#intpdreamer

INTP: What?

ISTP: Is that some sort of disorder or syndrome that you know?

INTP: I don't know. Midlife crisis maybe?

ISTP: *laughs out loud* We're not even at our 30s

Mood honestly

Smacked me in the face as the only words I understood in a whole paragraph and now I desperately want to know the context.

JJFKSJDJS That he was right is in reference to this

scene; my mutual and I were discussing how JM could be an engaging dynamic if the narrative acknowledged their dysfunctionality, especially how Jon's need for Martin to be okay very straightforwardly comes across as him feeling guilty for the deaths of Tim and Sasha and projecting his humanity onto him.

Ah, I think a lot of people took my reply to my friend’s post musing “I have seen people make arguments for Jon that irritate me, and gotten into arguments with people who excuse Jon in ways that they don’t other avatars like Daisy” as me saying “I think Jon was wrong in the finale episode and the others are right.” (Edit: Or that I am saying everyone who thinks Jon was right is just biased in Jon’s favor.)

That is not true. I think that the well-being of the countless people we don’t see is waaaaaaaay more important than that of Jon, Martin, Georgie, or any of the other group. And, as I have said in another reply, I think that Jon’s idea at the end was better, even though he was trapping his friends in an objectively horrible situation. (Here is the ask where I elaborate on those feelings.)

It’s just that most of the discussion I have seen on the morality of the finale is all about “Is Jon A Good Person Or A Bad Person, And Was Everyone Else Being Mean To Him.” And that frustrates me. But that could just be that I have had Bad Luck with what side of the discussions I have seen, and that most of the takes are something else.

As for whether Jon should base his decision on the group or on what is “morally correct”... hm.

Well, let me ask you this: what do you think about democracy?

Like, in general, most people I have talked to agree that some sort of democratic decision making is better than a single person making a decision on what gets to happen to everyone. Generally, this is how people agree societies should be run and decisions should be made. If not everyone gets to decide, then surely people who represent the groups of the people unspoken for should get to make the decisions.

Here’s another question: how do you feel about peer review? or scientific consensus?

If 20 scientists say X is the answer, and 1 scientist says Y is the answer... do you think we should trust the group more, or the single scientist? If you think the former--congratulations, that’s how science works, generally. Things are done in groups, because the idea is that multiple people are more likely to correct each other’s biases than one person alone who doesn’t take the perspective of other people into account.

(Of course, it is still possible that the single person gets vindicated by time and the group of 20 was wrong. But generally speaking--there is a reason that science works by consensus.)

So, with that in mind, tell me this: how can Jon know he is right?

Because when you say “he should choose what is morally correct over what the group wants” that sounds like a perfectly simple idea when you phrase it that way. But since morality isn’t something with an objective measure, what that comes down to, in practice, is “Jon should choose what he thinks is morally correct over what everyone else agrees is morally correct.”

Jon is currently being psychologically pulled to do what the Beholding wants. It’s a pressure that has, in the past, caused him to hurt innocent bystanders and justify it to himself. Can he trust his own judgment, given that is directly being influenced by a horror entity that feeds on suffering? Can he trust his own judgment given that, a few episodes ago, he was gushing to Martin about how he could rule the hell world and make the suffering fair--and he clearly mostly wanted to do this for the power/pleasure, and was using morality as a justification?

(It turns out fine when he does it but how can he know it will--was it really a safe bet, or did he just get lucky?)

Is it a good idea for him to trust his own idea of right and wrong over that of... the other people who are available to make a decision? Over the people who he would be trapping alone in a world where everything else dies screaming around them--while he gets to ascend to a position of pleasure and power?

And see--I say all of this still thinking that Jon’s idea is better.

It’s just--the idea that one person alone shouldn’t get to decide what is moral has a lot more merit than I think you are giving it credit for. Jon is not infallible. No single person ever is infallible. There is a reason to make decisions in groups, especially decisions that will effect so many people.

When is it better to trust your own idea of what is moral--over the people you are condemning to suffer? It’s not really something you can know objectively. You just have to make a bet.

yeah, that's it. intps hate subtext either cause they really don't know what's going on or either cause they like honesty and truth.

for me, it gets on my nerves whenever someone is just mad or angry at me and it's obvious cause feels like they tryna manipulate me into feeling bad without a reason at all. sometimes someone is mad at me but it isn't like so clear and as i'm minding my business i don't even realize someone is mad. until other person tells me.

the point is as an intp i hate it, i don't have time to fuck around. if you have a problem with me just say it to me straight. we'll talk about it and that's it. but don't play games, don't subtext all the time. i really hate the situation "elephant in the room", if there's a problem it must be talked. then we move to another point. it fucking gets on my nerves cause most of the times when there's an elephant in the room people doesn't even say anything so i'm the one who takes the time to call out everyone to discuss the issue.

there's a problem okay we talk about it, figure it out and that's it. that's how life should work but keeping a problem? that doesn't make you any favor. however, it can be useful if the discussion isn't worth it. discussing with someone who won't listen isn't worth it.

i mind my fucking business, never subtext and whenever i have a problem i reach the other to solve it.

guys don't fucking subtext, it gets on our fucking nerves. daily business stress us the fuck out and subtext, god I can't really tell how much we hate it. I say it, routines and daily business stress us the fuck out. drama, shenanigans, we hate that. we want peace and chilling out. we can only get that by approaching things directly. if you have a problem just tell it straight, there's no point on not doing that.