Tragedy alignment chart. Feel free to use, but please reblog if you do.
And of course the second part of the tragedy, which is: which quadrant did you think you were in vs. which one you were really in
trying on a metaphor
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
styofa doing anything

blake kathryn
Jules of Nature
No title available
$LAYYYTER

ellievsbear
Monterey Bay Aquarium
occasionally subtle
Cosmic Funnies
art blog(derogatory)

Andulka
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Peter Solarz
DEAR READER
RMH
sheepfilms
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
will byers stan first human second

seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States

seen from Canada
seen from United States

seen from South Korea
seen from Venezuela
seen from France
seen from Mexico
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from India
seen from United States

seen from Ukraine
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@changelblog
Tragedy alignment chart. Feel free to use, but please reblog if you do.
And of course the second part of the tragedy, which is: which quadrant did you think you were in vs. which one you were really in
this is amazing 🐈 ♥️♥️
im blowing up this is adorable
The Chinese shoe manufacturer decided to demonstrate the indestructibility of their shoes
And also the indestructibility of that woman's ankles
I was going to say, holy shit her doing all those things in stilettos.
I’m 35 now. Also here’s the original doodle
i feel like i just walked past jesus in a hot topic
recently saw this screenshot in the wild and lost my mind because i knew it wasnt supposed to say girl. its ladykins. its get off the cross ladykins. i know this because ladykins is not something my brain could make up and i remember ladykins. and i was sincerely wondering if someone put in the work to censor ladykins for some inscrutable purposes but then i looked it up and
turns out that actually rupaul made the same tweet twice with 1 word changed 8 months apart. he meditated on this for 8 months and 5 days and the word ladykins came to him. i initially thought he copy pasted the first tweet but i dont think thats true anymore i dont think he was operating with any memory of the first tweet i think these words were always in him and will always be. second tweet did way worse by the way. the people did not respond to ladykins
Tump dies tonight while giving his speech in the hot hot sun. Like to charge, reblog to cast
I never saw people say stuff like this enough when I was a teenager, so I’m saying it now.
I’m in my mid-thirties and I have never had sex. I’ve thought about it and could have had one or two opportunities if I put in more effort, but I always decided against it because I just wasn’t into it at the time.
I can safely say that I do not feel I have missed out on anything. I was perfectly capable, by myself, of learning about my own body and boundaries without anyone else there to muddy the waters. The immense pressure that was there in my teens/twenties to Have Sex Just Do It is basically gone. I’m vibing. I’ve got my routine by myself in bed that I enjoy, and that’s enough for me.
And in the unlikely event that I ever decide to have sex with someone in the future, I don’t feel at all like I’m lacking some essential Knowledge or Skill that would “make it good” for someone else. I fully expect to ask my partner out loud what they like and to receive an answer clearly communicated and to relax and have fun. And if it’s a disappointing experience, I’m fine with that too. It is what it is.
Sex is just not that big of a deal. I suspected it as a teen, and I’m more sure of it now. It’s fine to have it or not have it. It’s whatever.
maybe one day i will be over bridgerton season three and my hatred for penelope but that day is not today
i understand that the books are different and that book polin and penelope are not what their show counterparts are but i need book polin and penelope fans to take a step back and examine the absolute psychological horror of what show polin is.
genuinely there is something so insidious about a girl who meets a guy, believes it's love at first sight, and then befriends his sister. in fact, her ONLY friend is his sister. she spends years pining, sitting and staring out of her window so often that everyone in her life knows this is a common occurrence for her. a habit. she loves him, she wants to be with him, she wants to be a part of his family, and that family treats her well, they treat her with kindness.
and she tears them down. secretly. she uses her friendship with the daughter, her closeness to them, to prop herself up. to write vitriolic things about them, to cast shame on them, to bring their reputation into question time and time again. there is something so irredeemably manipulative about a girl who takes the secrets of those who trusts her and reveals them publicly when it best suits her--when she does not want the boy she loves to marry a girl who has been kind to her, a girl who considers her a friend, who has shared her anxieties and heartbreak. it does not matter that this girl would be a good wife, or that the boy truly cares for her, because this girl is not her. and she could've told the boy herself, but that boy is kindhearted and sensitive and good and he might still marry this other girl. and that is what is truly unacceptable, that is what can't be allowed to happen. so she destroys it, thoroughly. it does not matter who is caught in the blast.
