least Ciel will finally experience some fucking consequences for his actions. It’ll be the first time since the Jack the Ripper arc that Ciel will have to deal with people close to him dying suddenly without his consent. What with this on top of Lizzy’s unwillingness to return home and her implied knowledge about the contract, it seems like this’ll be the arc where all of Ciel’s platitudes about “standing on a pile of dead allies” will finally be put to the test.

Can somebody just stop produce 101 by Mnet?

I don’t watch produce 101 and not loving the whole concept anyway (reminds me too much of gladiator/ hunger games underage-fate-in-public’s-hand type of thing) but putting caste system for food and toilet priority is just too far (just google produce 101 season 2 grade system).

They basically means “A grade trainees got access to better food and priority for toilet/bathroom, and got worse to F grade”.

This is outright discrimination and abuse, how is this getting approved for public broadcast??? (It’s already recording btw) And they put people in hard place because they can’t just ignore the show since it will affect the grade. Mnet needs to put a stop with their drama thirst, these trainees already got their career hang on their editing in this show what else do you want to sacrifice?? Their morals? Their health?

anonymous asked:

I'm both a Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff. My friends said that I was lying, so they created a second pottermore account to test (my original house was Ravenclaw but I constantly showed traits of a Hufflepuff.) I ended up getting Hufflepuff on the first test, then they made another account and I got alternating Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff twice. I don't know what to do bc if someone asks me what house I am, I can't say Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff with full confidence. Am I honestly having an identity crisis?

Hogwarts houses are just another label that we, as a generation, use to define ourselves. And like with all labels, it’s about choosing what feels right to you

The best advice is to look at your morals. Stop taking tests and just sit down and think about where your priorities are. What’s your goal in life? 

A ravenclaw will say to learn. To understand the crazy world we live in and make some kind of contribution towards it. To show their passions to the world and to see everything. They want to explore their interests and gain everything life has to offer

A hufflepuff will say to do the best they can. To work and make the most of what life has handed to them. They want to help others, to find a group they can connect with and care for. They want to right all the wrongs in the world and love fiercely 

So what do you want from life? I guess that’s the real question here

anonymous asked:

For reason aside from both Dipper and Alcor being snarky, salty (and a teasing troll on Alcor's part) to each other in the transdimensional arc, I can't help but find an interesting in-depth character analysis between these two and their interactions. Dipper can't deny the fact that Alcor IS him, since he himself does have a vindictive streak, only Alcor just shows that he doesn't hold back on that and it terrifies him that he could be like him and lose his morals.

anonymous asked:

Your jiminnie is the cutest person ever. I've always been a fan of you but now i'm kinda their fan too because they're just so nice?? I mean it's hard to love someone without even really knowing them right??? But they always show their love to you just to lift your morals up ;-; and honestly it's so cute i feel sad knowing that sweet person is not feeling okay. So jiminnie i hope you cheer up soon because you deserve the world (ノTTДTT)ノ(lol i'm shy so i'll just put my nickname) -umi

^^^

The thing is, I’m just not very good friend material. I can’t keep up with the emotional and social burden of a close friendship. I’m fine with shallow interactions, or regular friendships conducted behind a certain barrier (time, distance). But the constant sense of guilt over not being a good or patient listener, not caring, not finding the energy to maintain a friendship makes it all not worth the effort.

I like the idea of having close friends, but in reality the golden sheen of it wears off very quickly. I get tired of people much like I get tired of just about everything. No attention span or dedication to speak of.

And I’m okay with it. It’s just that I know that not everyone’s like me, and I feel guilty about not being a good friend.

@noirandchocolate It’s not even just that. (How many shows geared at 14 year old girls tackle the idea of sacrificing a single human life in favour of the rest of the world and the moral questions surrounding murder for the greater good painting our main character as the one in the wrong (and the right) for instance)

But one thing that constantly creeps me out are these reviewers (or in this case just one) who lists the transformation sequences as sexy and the highlight of the show they say is dumb when the character they’re highlighting in a sexual light is 14 years old.

But yes. The show was meant for younger girls. The difference is it never spoke down to them. And treated them as adults who can handle difficult subjects and sought to actually make them think. Thinks like the idealistic debate I mentioned, but also things like an 8 year old trying to fight against feelings that she is unloved by her parents, or the idea that all people die alone so what’s the point. Or moving forward with your life when you feel everything is hopeless and there is no reason to continue. But it was also for younger girls. So is also funny, silly at times, and actually enjoyable.

Ironically making it more mature than any grimdark edgy show for “older” teenagers.

