#i didn't think the leopards would eat my face says woman who voted for leopards eating people's faces party | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

keepthedelta · 2 months

Note

the first three I get but george fans and max fans? really?

it's specifically george fans who hate nico. because, to me, they are the f1 equivalent of "but i didn't think the leopards would eat my face" cries woman who voted for the face eating leopard party. like, they hate the way the things george says and does are taken out of context or manipulated to make it seem like he's rude or mean or self interested. they're outraged at the way that george (and they) are treated by lewis' notoriously bullying fanbase, and think it's unfair if lewis seems to be prioritised over george by the team, by the media. they think george should be allowed to race for his own benefit without being demonised for it.

but they're completely fine when that happens to nico. in fact, they think it should happen to nico, because what they actually object to is not the behaviour itself, it's the targeting of george.

and again, it's not max fans, it's specifically the ones who call lewis mid in an attempt to uplift max. who very much does not need that help, he's driving on another level at the moment. lewis is a phenomenal driver, he wouldn't have won so many races and so many championships if he weren't, and while i think it's totally reasonable not to like him, i think it's just stupid to pretend like he isn't a great racer. i also hate it because these fans like to use nico beating lewis to a championship as "proof" even though nico was a fantastic racer in his own right.

like whoever you want, dislike whoever you want, but imo f1blr would be a much calmer place if we could be honest about drivers and ourselves

#asks #anon

6 notes · View notes

ryehouses · 1 year

Note

I don't remember clone wars SUPER well, but wasn't Bo's whole goal to get Viszla on the Mando throne, not Maul? She did accidentally help Maul get there, but it was never her goal, and she did immediately fight to dethrone him. Like Qui-gon is pretty responsible for creating Darth Vader but we don't blame him. Am I missing something???

hold on let me put on my philosophy hat! star wars meta under the cut, because this is way better than looking at contracts:

tldr, for folks that don't want to read a treatise: clone wars era bo-katan is like the shocked pikachu meme, in which bo-katan is running around with a bunch of terrorists, doing terrorist things, and then is surprised when doing those terrorist things has led to, like, the socio-political collapse of mandalore's government. she's the "'but i didn't think the leopards would eat my face!' sobbed the woman who voted for the face-eating leopards party" woman, except the face-eating leopard is a sith lord with attachment issues and moderate megalomania who kills bo-katan's sister to make his already desperately sad archenemy even sadder. she's an australia that has introduced a non-native cane toad to control a native beetle in order to more efficiently maximize a brutal capitalist system and now is upset that her house is full of huge toads with no natural predators. the toads are poisonous and the ecosystem is collapsing. i got carried away here, but you get the gist.

too long did read, for my reasoning: in this case, i'd argue that no matter what bo-katan's reason for going along with the maul plan is -- possibly installing pre vizsla to the throne of mandalore, but mostly just destablizing the neutral mandalorian government -- her reasoning is secondary to the action because she is fully and consciously participating in death watch, which is doing terrible things (not just on mandalore, mind; there's a whole little arc with ahsoka and... the one kid... lux? where death watch has just casually taken over an enslaved a random settlement because they can and think that they deserve to).

whatever bo-katan's original intentions were, be they good intentions (also arbitrary; the neutral mandalorians would disagree than any attempt to return to mandalore's more violent ways is not good, while dw could and does argue that they're just upholding their cultural traditions and fending off a government they didn't elect or support, how can that not be a good?) or not, intention is secondary to an action that does harm, especially to an action that does intentional harm. maul's name, like, means intentional harm. it's very on the nose. even if maul usupring vizsla was a surprise, the whole "building a super crime syndicate" thing is objectively a bad, immoral action, and imo it's pretty hard to "the ends justify the means" that away just because bo-katan didn't mean for what maul did to happen.

also, leaving morality aside for a minute, imo bo-katan holds additional culpability for what maul does because she knows that it's a bad idea to ally with him from the start, but knuckles under and lets it happen in order to get what she wants from the situation. i could be misremembering, but i'm pretty sure she knows that sith lords are bad news and tells pre vizsla as much, but ultimately falls in line because she wants what maul is offering. that's a conscious choice that she makes.

i think it's also important to remember that she does not abandon death watch because she thinks that maul's actions are immoral or bad -- she leaves because she doesn't want an outsider to rule mandalore. she says it out loud, to the viewer -- it's only after maul takes over and betrays pre vizsla that she bolts and lets obi-wan go, presumably to that obi-wan can rally some jedi to help him pry maul off of mandalore.

(I'm not touching the qui-gon thing until after I've shared it with the discord, because we've honestly never seen a "qui-gon is pretty responsible for darth vader" take and have to dissect it over the course of 4-5 buisness days.)