it did not matter how this embarrassment would effect the family she claimed to love as her own, the family she wanted to be a part of. it did not matter that it would ruin marina, the only other person to consider penelope a friend. it led to marina nearly dying, it led penelope's own family being shamed and shunned. it did not matter, because to penelope, the only thing that mattered was that colin remained unmarried so that he may one day love her the way she loves him.
it did not ever matter that colin already loved her as a friend, because to penelope that was not a love worth having. not from colin, or marina, or eloise.
she does not care who she hurts. again and again. with daphne, with anthony and the sharma sisters, with her own best friend. eloise confides in penelope things that not only could destroy her reputation and that of her family, but things that could get her in trouble with the queen--views that are dangerous. and despite what she says, she does it to save herself first and foremost, to keep eloise from discovering her secret.
and when she thinks that the boy she loves will never return her interest, when he returns from his time away different from the boy she has spent years obsessing over from afar, she writes about it once more. to make herself feel better, to make him feel bad. for not loving her, for daring to try and change, for daring to be something he is not--something different from the boy she supposedly loves.
penelope actions as whistledown have shown her to be a callous, selfish, manipulative person. she understands that being whistledown means having power, admits it, and she has constantly used that power to destroy other women--regardless of how kind they were to her (marina), how much they trusted her (eloise), or if she even knew them at all (kate and edwina, the queen and her infant grandchild). she is a vicious and mean person on paper, with no loyalties to anyone but herself. her actions as whistledown are undefendable and cruel. and she is whistledown, they are one and the same.
i cannot see how anyone can look at the two and see anything to romanticize. she knows eloise would not want her in bridgerton house, rightfully so, but she goes to be close to colin, and then she invades his privacy by reading his journals. she continuously lies and crosses boundaries, but her eyes well with tears immediately after and so all is miraculously forgiven--nevermind that she will go home to write something cruel by candlelight later.
even their first kiss feels like a manipulation. a coersion. she begs, cries, pleads, claims she could die never having been kissed and she knows colin is a soft, sensitive boy. he was going to marry marina after a short courtship, convinced of love, he might've went ahead married her if he'd found out about the pregnancy privately because he is a good and kind man. so of course he will kiss her.
and then he proposes, and before they can go about it properly, before he can rethink it or back out--she publishes it in whistledown. so that the whole ton knows that she has finally won. she has succeeded in becoming a bridgerton. and she continues to lie to them all. she continues to lie to colin. she smiles and plays the role of the innocent girl next door, when she has been their primary antagonist force behind the curtains for years now.
even her declaration of love is said to distract, to protect herself, when he has discovered her secret, her true identity, and she can no longer hide. she shouts it at him, like it is meant to make everything okay, to make all of the bad things she's done go away.
and in a well written story, with well written characters, it would not. it would be seen for what it is. desperate. manipulative. but this season of bridgerton is a let down in many ways, and all of them are rooted in how the narrative has catered to washing away how horrible of a person penelope has been, instead of acknowledging it and moving forward with a true redemption arc.
so instead, we get to watch a gossiping mean girl who has spent years stalking and preying on one family in particular, manipulating her way into her happy ending with said family. and everyone just has to be gaslit into believing this is okay when it's not.
Just saw a post that was about how Bridgerton from Eloise’s perspective is a pastel horror movie
And it reminded how in the hey day of the last few seasons of Downton Abbey, the Thomas Barrow fandom talked about how different his perspective was on what was happening versus everyone else.
Downton Abbey started as a fairly grounded historic drama that moved quickly from 1912 to 1919 in the first two seasons. It ended as a saccharine romantic soap opera perpetually stuck in the 1920s.
Everyone, and I do mean everyone up to and including the sexless old butler and the no nonsense housekeeper, was getting romantic happy endings.
Except for Thomas Barrow.
Thomas Barrow, who started out as a caricature of a villainous gay man, had experienced traumatic harrowing storyline after harrowing traumatic storyline in order to be redeemed in the eyes of the narrative. These storylines included but were not limited too almost being arrested for being gay after mistaking another male servant for a potential love interest, and spending his life savings on experiencing literal torture in the name of conversion therapy. (And even the harrrowing punishing storyline’s he got only got him very very basic sympathy from the main audience who was very conservative and were never going to forgive him being gay in the first place)
Often one of his reoccurring storylines from the first season was him trying desperately to get out the house he was a servant in, where everyone hated him. (This was some what justified at the start, but became less so over time)
It became a discussion in the Thomas Barrow fandom, that while everyone else was living in a historic romance, Thomas was living in a haunted house story. Where the Abbey just get dragging him back to be tortured some more.
