#personal morality

[hopeymchope]

I’m talking about it being considered “problematic” Sense people already seem so be shitting on it on Twitter.

Note: This is a follow-up to this ask.

Oh. I never paid much attention to that.

The main reason people seem to think it's "problematic" is usually because of Chihiro not being canonically and undeniably trans... which is so fundamentally misguided and dumb to me that it feels like a misinformation campaign. It's the Fox News of bad takes.

Although I don't begrudge anyone their right to support/boycott media of their choosing, I also find the entire notion of "not supporting anything problematic" to be both exhausting and impossible.

Rant Time:

See, a few years back I watched this long documentary about how some popular movies were made in a way that was very bad for the local actors' union. It was enlightening and disheartening, of course, but it had a bigger point: It ended with the thesis that once you become an adult, you have the responsibility to be mindful about the media you consume, always researching them so that you never support any immoral decisions, damaging content, or bad people.

To which I say: Fuck. That.

Every major piece of media requires massive corporations to produce. Every movie or video game or TV show takes hundreds, sometimes even a THOUSAND people or more to create. And I'm supposed to be held responsible for supporting or not supporting every decision, every aspect of the content, every person involved? I'm supposed to only buy a ticket to a movie if I want to support some mega-conglomerate? (Spoiler: I will *never* want that.) This notion is not only literally impossible, it's also a guarantee that I should never watch or play or read ANYTHING EVER. You are probably supporting a bad thing if you consume ANYTHING, because so many people are involved and so many choices are made along the way there.

Like... there was probably a violent criminal who worked on Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood for a while. It ran long enough and saw enough rotation of side staff that it's statistically likely to be true. It's damn near certain. But I'm not gonna be held responsible for whether some loathesome bit-part actor on that show gets a residual handed to his family in the form of pennies years later. The overall vibe/message you're supporting is obviously NOT one of such negativity, so there's no foul to me there. You get what I'm saying?

I believe we should take joy and immersion where we find it, and if I'm being real, a huge chunk of what I enjoy in media is likely "problematic" to others. I tend to enjoy being challenged in very specific ways that would probably be uncomfortable for other people. They don't need to consume what I do anymore than I need to stop doing so for their sake. To each their own!

And yeah, maybe sometimes there's a larger force at play. Maybe sometimes you feel compelled to take a big, symbolic stand because the cause at the heart of that stand - the "problematic" thing perpetrated by the content in question - is just too great, or PERCEIVED to be too great. And that's your right -- I always encourage people to do what seems like the right thing to them, sure. Boycott anything branded with the Wizarding World if you want - that makes sense, I get what you're saying!

But for me? I prefer to focus on the BIG stuff. The stuff that is obviously rooted in and doing nothing but pushing horrible causes. For example: I would never want someone to support Matt Walsh's bullshit "documentary" about how trans people are fake because he's a horrible human being who makes money off horrible human beings by creating horribly wrong, hateful things. That's an EASY decision. I would never watch or want to hang with someone who watches Newsmax, because they are liars who are attempting to engender hatred and fear to divide us. EASY decision. Some stuff, you can tell from 10 miles away that it's just there to spread and support hate. It serves no other purpose. That's the shit you can and should very easily avoid giving a dime to.

But like, if you watch horror movies, are you supporting the idea that violence/murder is entertaining? Sounds problematic! NAH. I don't buy that. Miss me with that shit.

[lilyminer]

Grew up and discovered “having my own personal opinions about things I don’t shove haphazardly into a box so I can signal to other members of The Correct Group that I am indeed A Good One.”

Turns out I like it much better that way, I feel more like myself and I’m not as angry at certain “types of people” on principle anymore.

[strongagnostic]

Hundreds of Reasons not to be Religious #195

Most religions believe in moral evil, but they either don’t understand it or they do not apply their own teaching concerning immorality. Religions should remember that people must consider their own actions to be immoral in order for them to be immoral people. The mindset of the sinner determines whether it is a sin or not. If religions remembered this, they would not be so critical of those who think differently.

