こひつてん

However, setting aside the human capacity to assess oneself or conduct a self-report in response to such a prompt, I for one believe that people are actually more likely to show outward distaste for characters that resemble them… until they come to terms with the factors that make that character resemble them to begin with.

Self-assessing which characters one resembles most comes with inherent biases, as a person is most likely to, unintentionally or otherwise, liken themselves with the characters they already like from the get-go. Not a lot of people are willing to admit to resembling Jax if they already have an inherent bias against that character’s make-up, much in the same way that there were people who gravitated AWAY from Squidward as children because he was “mean, snobby, and stuck-up.”

Yet, for those people, hindsight proved that they would relate to Squidward and understand why he was the way he was. It is in this reflection that people then shift the way they perceive a character simply because they have finally witnessed themselves act the same way, or admit to being willing to act or think similarly to the character given their circumstances.

This is simply an example of not wanting to admit to one’s own traits, especially if they perceive those traits to be negative or distasteful. However, there is beauty in seeing characters from various pieces of media act a certain “negative” way, as it makes them more humane and relatable, and allows for people to sincerely reflect on the concepts of Intention, Situation, and Reason.

To put it into perspective, there are people who will either hate on Alastor or Vox and perceive the other to be cocky, all the while liking the other for their confidence. This is a clear example of biases being at play. However, if one were to allow themselves to truly think deeply, it will suddenly make sense why said characters can come across as cocky or domineering.

What are the intentions for presenting the character as such? What are the situations in that character’s backstory that made them resort to such attitudes? And what are the reasons why such attitudes and traits persist well beyond the character’s past?

Is this long rant insinuating that humans are inherently hypocritical and biased? Absolutely. This was prompted by a comment I saw online, suggesting that people are only hating on so-and-so character due to their refusal to see why they behave that way to begin with. People whose gears shifted with Squidward, aside from having a sensible change of heart by recognizing what could drive Squidward to his attitude in the show, only truly shifted their gears because they began to behave that way as well… Most people would think of self-hatred as the last thing they would ever want, hence the change in heart as to how they perceived Squidward the moment his behaviour applied to them.

However, for the rest of the population, who experience self-hatred like second nature, I posit that the TikTok fad in question was never truly about how one currently perceives others, or how one thinks others currently perceive them. Rather, it is how they wish to be perceived regardless of the “good” or “bad” traits a character may possess.

“I like this character because they’re so ME.” Yes, but can it also be because it feels nice to know there is hope for you to be liked even when you resemble what others would perceive to be the “asshole” of the bunch? Or is it because you wish for people to finally look past your negative traits the way they look past it for a character in your favourite piece of media?

Photos and GIF found online (Pinterest, Reddit Links, etc.)

Assuming Google is correct, the primary driving force behind both shows has ancestry tied to one of the handful former colonies of Spain. History will tell you that Spain, in their conquest of various states, did so with one of the primary objectives being the spread of Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism is one of the handful of “sectors” within the umbrella of Christianity, with nuances and particular practices setting said sects apart from one another.

Therefore, while all Christians believe in THAT God, alongside the concept of a Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), not all sectors do the Sign of the Cross, and some have dietary restrictions that others don’t.

As somebody from one of the many FORMER colonies of Spain, alongside the idea of growing up in Catholic Schools and predominantly Catholic neighbourhoods, it is safe to say I have witnessed the absurd ways Good and Bad can be blurred out.

This is something that can be tied to the two shows, particularly Hazbin Hotel, in terms of the handful of comments I have seen about how some characters do not deserve to be in hell to begin with, and that redemption will come easy for those characters because they are “already fundamentally good in terms of their overall character.”

Bringing forth the context of Catholicism, as well as the assumption that the main person behind this show was raised primarily Catholic, I am of the opinion that the definitions of Good and Bad in the series (as it currently is), are rooted in such an environment.

Speaking from experience, most of the older generation that identify as Catholics have a tendency to be absurd in the way they define Good and Bad; this translates into how they discipline and teach the younger generations of a given family. Unfortunately, for most of these households, there are a lot of beliefs and ideas that would be contrary to the moral definition of Good if we were to go well beyond religion. 