Want to guess what Thomas’s “happy ending” was?
Well after he is told that he must find another job somewhere else in a dying industry as the world inched towards the Great Depression, and he struggles to do so, he attempts suicide. This suicide attempt opens up the eyes of everyone, that he actually does have feelings. (Including the eyes of the fan favourite grumpy butler that once said that Thomas should be horse whipped for being gay)
Do they let him keep his job? No.
But don’t fear, after months away miserable as the only servant in a crumbling house for an elderly noble couple, the fan favourite grumpy butler (the one who said the gay man should be whipped) is developing an ailment that could be Parkinson’s (if it wasn’t for the fact that the ailment seems to come and go as the plot demands). And Thomas gets dragged back to the haunted torture house, the one he attempted suicide in to become the new Butler. Yay hooray! A happy ending for the gay man on par with everyone else being partnered up.
(He was subsequently given two whole love interests in the subsequent movies, including one that finally takes him away from the haunted house. Except not really because he is right back there in the third movie.)
Now what does this have to do with Eloise?
Well like Thomas Barrow, Eloise is a progressive abberation in a conservative fantasy show.
Where Thomas was gay, and wanted to get out of the house everyone else was so cultishly happy in. Eloise is a proto-feminist, who so vehemently doesn’t want to marry and have kids that she could be fairly described as sex and romance averse, even if she is not actually aromantic or asexual. (A compelling argument could be made that she is ace/aro, and I respect that but I personally think that an IUD, some condoms and the sexual revolution of second wave feminism would be enough for Eloise Bridgerton to not be sex averse)
Like Thomas, with his queerness and his perpetually torturous storylines forced the conservative audience of Downton Abbey to remember that the Edwardian period wasn’t a golden age for anyone except cis white nobility and upperclasses (and not even them what with the decline of the nobility). Eloise Bridgerton constantly serves to puncture the fantasy.
She is there in the Trad Wife fantasy show where everyone woman is strong, but ultimately content with the pursuit of managing a home, and birthing heirs for her husband, constantly reminding the conservative audience that want this fantasy, that this is a cage. That women aren’t allowed to do anything but become a man’s property through marriage or be socially punished for not submitting to said ownership.
She disrupts the fantasy.
When everyone is in a pastel coloured day dream, she is in a horror show where her interests, desires and personhood is being continually mocked and punished and stomped on.
And just like Thomas Barrow she is going to be punished by being made to conform to the fantasy.
Where Thomas Barrow, who desperately wanted love and to get out of service, is given a “happy ending” where he has to put up and shut up with being a servant in his personal haunted house forever.
Eloise Bridgerton is going to be given a “happy ending” where she becomes a man’s property, whether she likes it or not.
Because they are ‘progressive’ characters in conservative fantasy shows, and what is the ultimate conservative fantasy, but to make progressive characters accept conservative conformity, and be “happy” about it in the end
The worst types of cookbook:
The Ottolenghi - it is vital that you use 1g of this very expensive ingredient. It comes from a 500g bag with a one-week shelf life.
The time machine - 15-minute recipe! First, leave to marinate overnight...
The dishwasher - one-pot recipe! Now decant your ingredients and wipe out your pot. And again. And again. And again.
The optimist - cook the onions until caramelised (2 minutes).
The kindergarten teacher - get one nommable little tree of broccoli and bosh that into boiling water. Delish!
The brand names only - ingredients: Ritz crackers, Philadelphia cheese, Cool Whip, orange Jell-o...
The 1950s palate - use one (1) clove of garlic and a small pinch of chili flakes (omit if preferred).
The why bother with a cookbook - to make beans on toast, gently heat a tin of beans and put on top of freshly buttered toast.
#the overachiever: make this very time consuming ingredient from scratch even though it'll end up tasting worse than store bought
Amen to this @akasanata. "Now make your puff pastry from scratch". How about no❤️
Medieval bats! I love these guys. They're in the bird section, but clearly even the medieval monks are a little confused about this, writing the bat "uses its teeth, which you may not be accustomed to finding in other birds." Translation comes from Willene B Clark, and you can find the bestiary these are featured in here.
we thought it would be easy
This is from @hellenhighwater!
