Even if we take thrawn's claim that he's trying to protect his people at face value (personally I don't buy it, the so called "threat" of the grysk seems really exaggerated, I'll bet that thrawn's either playing up how dangerous they are and/or they're simply a local threat, dangerous to a regional power like the chiss sure, but to the whole galaxy? No), that does not make him a good person doing bad things for a good reason, morally grey, etc etc whatever

Because it doesn't matter

His alleged care (which never pops up in real canon) has lead him to support the empire, to keep it alive, to make it work

One way or another, thrawn is responsible (he's a grand admiral for crying out loud, he's pretty high up) for the atrocities the empire committed

How many billions were oppressed, suffered, and died under the empire because thrawn helped it?

I'll bet it's many more people than there are chiss

And that's a thing SW has always been clear about, sacrificing many to save a few is wrong, its bad, it's selfish, it is the dark side

Maybe thrawn had good intentions ("had" being the operative word there), but we know what road is paved with those

ALT

Hobie being Miles' #1 supporter, hype man & homie 👊🏿

Have we talked about the Miguel Burger yet?

I just wanna know if it was his idea, if he authorized it, or do the other spiders just think it’s rlly fucking funny and do it to annoy the guy?

I need to know WHY

Part 2 in the reblogs 💖

they’re in my home ruining everythig

i created you and you created me

btw. your search for the most morally upright and ethical piece of media that has the most correct “representation” will destroy your ability to find the most profound and beautiful and human of stories. and may even destroy the stories themselves before they are created. if you even care.

your average 1830 classicist be like:

Red riding hood boys

SPIDERVERSE INSTAGRAM POSTED BABY MILES IM GONNA SCREAM

This took me 2 hours to make i almost passed outn2 tikmes I’m so tirfed

edit: do not repost my art to a different site/platform/app. if sharing on discord/etc, just directly linkback to the post. thank u! oc redraws are fine, just credit me!! and tag me in those id like to see lol

Putting him in a blender

i don’t know what’s funnier: spidernoir and spider-ham being invited to the spider society and them turning it down, or just straight up not being invited to join lmao

"The idea of reforming Omelas is a pleasant idea, to be sure, but it is one that Le Guin herself specifically tells us is not an option. No reform of Omelas is possible — at least, not without destroying Omelas itself:

If the child were brought up into the sunlight out of that vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, that would be a good thing, indeed; but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed. Those are the terms.

'Those are the terms', indeed. Le Guin’s original story is careful to cast the underlying evil of Omelas as un-addressable — not, as some have suggested, to 'cheat' or create a false dilemma, but as an intentionally insurmountable challenge to the reader. The premise of Omelas feels unfair because it is meant to be unfair. Instead of racing to find a clever solution ('Free the child! Replace it with a robot! Have everyone suffer a little bit instead of one person all at once!'), the reader is forced to consider how they might cope with moral injustice that is so foundational to their very way of life that it cannot be undone. Confronted with the choice to give up your entire way of life or allow someone else to suffer, what do you do? Do you stay and enjoy the fruits of their pain? Or do you reject this devil’s compromise at your own expense, even knowing that it may not even help? And through implication, we are then forced to consider whether we are — at this very moment! — already in exactly this situation. At what cost does our happiness come? And, even more significantly, at whose expense? And what, in fact, can be done? Can anything?

This is the essential and agonizing question that Le Guin poses, and we avoid it at our peril. It’s easy, but thoroughly besides the point, to say — as the narrator of 'The Ones Who Don’t Walk Away' does — that you would simply keep the nice things about Omelas, and work to address the bad. You might as well say that you would solve the trolley problem by putting rockets on the trolley and having it jump over the people tied to the tracks. Le Guin’s challenge is one that can only be resolved by introspection, because the challenge is one levied against the discomforting awareness of our own complicity; to 'reject the premise' is to reject this (all too real) discomfort in favor of empty wish fulfillment. A happy fairytale about the nobility of our imagined efforts against a hypothetical evil profits no one but ourselves (and I would argue that in the long run it robs us as well).

But in addition to being morally evasive, treating Omelas as a puzzle to be solved (or as a piece of straightforward didactic moralism) also flattens the depth of the original story. We are not really meant to understand Le Guin’s 'walking away' as a literal abandonment of a problem, nor as a self-satisfied 'Sounds bad, but I’m outta here', the way Vivier’s response piece or others of its ilk do; rather, it is framed as a rejection of complacency. This is why those who leave are shown not as triumphant heroes, but as harried and desperate fools; hopeless, troubled souls setting forth on a journey that may well be doomed from the start — because isn’t that the fate of most people who set out to fight the injustices they see, and that they cannot help but see once they have been made aware of it? The story is a metaphor, not a math problem, and 'walking away' might just as easily encompass any form of sincere and fully committed struggle against injustice: a lonely, often thankless journey, yet one which is no less essential for its difficulty."

- Kurt Schiller, from "Omelas, Je T'aime." Blood Knife, 8 July 2022.