@ryxe it’s not even the harassing that annoys me. I like the show. If someone harasses me for it I’m more inclined to be upset at how mean they are than feel bad for liking it. But it IS infuriating to me to just turn people away from a show you think is dumb when you yourself have barely looked into it at all. And if you know you won’t like it so you didn’t do proper research, then why bring it up at all? I have never played Halo. It doesn’t interest me. But I don’t bring it up with my shallow opinion of it and tell people not to play it based on the 10 minutes I’ve tried it.

It also builds a reputation around a show when a popular person with a large following says something like this. A show like Sailor Moon, with sparkly effects, silly characters like Usagi and miniskirts already has the problem of people looking at it at face value and judging it, or simply thinking the fact that it’s for younger girls makes it bad. We don’t need a popular online celebrity to further hammer in this opinion.

Liberal feminists on the burqini ban (rightly so): The burqini ban is bad! A woman should be allowed to cover herself as much as she wants or reveal as much as she wants! Forcibly making someone remove their clothing in public is sexual harassment!

Liberal feminists on enforced hijab on female chess competitors in Iran: *crickets* Uh… when in Rome do as the Romans do… it’s just showing respect for their culture… Uh… Islam is a beautiful religion?

  • Me: Farkle and Riley are literally perfect for each other and they're both such cinnamon rolls and totally endgame.
  • Also me: I love Smackle and Farkle, those two are just little baby nerds and I love them together forever.
  • Still me: RILAYA PEOPLE! THEY ARE ENDGAME AND SOOO IN LOVE WITH EACH OTHER! Except it!!
  • Also...: I want Lucaya to happen. It's just so... fiery ? They just have so much chemistry that they can't just not play it out.
  • Andddd: I want Joshaya to happen if the show is played out that long; they are actually adorable together and I need them in my life.

anonymous asked:

I still feel like Aang killing Ozai wouldn't be the best way to end the show, even if I do agree with you that it could have been set up a little better. My concern is that it would turn a show from a positive show with morals into a show where characters throw away what they know is right to meet their goals, even if their goals seem honorable. I just can't see it ending in a satisfying way like that. Though maybe it's all yet another reason why they should have made Book 4 instead of a movie.

I agree with you: Aαng killing Ozai would be inconsistent in tone with a series so focused on hope and changing the world for the better. 

Just as it was inconsistent for the series which taught us to practice relentlessly, avoid the easy path, think of the consequences, and never treat gaining power as the solution to a problem, to turn around and deliver a solution with no training, no failure, no consequences, and an instant power-up, as the only answer to a moral dilemma. 

Which path is less true to the show is a matter of opinion. But consider:

Never before in A:TLA had bending been used as a get-out-of-quandary free card. Katara’s mastery of water didn’t make her anger at her mother’s murderer go away, or cause her to be less overbearing to her teammates. Sokka’s space sword didn’t magically imbue him with the confidence he needed for public speaking. Zuko learned lightning redirection, but it didn’t help him achieve inner peace or take out Azula. Toph’s metalbending solved her physical imprisonment, but not the estrangement she felt between herself and her family.

But energybending did provide the solution to Aαng’s problem of killing Ozai when nothing else would. What lesson are we supposed to take from that, exactly? It’s not as though we can apply “just have the known laws of your universe suddenly change to benefit you” to our everyday lives. In A:TLA, whenever we watched a character shed a bias, forge a friendship, stand up for a belief, or make restitution, we could be there, too. But with energybending, we have to watch from the outside looking in, because the wisdom is imparted so rapidly that there is no process involved for Aαng’s learning.

This:

Is more like this:

Than it is like this:

And that is why fans still struggle with the ending years later.

okay so there’s already Bismuth Discourse™ so I’m gonna put in my two cents

1. we didn’t have enough time. like. we really didn’t. and it’s probably a budget thing, especially with hiring a voice actress who’s really high profile and probably expensive. this isn’t a movie, they probably wouldn’t have been able to afford Uzo Aduba for more than the half hour special episode. (I still hate how they promo’d about her being The New Team Member, but that’s a Cartoon Network problem and doesn’t really involve the Crewniverse) so like, we gotta keep that info on the sidelines when meta-ing, yknow?

2. this absolutely could have been solved with time and more talking. bismuth didn’t have all the post-active war information. she’s coming at this from an active war standpoint. that makes a Huge difference.

3. seriously bismuth doesn’t have the context of lapis, peridot, or the shattered gem experiments. those are all huge factors into Steven’s ideals, on top of the fact that he’s a c h i l d.