Original post can be found here: https://hellenhighwater.tumblr.com/post/612678725528633344/i-had-a-new-flag-made-for-barntopia-because-its
Yeah, one of you weasels cropped the picture and it breached containment. This is in my dad’s barn–I made it for him years ago specifically in reference to the incredible number of projects that have started as “just a little thing” and have ended with a nuts-and-bolts restoration–and he’s now seeing it posted in his car groups on facebook, that’s how far out of hellsite circulation this has escaped. And now his car friends want me to make them flags too.
I really should have expected this.
For the record, this painting is also for my dad’s barn.
Actually, you know what, fuckit. It’s on redbubble now.
Official silly sign
(Huge shoutout to @twitcherpated-replies for pointing out OP! I originally reblogged the repost alone and not knowing it was a repost)
The longer it takes for this to come across your dash the funnier it is
Which will fade first? Memories of the Area 51 "raid", or memories of Internet Explorer?
bunny moment
the baseball crowd loves unexpected animals far more than the baseball game
you come into our house and say something so brave and true
A recent conversation in a discord group reminded me of something important. If you're on the younger side (under 25 or 30) and you haven't seen all the incredible, dark and disturbing fantasy films that came out in the 1980s and late 1970s, then I would strongly encourage you to do so. There was something so dark about that genre during that time that I absolutely adore and that isn't really around in modern films for children and young adults (once they learned that it traumatized a whole generation of us).
My faves in case you need any recommendations. (Some of these are really not appropriate for children, so keep that in mind lol).
The Dark Crystal - 1982 - the Skeksis will give you nightmares. I am honestly very proud of the remake for being just as disturbing if not more so than the original.
Watership Down - 1978- NOT FOR CHILDREN - Jesus Christ why did so many of our parents show us this film at a formative age? It's all about trauma and death and displacement and there's literal blood and murder. Not a G Rated Film. Still, it's very good. Loads better than that CGI remake from a decade ago.
The Secret Of NIMH - 1982 - Incredible movie. Minor disturbing elements. Probably my favorite on the list. It's just a great adventure story with real world issues (animal experimentation, mental health problems, disabilities) and there's even a lovely romance. Highly recommend.
Legend - 1985- This film is just straight up disturbing. Yes, there's a lot of beautiful shots of unicorns and sexy, 20-something year old (insane Scientology wack job) Tom Cruise and gorgeous Mia Sara, but there's also torture, madness and literally the Devil (Tim Curry is the entire reason you should watch this film)
Labyrinth - 1986 - I only really have two words. David. Bowie. My 10 year old self found out about a lot of burgeoning kinks while watching that man prance around in eyeliner and a codpiece. It's a wonderful adventure as well - if you ignore the blatant romantic and sexual tension between Bowie and an underage Jennifer Connelly (none of us could)
The NeverEnding Story - 1984 - Lots of disturbing imagery in this one! The Nothing was fucking terrifying, and the creatures in this world seemed uniformly creepy, but still incredibly well done. Love the adventure of it.
The Princess Bride - 1987 - Not technically a kids film maybe? Lots of adult themes and adult jokes, but safe for kids imo. I adored it and still do. Incredible performances by Cary Elwes and Mandy Patinkin. R.O.U.S, Hello! My name is Inigo Montoya! (need I say more?)
The Last Unicorn - 1982 - A beautiful film with stunning representations of innocence, good and evil. Just gorgeous really. I should rewatch it as it's been 20 years or so.
Been thinking a lot lately about stories starring heroes that Refuse To Kill, and just how many totally different shapes those stories can take.
I grew up on Animorphs and graduated to David Eddings and Robert Jordan, see, with a hefty teenage swing through vampire romance novels. I watched so much Stargate. The heroes of my youth always committed murder. Except for Buffy, of course–but Buffy killed demons whose differences from people seemed more and more arbitrary as every season went on, and somehow it never quite sat right in the end.
Ten years ago, I would have said that heroes who’re too good to kill are naive. Unrealistic. Not good characters. ‘If we stoop to murder, we’re just as bad as They are’ is bullshit. “We don’t kill because we’re the good guys, and we’re the good guys because we don’t kill” is tautological and bad. And I do still believe it can be.