An example of such an argument is Angeldust. It’s easy to see through his characterization that he is a good person who was dealt horrendous cards, with his canonical reason for ending up in hell being the fact that he murdered his father. Assuming the above-stated idea that the show is rooted in the religious trauma that can be attributed to Catholicism, it wouldn't matter that Angel’s father was a criminal, abuser, and generally horrendous human being; the facts alone that this murder violates the “Honour Thy Father and Mother” and the “Thou Shan’t Kill” commandments are enough to warrant his placement in hell.

For most devout believers, especially those of older generations, there is a tendency to forgo nuances when it is beneficial to a given side of an argument. There is a tendency to cite the Bible for one circumstance, yet be prone to cherry-picking its contents for other circumstances. It is NOT to say that all Catholics are this way, but there are enough to statistically make a generalization that will more than likely be accurate.

One thing that can almost be deemed as universal for atheists that grew up in Catholic environments is the experience of having the Bible be misinterpreted and weaponized. Frankly, that thing is merely a book written across centuries coming from supposed word-of-mouth testimonies and anecdotes from the descendants of those who were supposedly there; it’s just the reiteration of a reiteration of a translation of an analysis of translated text.

And yet, it is the one thing that is almost always used against people as though it is the final arbiter of everything on this planet. The Bible says this, says that, but does it account for the nuances that acknowledge the layers that come with various actions and words? does it have the capacity to acknowledge the entirety of a circumstance well beyond the absolute nature of the Commandments? No.

“Jesus would have spoken up had he witnessed various killings outside His windowsill,” but it wasn't Jesus who witnessed it in the show. It was someone who had everything to lose had he been a whistleblower. It was someone who was merely living his life, yet happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Canonically, Jesus knew He was sent down on Earth solely to save, help, and aid humanity. He KNEW He was bound for nothing but death as THAT death would save humanity.

People, or characters such as Sir Pentious, wouldn't even THINK of their only purpose as leading up to death. In the show, he was depicted as a skilled and ambitious inventor who most likely viewed his life as revolving around the skills and talents he was developing at that time. This human desire to flourish coupled with the genuine FEAR of repercussions, as well as the fact that Pentious was not born and raised with the same level of Commitment to Saving Humanity and Preparedness for Death that'll be the Catalyst for Human Salvation, are more than enough for supposedly valid grounds that would outweigh the general wrongness of not speaking up… and yet, it is THIS sort of nuance that is often overlooked in the public’s practice and devotion to Catholicism.

It is here that we can tie back to the aforementioned thesis statement of Catholics’ definitions of Good and Bad being absurd. For most, it is commonplace for us to witness people who are willing to idolize and forgive politicians involved in Crimes Against Humanity, yet the Bible has a lot to say about idolizing someone that isn’t God (let alone someone who’s used their powers for the suffering of humans). Additionally, these same people are the ones to perpetuate Homophobia, Transphobia, and Toxic Gendered Expectations (e.g. pregnancy and motherhood being a MUST, instead of a genuine choice) since it is “something attributed to the Bible.”

These ideas, alongside those that would take ages to mention, make it clear that most Catholics are raised with cherry-picked ideas that almost forgo the actual moral definitions of Good and Bad. A decent handful perpetuate hate and bigotry, yet believe themselves to be on such morally high grounds… THIS is the blurry and absurd nature of Good and Bad that I feel is most likely the ongoing basis for what qualifies someone to end up in heaven or hell in the show, and it is this same blurry nature that Season 2 is starting to challenge leading up to the succeeding installments of the franchise.

“Act Selfless, Don’t Steal, and Stick it to the Man.” This can actually serve as an allegorical instrument to the same topic discussed in this post. It suggests that heaven’s prerequisites are simple, yet humans are often incapable of fulfilling it. However, it also shows that it ISN’T that simple because those who are supposedly in the position to cast judgment do not account for nuance that goes well beyond that set criteria.

People are questioning why those characters are in hell, but I actually like that they are since it shows how wrong most devout believers are. They’re there because of skewed standards, assuming I am correct in saying that part of the collective that decides on people’s eligibility for heaven are the stand-in for the morally upright yet pretentious majority of Catholics. It shows that one wrong deed will have its consequences, but it does not negate the fact that there are inherently good people that are dealt horrendous cards and that those people can be redeemed even when others impose a sense of exclusivity and finality.