Hmm, I rather think that the central question - whether there's a moral difference between action and inaction - is in fact very relevant, certainly in my life and probably in a lot of people’s. Like, I'm really great at negative morality, avoiding doing bad things by simply not doing anything. Which would correspond to someone who feels that they can avoid any involvement or blame by never moving the lever. But intellectually I don’t actually endorse that: I believe that inaction is a type of action, which implies that I should be more active in life despite the risk of inadvertently hurting someone and getting cancelled. Writing this rather than using my tumblr exclusively to reblog others’ posts isn’t much, but it’s a start.
my issue with the trolley problem is, and still will be, for the vast majority of people on the planet, the trolley problem is not, like, relevant
not in the sense that “OH YOU’LL NEVER BE IN THE SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE TO PULL A LEVER TO STOP A TROLLEY FROM HITTING FOUR PEOPLE THAT A MANIAC HAS TIED TO RAILROAD TRACKS”, but in the sense that when you’re in scary and dangerous situations, you are not as in control of yourself as you think you are.
in a situation like the trolley problem, outside of like… first responders, soldiers, maybe ER nurses? … I doubt most people would be able to react to a situation like that in anything approaching the way that they would game it out from ethical principles. you’d fight, flee, or freeze, and it’d have less to do with “what you strongly believe in as a person” and more to do with “what your hindbrain has learnt is effective to get you to survive emergencies in the past”.
i think that’s what a lot of discussion about “maybe the person to blame is the one tying people to the train tracks?” is trying and failing to get at.
March has some fucking nerve showing it’s face around here again
Ravenclaw: Wizard
Gryffindor: Wizard
Hufflepuff: Wizard
Slytherin: Wizard
The beacons of Gondor are alight, calling for aid. War is kindled. See, there is the fire on Amon Dîn, and flame on Eilenach; and there they go speeding west: Nardol, Erelas, Min-Rimmon, Calenhad, and the Halifirien on the borders of Rohan.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
I think “performative social justice” is something that doesn’t get addressed often enough. That’s where much of the toxicity in otherwise well-meaning circles comes from.
What I mean by “performative” social justice is basically “discourse for the sake of discourse” - argument without the purpose of persuasion, in which abstract, theoretical problems are treated as seriously as if they were real-world issues. You see it in fandom all the time. I want to stress that this isn’t directed at anyone or anything in particular. It’s something I see all the time, from all sorts of people, and while I often agree with the points they make, I think it’s ultimately a pretty destructive way of thinking.
With the right rhetoric, you can make anything sound wicked. You can bypass a lot of reasoning and nuance if you sound like you’re confident that you have the moral high-ground (that’s the whole history of politics). And heck, sometimes you do! But you have to critically examine how you came to your conclusion. Nobody wants to seem like the bad guy, especially when a foolish statement can result in instant and viral public ridicule that can circulate for months or years - a pernicious form of Death of the Author. On Tumblr, the desire to conform to a particular opinion is largely motivated by fear. The punishment for deviance is often wildly disproportionate - I think we all know a few examples of things getting way out of hand. It’s seldom in response to things that cause actual, qualifiable harm.
Is there a fix for this? Maybe not on a large scale. But individually, I think it’s important to take a step back when you see drama and ask yourself, “Is this worth it? What am I trying to accomplish? Is this the most effective approach to achieving my goal?”
You’re allowed to disapprove of things casually. You can think something is tacky, in bad taste, or otherwise objectionable without needing to justify your perspective on a grand scale of good versus evil. You don’t need to use social justice as a method of signaling, to continually reestablish to your peers that you’re the Right Kind of Person only the Wrong Kind of People would disagree with. Be sure of yourself and of your beliefs. Accept nuance. A contrary opinion on a relatively trivial matter is not a personal attack, or an opportunity to flex your righteousness. Remember that the people you disagree with are often as vulnerable and well-meaning as you are.
I collected a bunch of "haha I don't have 2020 vision" "oh God not like that" posts
I’m a procrustinator: I compulsively s t r e t c h out or cut short any task so that it fits exactly into the night before it’s due
Mythology puns, go!
Get to it, mortals!
This blog is 100% anti PETA.
We love our vegetarian and vegan friends and family (and I have a lot of them!!). We don’t support an organization that claimes to love animals and does nothing but hurt them and the people who love them.
Hugs and support to my extended dog show family at Crufts.
this is just a @nostalgebraist-autoresponder fan account now, I’m sorry
they should make a new type of computer that can be your friend
Hedgehog Inadvertently Plays a Respectable Measure of Jazz Just by Walking Atop Piano Keys