With This Ring (Young Justice SI) (Thread Fourteen)

[CrazyNoVa]

Which one?

Mostly, because either they contradict earlier stuff or the quality is low. Now, I'm willing to ignore the original A New Hope novelisation where Palpatine was a puppet emperor, because the following films don't use that and neither do any of the other novels. But the Republic using an army of clones contradicts earlier material, so that goes. The Death Star being under construction while the Republic was a going concern? Also contradicts earlier material. Qwi Xux designed the Death Star, and she's not even born at that point. Kredduc who?

Click to shrink...

Sorry, I meant Worm, but I should have made myself clearer.

Funnily enough, it's a bit of a recurring joke in the Star Wars fandom how many times both Expanded Universes kept retconning themselves. In the old EU, there's like four different prequels with four different explanations on how the Alliance got the Death Star Plans, Boba Fett had a completely different origin story before the Prequels came along, there's different accounts to exactly how the Rebel Alliance was formed, there's the sheer mindf*ckery of the unknown regions, all the weird shit that we saw in the old comics, etc. In the Disney EU, well...I think that one speaks for itself.

 

[Mr Zoat]

Sorry, I meant Worm, but I should have made myself clearer.

Click to shrink...

Oh, Worm. Well, plenty of people reject Wards, I fully embrace operant conditioning as an explanation for Amy's behaviour which is an idea that I believe Wildbow hates, and I think the reason why tinker technology can't be reproduced got retconned twice? I have a lot less invested in Worm than 40K.

WHY DOESN'T THE ROGAL DORN HAVE A FLOOR YOU CHEAP BASTARDS!

 

[Steelplaza]

I wonder if any of the Kryptonians that Amalak murdered were living in a jurisdiction that has an interest and ability to pursue charges.

It would be kind of interesting if at this big, showy trial that might actually make interstellar news, someone shows up with a request to extradite Amalak for trial on one of the people he himself murdered.

 

[Ardy]

I just flat out reject large parts of it. Likewise, the only real Star Wars is the original expanded universe and there has been no Star Trek since Enterprise.

Click to shrink...

You think enterprise is canon? Rape of men is comedy and genocide is fine thanks to the divinity of the prime directive?

Oh, Worm. Well, plenty of people reject Wards, I fully embrace operant conditioning as an explanation for Amy's behaviour which is an idea that I believe Wildbow hates, and I think the reason why tinker technology can't be reproduced got retconned twice? I have a lot less invested in Worm than 40K.

Click to shrink...

Never retconned tinkertech, and as a fun note it was literally never called that in worm, it was a fanon term that fit really well so it came up once or twice in Ward, but not in worm. As for Amy, that makes no sense and never has. Not only does Victoria spent way more time with other people than she does with Amy, including the rest of her family since Amy doesn't fight with new wave, not a single one of them reacts like operant conditioning or like Amy does, nor does Victoria actually lose control of her aura during worm (she intentionally uses it to intimidate the neonazi in her interlude and skitter during the bank robbery, but I can't actually find a scene where it goes off without her consent) but people jump on it as an excuse for Amy raping Victoria, which was heavily alluded to, to the point where a large number of people called it when the chapter came out, but wasn't explicitly spelled out until the sequel, making them accuse the author of retconning it in.

Saying the rape victim "made" the rapist rape, mutilate, and mind control them, including making up reasons that are not in the story for it, really ticked off the author, can't imagine why.

 

[CrazyNoVa]

Oh, Worm. Well, plenty of people reject Wards, I fully embrace operant conditioning as an explanation for Amy's behaviour which is an idea that I believe Wildbow hates, and I think the reason why tinker technology can't be reproduced got retconned twice? I have a lot less invested in Worm than 40K.

WHY DOESN'T THE ROGAL DORN HAVE A FLOOR YOU CHEAP BASTARDS!

Click to shrink...

Ah. So, I assume that Wildbrow isn't a big fan of Behavioural psychology or Pavlov's dog experiment then. Such things may not necessarily justify someone's actions, but they can explain them.

ONLY THE MAGIC PAIN GLOVE MAY EXPLAIN WHY ROGAL DORN DOES NOT HAVE A FLOOR.

 

[CrazyNoVa]

Oh, Worm. Well, plenty of people reject Wards, I fully embrace operant conditioning as an explanation for Amy's behaviour which is an idea that I believe Wildbow hates, and I think the reason why tinker technology can't be reproduced got retconned twice? I have a lot less invested in Worm than 40K.

WHY DOESN'T THE ROGAL DORN HAVE A FLOOR YOU CHEAP BASTARDS!

Click to shrink...

Ah. So, I assume that Wildbrow isn't a big fan of Behavioural psychology or Pavlov's dog experiment then. Such things may not necessarily justify someone's actions, but they can explain them.

ONLY THE MAGIC PAIN GLOVE MAY EXPLAIN WHY ROGAL DORN DOES NOT HAVE A FLOOR.