4. bismuth is in the right in active wartime conditions, and tbh I. generally agree with her ideals and tactics. but she still doesn’t have all the information, and in the real world we don’t have to worry about the torture of shattered corpse psyches. seriously, we don’t even know if bismuth knows how many gems were corrupted btw.

5. have I mentioned that Steven is a child yet? have I mentioned this is a show for children? Murder Is Bad is. a pretty basic kids show moral, and it’s shown that rose was in the wrong in the past and bismuth is in the wrong in the present (where we have present knowledge and circumstances. seriously context is such a huge thing with this episode)

6. bismuth wasn’t a villain. that’s. literally now how she was framed from a narrative standpoint. she has differing ideology from a completely different contextual area and kids will probably pick up on that. if they can get Aduba in again (which isn’t that likely but we can hope) then we’ll probably see everything more fleshed out.

7. I can’t mention this enough - and this is a general qualm with the fandom - but this is a kids show. this wasn’t made for us, we’re just part of the audience. if we’re gonna Discourse™ can we at least look at it through that lens instead of as if this were an Adult Show with Adult Morals.

but this is just my onion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So, after binge-watching all of season two of Girl Meets World on Netflix in one day, here’s a very condensed list of little things I love about this show:

  • the “just because you kiss someone doesn’t mean you have to date” thing
  • English teacher teaching a graphic novel about superheroes as literature
  • the “love triangle” being treated as “everyone is just a bunch of confused hormonal teenagers who don’t know how to feel because they’re young and inexperienced and that’s okay and they’re learning and they’re all still friends even though things are confusing”
  • “GM I am Farkle” Just all of it. Farkle’s storyline. Smackle’s storyline. Their storyline together. All of it.
  • the episode about saving the arts acknowledged creative writing as an art
  • Riley casually calling herself a feminist
  • the “girl power” episode ending with the moral that attacking your actually good and understanding guy friends is not going to end sexism because  we all have to work together to end an oppressive system
  • the “growing up” episode acknowledged that you can’t completely leave your childhood behind because who you were as a child stays with you forever and that’s a good thing
  • the “religion” episode was respectful to both believers and non-believers, and just talked about belief in general without bringing up any one specific religion
  • death was handled in a way that was both emotionally resonant and understandable for young kids, and told them that it’s okay to miss people who die and it’s okay to talk to them even if they don’t talk back
  • friendship is always more important than boys, but it’s okay to want a boy too and that doesn’t make you a bad friend even if your friend likes the same boy
  • kids can make a difference in this world
  • anything to do with talking about Maya’s home life and father and economic standing and mother and all of that
  • they used the word “feminist” on a Disney Channel show
  • the love triangle isn’t about two girls fighting over the same cute boy; it’s about three friends valuing their friendship more than anything else and working through these feelings together as a team

And that’s not even mentioning all of the humor and clever writing and other great morals and throwbacks and everything else that makes this show so great.

6

Let’s review the facts:

The main CANON ship on Person of Interest is between two women, one of whom is a PoC.

The show has evolved from “bad guy of the week” to “question all your moral, socio-political beliefs”

Acting on point.

Writing sharp as a knife.

But CBS is being a soggy sponge about its future.

Like wtf does it take to survive as a show in the US? Obviously not quality.

That yongguk wants to do social message songs makes me stan them more because it’s like they make music not just to be famous or because they want to make cool music videos where they look awesome. No, they want to make music because they have a moral they want to show the world. Through their music they want to make the world a little bit better. There’s more to it then wearing fancy clothes and being worldwide. There’s a point. They have a message and a reason to make music. Now, that’s true artist.

9

*well of course I had to gif the whole ’go on, sugar, what were you saying?’ scene didn’t I*

I just wanted to talk about how Dorian goes from: ‘oh! you’re interrupting me? but you have input on the case… okay, I can listen politely… ’

to: here comes the inevitably patronising tone- aaand there it is…

whereas the second the MX talks John is turning back to him all aggressive like 'the fuck did you just say??’ and he's really making a concerted effort to listen and show Dorian that he’s listening to what he’s saying… 

[part 2]

anonymous asked:

Kim Shumway has some very disturbing ideas about what makes a healthy relationship. There was a post of hers going around where she essentially says that Clarke and L/xa discussing whether or not L/xa should murder Octavia, and deciding not, meant that they had a great basis for a healthy relationship. So, to her, Clarke threatening and blackmailing L/xa into being a decent human being is considered healthy? Just saying, I don't have a lot of confidence that the writers even know what they did.

http://kimshum.tumblr.com/post/112853529616/i-completely-understand-why-lexa-did-what-she-did

I just found it. Holy shit! You know, it takes real mental gymnastics to justify calling this “healthy”. Um… Kim, you do realize that Clarke had to “threaten” L.exa to stop her from killing Octavia, right? Like, she had to literally blackmail L.exa to make her not kill Octavia. They didn’t come to an agreement based on a “rational,” “healthy” discussion. Yes, I could truly build a future with someone in which I have to blackmail my lover to do the laundry. WHAT?! (Yes, if you truly believe in moral relativism, then yes, this would be justification enough for this being construed as “healthy” but holy yesh times ten). 