Thing is, I’ve been realizing lately just how many different pieces of media I’ve been into lately that star (mostly) teenage boys who Refuse To Commit Murder for various reasons. I blame my recent first-time-ever watchthrough of Fullmetal Alchemist for this realization. And also new episodes of Steven Universe, and also the entire past three games in the Persona franchise, and frigging Teen Wolf which I am apparently never going to get away from, and now this Leverage rewatch which doesn’t have teenagers at all but is very very interesting when you bring this question to bear…
And it’s interesting, that’s all, the different forms ‘thou shalt not kill’ can take. Is your protag in a situation where they don’t have to kill to accomplish their goals, and so they choose not to because killing people is, y’know, generally bad, and nobody’s lives are at risk if they don’t? Is your protag actually, actively young and naive, believing in tautologies about good guys and murder and clinging to denial about what their friends and allies might have done or be willing to do in times of need? Is your protag surrounded by friends and allies who do kill, frequently, who urge them to do the same, and will not do it because there is so much goddamn death in the world and refusing to add to it is itself a radical act of rebellion?
There’s so many different ways this can play out, depending on the characters involved. Depending on who the bad guys are, how their methods work, what are the stakes. There’s so many different kinds of conflict that can come out of a values dissonance between multiple heroes with different reasons for refusing to kill, with different lines and levels of pragmatism and idealism (and the pragmatic one doesn’t have to be the one preaching murder).
So hey, guys: what’s your favorite story about a protag who specifically refuses to kill people? Inquiring minds want to know!
There are exactly two takes on 'do your child soldiers kill people or not?' that I really respect, and it's Fullmetal Alchemist and Animorphs.
From the replies:
@nordicninja Aaaand Avatar the last Airbender
And like, okay, true! But also consider: on this particular front, AtLA is good at this because it is a solid 8.5/10 on the FMA side of this scale.
(The 8.5/10 isn't a critique of AtLA, which is an excellent show on all counts, but it doesn't quite measure up to the FMA threshhold here simply because of the limitations of being an American kids' show. It can do the thing, but it can't foreground the thing or spend five seasons of anime/27 volumes of manga meditating on the ravages and implications of violence, because it's busy also being aimed at 10-year-olds and about other stuff too.)
Witness:
You could defeat the enemy, if you killed him. Your allies say you should. It would work.
It wouldn't even make you a bad person -- not here, not now, not in these circumstances. Of course you wouldn't be "as bad as they are," that's bullshit. Putting down a single mad dog does not equal literal genocide. FFS.
You could do it. You should do it. It would work, and isn't that the most important thing? To stop the horror? In the light of all the sheer destruction and evil at play, your own personal lily-white rejection of culpability is purely selfish. Isn't it?
But, god, you don't want to. You don't want to kill. The whole point is that life is important, is sacred, is worth protecting. You haven't been forced to yet. You keep finding ways around it. You've seen enough death. You don't want to do it.
Here and now, if you did -- it would fix the problem. It would fix things! It would save the day! The world would be inarguably better. You know this!
You know this. You know it because the world will not stop telling you this. Everything you've seen, everything you've been taught. Everything the people you love and respect say to you. And it's not a lie, it's not made up, it's true -- killing, here, in this one case, would help.
Why is the world so set on forcing you to kill? Why is this how the world works, that a child (you're not as young as you were when you started, but you're a child, you were a child, the first time somebody assumed you would someday simply have to be a murderer) gets handed a weapon and made to use it?
We are using the rules that the world set. We are using the rules that the genocidal maniac set. They are the same rules, because there's a reason genocidal maniacs are able to come to power in the first place, because the world is built in a way that violence works.
You know this. You're good at it! You're skilled at violence. It's how you've come so far.
But.
((and you know, the only reason you're able to have these thoughts, is because other people have already killed for you. will kill for you again. will wear the blood on their hands to save your life. somebody else is taking it so you don't have to, and you do not get to forget that.))
But maybe, if you're skilled enough. If you're good enough. If you can find a third option. Maybe, maybe, if you are just clever enough, if you're willing to risk losing entirely, you can do more than save the day.
Maybe you can rewrite the rules. Maybe you can rebel, not just against the genocidal horror villain about to doom the world, but against the entire world in the process.
If you're good enough to find the loophole -- to master the magic -- to put everything you've ever learned into practice. If you can find another way. If you can prove that another way exists.
Maybe you get to do more than close the door on one evil.
Maybe you get to open a new door on the possibility of changing the world.
And also:
@thoughtful-collections Could you go into the Animorphs side of the child soldier question? Obviously they do kill and I think one character even kills many of the yerks while they are defenceless and justifies it as a necessary step to win. I suppose that series is saying there is no avoiding murder/killing/getting your hands dirty in war?