You think enterprise is canon? Rape of men is comedy and genocide is fine thanks to the divinity of the prime directive?



Never retconned tinkertech, and for fun note it was literally never called that in worm, it was a fanon term that fit really well so it came up once or twice in Ward. As for Amy, that makes no sense and never has. Not only does Victoria spend way more time with other people than she does with Amy, and not a single one reacts like operant conditioning, nor does Victoria actually lose control of her aura during worm (she intentionally uses it to intimidate the neonazi in her interlude and skitter during the bank robbery) but people jump on it as an excuse for Amy raping Victoria, which was heavily alluded to, to the point where a large number of people called it when the chapter came out, but wasn't explicitly spelled out until the sequel, making them accuse the author of retconning it in.

Saying the rape victim "made" the rapist rape them, including making up reasons that are not in the story for it, really ticked off the author, can't imagine why.

Click to shrink...

In fairness, nobody said that operant conditioning couldn't be a contributing factor along with all the other things that make Amy so messed up. Sometimes, a villain can have more than one reason for why they are what they are, and there doesn't always have to be just one singular cause.

 

[Ardy]

In fairness, nobody said that operant conditioning couldn't be a contributing factor along with all the other things that make Amy so messed up. Sometimes, a villain can have more than one reason for why they are what they are, and there doesn't always have to be just one singular cause.

Click to shrink...

Except Zoat, who just said that it was why Amy raped, mutilated, and mind controlled Victoria. Also, again, losing control of the aura around Amy is not a thing that happened. The closest thing in the story to operant conditioning is that Victoria is the only family member to consistently reach out and try to be kind to her. Her dad tried, but depression so not consistent

 

[CrazyNoVa]

Except Zoat, who just said that it was why Amy raped, mutilated, and mind controlled Victoria. Also, again, losing control of the aura around Amy is not a thing that happened.

Click to shrink...

Yes, I know that's what's he's arguing. And in turn, I'm arguing that there's a possibility that while Zoat may be right, there could have been more things that also contributed in making Amy what she is too. Pre-existing mental conditions and operant conditioning are unfortunately not mutually exclusive things, and it's entirely possible to have both.

 

[Ardy]

Yes, I know that's what's he's arguing. And in turn, I'm arguing that there's a possibility that while Zoat may be right, there could have been more things that also contributed in making Amy what she is too. Pre-existing mental conditions and operant conditioning are unfortunately not mutually exclusive things, and it's entirely possible to have both.

Click to shrink...

Except there was no operant conditioning, no "aura theory" nonsense, it's flat out not in the book, made up for victim blaming. Hell, I personally think that people keep excusing it for the same reason the Wardens did, she's too powerful and useful a character to condemn her.

 

[AverusBlack]

Yeah, no. Fuck Amy. In the ear.

There is really no debate in 'is Amy blameless?'. Amy has chance after chance to make different choices and did not. Nobody was twisting her arm, nobody held a gun to her head. She's just so far up her own ass that she can't see the consequences of her actions and other people aren't quite real to her or she'd never be able to do the things she does.

I will turn this hill into the fucking Alamo. She's responsible for her own actions and her actions are monstrous.

I have nothing more to say on the matter.

 

[CrazyNoVa]

Except there was no operant conditioning, no "aura theory" nonsense, it's flat out not in the book, made up for victim blaming. Hell, I personally think that people keep excusing it for the same reason the Wardens did, she's too powerful and useful a character to condemn her.

Click to shrink...

Yes, I know all that. Hence why it's purely hypothetical.

Yeah, no. Fuck Amy. In the ear.

There is really no debate in 'is Amy blameless?'. Amy has chance after chance to make different choices and did not. Nobody was twisting her arm, nobody held a gun to her head. She's just so far up her own ass that she can't see the consequences of her actions and other people aren't quite real to her or she'd never be able to do the things she does.

I will turn this hill into the fucking Alamo. She's responsible for her own actions and her actions are monstrous.

I have nothing more to say on the matter.

Click to shrink...

Whoa, chill. Nobody here is saying she's blameless. Of course she's responsible for her own choices. I was trying to theorize the reason for why she became what she is. It doesn't justify her actions, but it does explain them.

After all, even if Zoat is right and operant conditioning is partially responsible, that doesn't mean Amy has no agency or free will. Again, it explains her actions and choices, but it does not justify them, because like you said, she deliberately chose to do something monstrous, and nobody forced her to do it.

What most people don't realize about operant conditioning (and behavioural psychology as a whole) is that while it can explain why people act the way they act and why they make the choices they make, it doesn't disprove the existence of free will, because at the end of the day, we still have the choice to defy the operant conditioning and walk away. But if repeating the conditioning leads to something that we perceive as "good" for us, then why the hell would we even want to walk away?

After all, we're conditioned as a species to repeatedly pursue any outcome that we, from our perspective, deem to be positive. So if repeating the same action over and over again leads to an outcome that we deem profitable, then our common sense dictates that we should repeat it.