Omg! I just realized that writers want us to excuse L.exa’s behavior towards Clarke because Le.xa was following her “cultures” ways … omg! Oh, man. Oh, man. Wow, I just had a revelation, and realized that they truly believe that as long as your “culture” says something is okay that it IS okay! Holy shit! Sorry, this is some screwed up way of thinking… . so then we (as an audience for example) are SUPPOSE to be okay with the grounders letting the nightbloods kill each other because it’s “culturally” a thing? So, you’re saying there is NO universal truth or justice that this show is promoting?! Really?! Everyone just sucks? So what’s the point in Becca’s last line in 3x16 then? Or Bellamy’s changing for the better in 3x16? Really?!

Well, my friends, if you honestly think that is true, then good luck trying to get your message out that the “how” matters as much as the “end goal”! So whose “how” is the right how? Huh? How does one determine that? So suddenly we’re suppose to excuse EVERYTHING that everyone did? Is the show honestly promoting moral relativity as a GOOD thing? Really, really? Sorry, my mind was just blown … I mean, yes, I realized that the show was saying “there are no good guys” but I didn’t think they would honestly excuse “unhealthy” behavior as a “good thing” because it’s all morally and culturally relative. Yesh, yesh, yesh.

Anyone else want to add in their two cents to this conversation?

Can this show truly have a moral (a lesson to be learned) to it if it is truly promoting moral relativity as a good thing? See, even the question I just asked is deconstructed by the very idea of moral relativity… that’s why it doesn’t f*cking work!!

thebluenebelung  asked:

I noticed that lots of people who try to say that " You can't accept change. You just have nostalgia goggles on. " Or " It's not supposed to be for our generation so it's fine " Don't realize that most of us tend to like new things of our favorite games, shows, and books! It's just that the reboot is poorly written, the main characters are flanderized, the jokes pander too much to main stream media, and the morals seem to be backwards.

Exactlllyyyyy. Exactly.

When PPGZ started airing, I liked it. It was nuts but it was its own thing so I wasn’t bothered. When Dance Pantsed happened, I liked it. I didn’t like the story too much and it was kinda OOC but I loved the artwork, so I was cool with it. This is honestly the first time for a PPG show that I’m like nope, no, never, this is not right. I’ve never actually been like totally turned off from a PPG thing. This time I am. And for reasons that I can coherently point to.

And I mean, some of my favorite movies are sequels that I like better than the original. Some of my favorite video games are part of huge franchises and there are good games and bad games. And there are reasons for those likes and dislikes way beyond the nostalgia factor or the target audience factor.

karsiofthefreefolk  asked:

So it's bourgeois to support the workers rights? Worker liberation has, and always will be a working class act! As a consumer economy it is our duty to show companies we can't accept slavery. And just as an fyi: charity shops are cheaper than primark

I accused you of “bourgeois moralising” because you were attacking working class people for buying cheap clothes, as though cash strapped working class people are to blame for the exploitation of factory workers overseas. Focusing on working class lifestyles as the problem and letting the system which exploits them off the hook is the trademark of bourgeois morality.

What on earth has ‘ethical consumerism’ got to do with worker’s liberation? I hate to break it to you, but worker’s liberation means more than “fairer” capitalism, and fair trade isn’t even that. 

Here is a four year study from the University of London into fairtrade production. 

It comprehensively rejects the idea that fairtrade certification means better working conditions and higher pay for workers, in fact it found the opposite:

As a simple version of one of the research questions put it: is a poor rural person dependent on access to wage employment for their (and their family’s) survival better served by employment opportunities on certified farms or on non-certified farms? The research findings show
unambiguously that Fairtrade has made no positive difference – relative to other forms of employment in the production of the same crops – to wage workers. Systematically, wage workers in the FTEPR sample in research sites characterised by the presence of Fairtrade certified producer organizations earned less than equivalent workers in research sites without Fairtrade production. A relatively high proportion of wage workers employed in the production of commodities sold to and through Fairtrade certified channels earned less than 60 per cent of the median wage for equivalent work.