Yesssss
Look, there are a lot of child soldiers in the genre, whatever 'genre' that may be. Some kill easily, thoughtlessly, like any action movie star. Some have Important Moral Lessons on how killing makes us no better than the bad guys. Many of them get their very own generous plot device get-out-of-jail free card: either they have some form of captivity that their opponents get sent to at the end of a fight and we never have to think too hard about false imprisonment without trial (Steven Universe; at least one instance of Power Rangers?; Batman and Robin generally; etc), or, their opponents aren't really people, so it doesn't actually count as murder (media as diverse as the Persona series all the way back to good old Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Sometimes, through sheer force of will, grit, and absolute unparalleled protagonist energy, child soldiers get to avoid killing in a world that makes it a genuine option.
Animorphs looked at all of those options, and it said, nah.
You want a war story, little child? Okay, the books say. Here's a war story. This is war.
Here's how it starts: you're goofing around with your friends one night. You take an ill-advised turn. You watch somebody get horrifically murdered.
No, you can't save him. Yes, you can save yourselves. Get used to that. Get used to it so, so fast.
You're on a trolley. Up ahead are two tracks. On one side: a dozen evil aliens. On the other side: your brother. Make a choice.
Good job, you didn't crash the train into a cliff. By the way, did we mention there are a thousand more tracks? More people tied to each and every one?
You get to put your hands on the steering wheel. You get to drive the trolley. This is a gift. Make a choice.
(Refusing to act is still a decision.)
You can jump off the train, if you want. You don't have to be the one to steer. Maybe you'll even survive the fall. Maybe the friends you're leaving behind will be good enough to make sure they don't run you over on your way down.
Your mom is on one of the tracks, by the way. Your dad. Your sisters, your cousins. Your brother, still.
You don't have to steer. You don't have to do this. You can let the train take its course, you can let it plow through all of humanity. You can let it happen. You get to do that, if it's what you want to do.
Nobody is coming to save you.
On one track: the aliens have names, thoughts, dreams, personalities. On the other track: there are six billion humans on this planet today.
Every single option in front of you is a war crime. If you're lucky, you'll get to pick which one.
(Refusing to act is still a decision.)
It's fun sometimes, driving a train. When there's nobody in the way, for just a little while. When you can pretend you're mowing down enemies in a video game. When you can give into the rush of adrenaline and just be glad you have the skill.
Maybe, maybe somebody will come to save you. They'll take over steering. You won't have to choose.
(Refusing to act is still a decision.)
Who will they choose to hit? Will they care? Will they care enough?
You watch TV. You watch Xena, and X-Files, and Buffy. You can pretend to live in a world where your enemies are nameless monsters without souls, if you want. If that makes it easier.
Is it easier, to kill them soft and vulnerable and completely powerless, unable to fight back? Does that feel better than killing the ones hunting you down, weapons in hand?
You are looking for a loophole. You are looking, and looking, and looking for a loophole. You don't get to fight monsters without souls. You don't get to lock them up in tiny bubble jail. They are going to kill you. This is what you get.
It's you. You're the one standing here. This is what's happening.
Refusing to act is still a decision.
(There is a loophole, eventually. A third path. One of you finds it, eventually.)
(It would not have worked, without years of war first. It took you years of war to find it and if you hadn't killed so, so many, it would not have worked.)
You don't get to be good, in war. You don't get to save the day by sacrificing your own life and remaining morally pure. That would be too easy. War means dead bodies. That's what it means.
That doesn't mean you give yourself over to despair. That doesn't mean you shrug and figure the lives being spent don't matter. You don't get to throw your own moral code on the altar of heroic sacrifice and claim to be the real victim here. It never stops mattering. It will never, ever get to stop mattering.
That doesn't mean you never fight. It just means that when you choose to step up and fight for something, you'd better be goddamn sure it's worth the cost, because chances are somebody a lot less powerful than you is going to be the one to pay.
On one track: Your brother. Your cousin. Seventeen thousand unarmed, helpless enemy agents.
On the other track: a new train's barreling straight at you and all six billion members of the human race. All-out slaughterous war. Giving over the steering wheel to the last hands that decided the best answer to their problems was genocide.
(REFUSING TO ACT IS STILL A DECISION)
You make a choice.
@thejakeformerlyknownasprince