Women of Marvel #1 - “Sing Your Heart Out” (2023)

THAT girl ✨

world’s finest: our worlds at war #1

The vampire uprising begins!

Blood Hunt #1

We are basically watching as Zionists go from "Israel would stop levelling down entire buildings on top of civilians if Hamas just agrees to a hostage deal!! Why won't Hamas just give us the hostages?!!"

To, well, this

In real fucking time. You couldn't say "we don't give a fuck about the hostages" any louder. And let's not even get started with the Hamas elimination part because you and I both know that is the most deranged goal and that literally no one believes it to be achievable. Absolutely everyone knows it's a ploy to excuse more mass murder with the goal of exterminating Palestinians and you have to be really very fucking stupid to believe otherwise.

“Out!”

Jack Burnley

Read JSA (1999) recently and learned that Crimson Avenger was also considered the Spirit of Vengeance, which inspired this.

Hal Jordan 🤝 Jill Carlyle = Unwilling Agents of Vengeance

children existing in public spaces is genuinely like. necessary for the continuation of society. it doesnt have to be your kids you dont have to volunteer at a daycare or whatever but you need to be able to tolerate the presence of someone who is learning how to exist as a human and interact with people

Painted in procreate on iPad pro.

ophelia..

Scalped and beheaded multiple times

“If a woman is an analogy to you, you’re not ready to be talking to a woman” omg you’re so right bestie

.☝🏻☝🏻

Okay let me try this one again. The Trolley Problem sets up a scenario that sucks to be in. You either kill one guy, or you kill five guys. Nobody likes these options. We all don't want this be happening. That's kind of the point. It's a moral quandary. It's supposed to feel bad.

Now, according to a recent post floating around on tumblr, choosing either of the two options demonstrates "learned helplessness" and makes you a neolib sheep. The only correct answer, the post states, is to reject the question altogether. (Or to change the parameters of the question to include an option that saves everyone, thus eliminating the moral quandary.)

It sounds nice, doesn't it? Fuck this bad situation, we control our imaginations, so let's imagine a situation that doesn't suck. Hah! Bet you didn't think of that!

Here's the problem. Even though I think most situations generally have at least one solution that is both Feasible and Not Terrible, I have to admit that there are some situations (as in, not zero of them) where all the feasible options are unpleasant. This is a natural consequence of living in a world where A Lot Of Things Suck.

But if shitty situations do exist, even if it's super super rare, then it's not unreasonable to ask, "How should we make decisions when we find ourselves in a shitty situation?"

This is the beginning premise of the Trolley Problem. It says, "Hey what if you were in an unambiguously shitty situation? There are many shitty situations, so let's imagine one that is contrived enough to get everyone on the same page regardless of political affiliation, AND really emphasizes the key parts that I want to discuss."

Tumblr says "let me stop you right there. What if instead...we imagined a different scenario that wasn't as shitty?"

Well, okay, but then we're not talking about the same thing anymore. That doesn't actually count as an answer to the problem, you're just changing the subject to a completely different thing.

Tumblr goes on to say, "Exactly. That's the only thing you should ever do when confronted with an ethical quandary. Frankly the fact that you are willing to even consider a scenario that sucks suggests that you are fundamentally incapable of considering less shitty scenarios."

I just want to say I think that's bullshit. I don't think every problem is a trolley problem, but I do think that some problems are a trolley problem. And I think that those problems are worth discussing, even though they don't feel good. The trolley problem exists as a framework to discuss those problems.

Maybe our aversion to difficult decisions has an impact on our ethical reasoning, and maybe we should actually question how our ethical standards hold up under the weight of that aversion. So maybe moral quandaries like the trolley problem are worth discussing. And if you don't want to engage with the quandary, then don't - you don't have to concoct a whole essay about how the quandary is inherently morally bad.

It's possible that what you really want to say is that it sucks when people treat certain situations as trolley problems, when those specific situations actually do contain unambiguously feasible and unambiguously perfect solutions. I would agree with that.

But like. Let's not pretend that you can reduce all of ethics down to unchallenging black and white moralism.

not pointing any fingers but some of you would get caught on these fish lures