#a meta far far away #ask box #i think the key difference is that bo-katan doesn't accidentally let maul take over mandalore;#she intentionally agrees to ally with him in order to get what she wants and then underestimates maul's ability to rock pre vizsla's shit #yes pre vizsla is the one who makes the alliance in the first place #but bo-katan goes along with it and only bails AFTER she realizes that dw collectively miscalculated #all of this to say: bo is a complicated awful person and disney trying to pretend that she's not awful does a disservice to her character

35 notes · View notes

bihet-dragonize · 1 year

Note

When the copyright stuff people who are anti ai art are pushing rn inevitably turn out to be like "you can't make fan art of this or you will get sued" all these people will literally be like "i didn't think they would eat MY face!, says woman who voted for the leopards eating faces party"

No genuinely like this is how we got streamers using the same 6 songs in the background of their streams and video game devs having to ad built in music blocking so people can stream their games without being sued. Like do I know there's a problem with theft and lack of credidation in the art scene? YES!! Do I think making copyright laws stronger is going to help? no. These people are gonna regret this shit so badly and I'm gonna be sitting with my chinsy art and the 60 notes it ever gets and laugh my ass off.

#kia's answers #my answers #i keep thinking back to aoife's post about how this is a fight for who should be exploited more #people of an algorithm

12 notes · View notes

veerletakino · 5 years

Text

The Shirley Exception

From @/AlexandraErin on Twitter

The Shirley Exception is a bit of mental sleight of hand that allows people to support a policy they profess to disagree with. It's called the Shirley Exception because... well, I mean, *surely* there must be exceptions, right?

Let's imagine that in response to suspicions about overbroad use of service animal rules, a city somewhere decides to just swing the pendulum 100% in the other direction. Restaurants, public accommodations, etc., no longer have to recognize any service animals.

And in the aftermath of the change, existing rules about where animals may and may not go apply full force.

A lot of people would back the change because Obviously Some People Take Advantage. (Positing that someone, somewhere is taking advantage is a great way to get the masses on your side in our politics, sadly.)

Now if you point out the existence of a blind person or an epileptic person who has a service dog for everyday navigation of life or for life-saving purposes, the Good People who just don't want anyone to take advantage will tell you:

"No one's talking about legitimate cases."

And if you point out that the rule that they're backing would affect what they call "legitimate cases", the response will be:

"But surely there will be an exception."

If you back up an anti-abortion activist to the point where they actually have to grapple with a case where the parent would 100% die delivering a 100% non-viable fetus, you'll get the same answers: "No one is talking about those cases." and "But surely there will be exceptions."

All of those studies of people in Trump Country USA who were shocked, shocked, that the kind man next door who is a good father and a great neighbor and a real part of the community was dragged away by ICE?

They all thought that surely he'd be an exception.

If you point out that the laws/policies they're talking about *don't* offer such exceptions and in some cases explicitly forbid them, if you say "So let's put those exceptions in writing."... well, then you're back to Surely People Will Take Advantage.

See, the people who are sure that Surely There Will Be Exceptions are very comfortable with the idea of justice being decided on a case-by-case basis. They've always had teachers, bosses, bureaucrats, even traffic cops giving them some slack for reasons of compassion and logic.

I mean, if Officer Smalltown von Cul-De-Sac could give them a warning when they were caught with recreational amounts of pot as kids because it was harmless and they Had Futures, then Surely there must be similar exceptions for everyone?

That post about "I never thought the leopards would eat my face, sobbed woman who voted for Face-Eating Leopards Party" is very true, and it goes farther than personal immunity to a very generalized and broad Just World Fallacy.

Surely, they think, surely the leopards will know to only eat the *right* faces, the faces that need eating, and leave alone all the faces that don't deserve that.

But if we try to lay out rules to protect faces from being eaten by leopards, people will take advantage. Best to keep it simple and count on decency and reason to rule the day.

So moderate conservatives, what we might call "everyday conservatives", the ones who don't wear MAGA hats or tea party costumes and think that Mr. Trump fella should maybe stay off of Twitter, they will vote for candidates and policies that they don't actually agree with...

...because in their mind the exact law being prescribed is just a tool in the chest, an option on the table, which they expect to be wielded fairly and judiciously. Surely no one would do anything so unreasonable as actually enforcing it as written! Not when that would be bad!

And then they are confused, shocked, and even insulted when people hold them accountable for their support of the monstrous policy.

"I didn't vote for leopards to eat *your* face! I just thought we needed some face-eating leopards generally. Surely you can't blame me for that!"

The old "Defense of Marriage" laws are another textbook example of this.

Many of them included language that expressly forbade giving similar benefits (like hospital visitation) to same-sex relationships.

Yet the people who voted for them, in many cases, wanted it to be known that No One Is Talking About Stopping You From Visiting Your Loved One In The Hospital. And Surely There Will Be An Exception.

The Shirley Exception is how people who are only mundanely monstrous, moderately monstrous, wind up supporting policies that are completely monstrous.

And when they do, they always want credit for their good intentions towards those they see as deserving, not the outcomes.

I'm describing a phenomenon here and I don't have a solution to its existence. While convincing people that laws that don't specify exceptions functionally *don't have them* might work sometimes on (ironically) a case-by-case basis, what is really needed is a broader shift.

People need to get used to thinking about the harm policies will do as a real part of the policy, not a hypothetical that Reasonable People of Good Will Can Surely Work Around.

5 notes · View notes