Mjollydragon - Insert Witty Comment Here

im going to start a thread of pokemon drawn to the sizes of the things theyre based on

here, i’ll start 

Today in math class:

[Image description: a picture of a blackboard with math written on it. Below the math is the phrase “Pf: I’m too lazy,” followed by a box that signifies the ending of a proof.]

In school we had to read Romeo and Juliet. Now, I’m not sure if you know this, but it has a man and a woman in a relationship. Like, if you want to read that sort of thing, it’s fine with me, but I frankly thing it’s outrageous to indoctrinate our children into thinking that sort of lifestyle is normal. This was a PUBLIC school too. Is that what you want your tax dollars to pay for?

omfg so today I saw a man and a woman holding hands in public, i mean i don’t have anything against heterosexuality but don’t flaunt it in front of me, think of the kids omfg

rest rest REST REST REST REST REST REST

Wow, that was an amazing response.

Usually by inquiring why, as this does, based on the definition of feminism, seem a little bit strange.

You mean by saying that sex should be consensual? Because that’s basically all that feminists are saying.

I've never seen anyone try to control women like a group of feminists

This is by no means an original take, and I probably did not spend as much time as I should have editing the writing into being a coherent take, but:

In an awful lot of movies, Steve Rogers would have been right.

(Or, well, treated-as-right by the narrative, at least; in some of those movies many, many people would have died for his idealism, but this wouldn’t have been treated as wrong.)

When faced with this sort of explicit trolley problem, there are two main messages in pop culture: either you should never pull the level (you might kill a named character) or you should find a way to save everyone. For instance, take The Last Jedi: the narrative treats it as correct that Rose stopped Finn from sacrificing his life, not because his plan wouldn’t have worked, but more-or-less because we don’t trade lives. (Other examples: every fucking YA novel ever. ‘You can choose between your significant other... or saving the world.’ ‘Bye, world.’)

(She is absolutely trading lives, just not in the direction that, you know, saves people.)

(This is not to say that characters never trade off lives! The really obvious example here is that most movies are totally fine with killing the villain to protect innocents, although I’m pretty sure the message is generally closer to “the lives of villains don’t matter” than “pull the lever.” Characters will also sometimes do things like choose which of multiple locations to go to, which is generally understood in their narratives to be trading off lives at least a little. But when there’s this sort of explicit setup, the correct answer as portrayed in the narrative is almost never “pull the lever.”)

Now, I actually can think of counterexamples -- Wrath of Khan is very clear that you should pull the lever, for instance, and since I brought up The Last Jedi earlier I might as well mention Holdo’s choice at the end. But in said counterexamples, the person making the choice is almost always choosing to kill themself, not another person, and they usually would have died anyway.

But when characters are faced with the explicit choice of killing someone, maybe multiple someones, or letting far more people die, the treated-as-correct choice is almost never to kill them. 

And I’m glad that we have a movie where that’s not the case.

Are you okay? Do you need someone to talk to?

and now I’m just mad. no one is answering me. great.