A murderer is not immoral if he believes it is justified, such as self defense. Most religions believe this. A woman who has an abortion is not immoral if she believes it is justified. But many religions consider her immoral, however.

A seriously mentally ill person is not immoral if he/she does not know what is wrong. Again, most religions agree. A gay couple is not immoral unless they consider themselves immoral. But many religions consider them immoral, however.

A person who follows their conscience, even in error, can not be immoral. Again, most religions agree. An Islamist who believes that killing infidels is Allah's work, is not immoral. But many religions consider him immoral, however. The Islamist is no more immoral than a police officer who kills an unarmed man, if they both believe that they are not doing wrong. This example is hard to accept, but these are misguided people, not immoral people. .

Catholics who divorce or practice forbidden birth control are not immoral. Episcopalians who convert to Catholicism are not immoral. Jews who oppose Israel are not immoral. Islamic women who wear revealing dresses are not immoral. Hindus who eat beef are not immoral. Buddhists who enjoy the luxury of great wealth are not immoral......etc......etc...

If religions accepted that people who believe differently from them are every bit as moral as the good people in their own religion, which they only do on a selective basis, then there would be more tolerance of diversity.

[taltsfany]

Dad, how do we make the world a better place?

Dad, how do we make the world a better place?

Wow, that’s a big question.

Thanks Dad.

But it’s a wrong question to ask.

Hmm…, why? That’s what we talked about in school today

I wish they taught you more concrete and effective things about the world in school. But anyway, let me explain. Question – what is “the world”?

This planet, and all the people on it.

Okay. Are all people the same?

No, each person is different.

Right, each one of us is…

View On WordPress

[lindseydunn]

It's so mind blowing

how a single thing (big or small) can have such an unexpected impact on your life. So fascinating how different people are and how each and every one of us takes things in and uses them mentally different from one another. Philosophy is an eye-opener and with the more you learn the more enlightened you feel about the world around you. 

[mindyfeaj-blog]

Ask Yourself to be Moral

Ask Yourself to be Moral Before you can be a moral person, you must have a valid moral philosophy. Ask Yourself to be Moral teaches you the two questions you need to ask yourself to help ensure that your personal morality is something you can be confident in.The book also includes copious examples of errors in moral reasoning, and more than a hundred pages of practical examples of moral thinking to help you develop your personal morality. Although the book does not have a religious agenda, both atheists and theists will find challenges to their deepest-held beliefs.No matter whether your morality is grounded in faith or reason, Ask Yourself to be Moral will help you develop it to its fullest potential.

[nessuxq027-blog]

Capital Offenses: The Geography of Class and Crime in Victorian London (Victorian Literature and Culture Series)

Capital Offenses: The Geography of Class and Crime in Victorian London (Victorian Literature and Culture Series) As London became the first major city of the nineteenth century, new models of representation emerged in the journalism, poetry, fiction, and social commentary of the period. Simon Joyce argues that such writing reflected a persistent worry about the problem of crime but was never able to contain it. Such commentators as Wordsworth, Dickens, Mayhew, Stevenson, Conan Doyle, Booth, and Wilde all struggled with the same questions about how to represent London and the relations among its varied populations, yet their accounts often undermined one another. Whereas Victorian social science presumed a correlation between criminal activity, geographical residence, and social class, the popular literature of the period often sought just as strenuously to deny the link, giving rise to privileged and pathological offenders like Dorian Gray and Dr. Jekyll. This in turn shifted attention away from the urban slums that had been the setting for the so-called Newgate novels of the 1830s and 1840s. By 1900, crime appears as a distinctively modern problem, requiring large-scale solutions and government intervention in place of an older approach that was rooted in personal morality or philanthropic paternalism.Illustrating "literary geography" -- in which physical space is not merely a backdrop for the plot but an integral element in shaping textual meaning -- Simon Joyce's Capital Offenses reveals how certain geographical patterns can not only give weight to interpretive meanings already suggested in the texts but also enable us to read them in a new and surprising light.Victorian Literature and Culture Series