Loving The Ac Twists Recently Usually I’m Watching Shows All “yes We Knew That It’s A Zombie You

““I’m not a moral backbone, per say. I’m more of a moral appendix. I’m here, but I’m apparently useless and sometimes I explode.””

— -Our lawful good but also insanely anxious cleric’s player.

A unique intelligence....

today at my internship the literal words “i love efficiency” came out of my mouth in front of people i want to hire me in the future

if you're a human adult you physically need to eat actual vegetables, read real books, work, exercise, be outdoors, have sex, and have other real adult humans to talk to all on at LEAST a weekly basis or else you go will literally go completely insane and the problem is too many people choose to skip all those basic needs on purpose

Sometimes I think about how and why some people had such a *bad* reaction to the end of Steven Universe, specifically in regards to the Diamonds living.

Even though they no longer are causing harm to others and are able to actually undo some of their previous harm by living, some folks reacted as though this ending was somehow morally suspect. Morally bankrupt, even.

And I think it might be because so many of us were raised on a very specific kind of kids media trope:

They all fall to their deaths.

Disney loves chucking their bad guys off cliffs. And it makes sense- in a moral framework where villains *must* be punished (regardless of whether their death will actually prevent further harm or not), but killing of any kind is morally bad for the hero, the narrative must find a way to kill the villain without the protagonists doing a murder.

It's a moral assumption that a person can *deserve* to die, that it is cosmically just for them to die, that them dying is evidence that the story itself is morally good and correct. Scar *deserves* to die, but it would be bad for Simba to kill him. So....cliff. (edit: yes, cliff then hyenas. But cliff first. Lol.)

Steven Universe, whatever else it's faults, took a step back and said "but if killing people is bad, then people dying is bad", and instead of dropping White Diamond off a cliff, asked "what would actual *restorative*, not punitive, justice look like? What would actual reparations mean here? If the goal is to heal, not just to punish, how do we handle those who have done harm?" And then did that.

Which I think is interesting, and that there was pushback against it is interesting.

It also reminds me of the folks who get very weird about Aang not killing Ozai at the end of Avatar. And like, Ozai still gets chucked in prison, so it doesn't even push back on our cultural ideas of punitive justice *that much.* and still, I've seen people get real mad that the child monk who is the last survivor of a genocide that wiped out his entire pacifist culture didn't do a murder.

so perfectly cyberpunk for cyberpunk 2077 not to have a ‘happy’ ending but doesn’t make it it hurt any fucking less

If anyone's following me who has seen the: they brought dire wolves back articles.

Please understand this is a drastic failure of scientific reporting. What they have done is impressive science, but they have not brought dire wolves back.

They found a few gene fragments that were in dire wolves and manufactured similar in wolves.

To quote a reddit thread: it's like putting a few words of hamlet in another play and claiming its hamlet.

We have put jellyfish genes in cats to make them glow: those cats are not now jellyfish.

It's impressive to be able to identify and insert the genes like that, but these are not dire wolves and, to be frank, do not even resemble current models of dire wolves.

I want to make this clear. It is an impressive scientific achievement.

But the communication here is near outright fraudulent in my opinion.

I am rather dissappointed and can already feel the numerous convos I'm gonna have to have with random people online about this.

I hate being a killjoy.

I was like "Aww a Diglett themed don-- oh"