2032 Anything Ghost.

by

Patreon
Subscribestar
Comic Vote
Reddit
Wiki

It’s kind of funny how being a tattletale is frowned upon, or applauded, depending on what side you’re on & that dynamic doesn’t change from the time you’re 4 till the day you die. It’s one of the most conflicted messages you get as a kid. When I was in school if someone did something wrong and you told on them they got in trouble and you also got in trouble. What kind of mindfuck is that? Look at WikiLeaks. Half the people think it’s traitorous and the other half think it’s noble, AND THEY SWITCH OPINIONS DEPENDING ON THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS FOR EACH ITEM! FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!

23 Comments

“Ask” instead of “as” in panel one, and panel two is missing a “you”. Otherwise, I’m loving the tones you used for evening shots.

We were just talking about the typos in the Discord. Sometimes it’s nice to let a few slip through just to see if anyone notices.

Tattling will always be seen as a self-contradicting moral act.

Like the old saying goes: “Snitches get stitches and get thrown in ditches!”

Snitches get stitches, but if you catch it, you instantly win the game?

Maybe…..Snitches get stitches, and get caught fast by the witches.

Snitches get stitches & then become liches

a lich in time saves, nein!

a necromancer is just a healer who doesn’t need to worry about being late

Snitches get stitches, then become liches, then go back and burn those bitches. At least that’s the way I’ve been wording my pitches.

Carol puts on a cute, Princess Bubblegum costume + says:
“Hey Thomas! Are you Lich-ing what you see?”

In regards to the morality of telling or tattling, I happen to be on the autism spectrum and I have difficulty with nuance. Things seem to me to be one way or the other I am not good with shades of grey. So in an instance like wikileaks I tend to look at who was helped and who was hurt. If the greedy rich benefit then I take the side of the poor. I don’t think I have made my point very well here, but I am posting anyway. Good luck figuring out what I mean.

Now that I think about it a bit more, while still a self-contradicting moral act, it can be seen as necessary on a case-by-case basis.

It pretty much falls upon whether the ends justify the means.

I just go by the legality of the issue. If there’s no decent law or impact to business involved, I’m probably to not snitch. If someone’s breaking a decent law or creating impact to my business, I’m calling it in.

Mostly because 1) doing something illegal that hurts people is bad; and 2) my paycheck trumps my sense of mercy i.e. the more money I lose, the more likely I am to tell on you.

Just to play devil’s advocate for a bit, where did you get the authority to decide which laws are decent, and which aren’t? Doesn’t that make you an advocate for (at least some kind of limited) anarchy?

Every thinking person is, or at least ought to be, a moral agent. Anyone who actually went their whole life doing nothing but mindlessly obeying rules would arguably be less than fully human, or at least no more than a perpetual child. If you are a mentally competent adult, I’d argue that you have not only the right but the fundamental duty to decide whether any given law is moral and just. If I believe a law is unjust, then I feel no compunction to obey it or to enforce it against others. (I’ll just go ahead and acknowledge that belief won’t necessarily keep me from going to jail if enough other people disagree.)

I could easily make a long list of past laws that most people now agree were unjust. I could also make a pretty long list of current laws I consider unjust. I’ll agree that the ideal situation is to repeal or amend unjust laws, but I don’t agree that I’m morally bound to obey them in the meantime. Civil disobedience has a distinguished history as a way to get unjust laws changed; if people obeyed all laws just because they were laws, Rosa Parks would still be sitting at the back of the bus. I also don’t have any problem with simply ignoring unjust laws any time you can get away with it; I feel no outrage against all the people who ignore drug prohibitions, for one example. (I don’t excuse any violence and corruption associated with flouting prohibition, although I will point out that this was an entirely foreseeable consequence.)

I’ll admit to some strong anarchist leanings. (Whether I describe myself as a libertarian minarchist or an anarcho-capitalist mostly depends on just how bad a mood I’m in.) I’m not sure humanity is quite ready for a truly anarchist society just yet, although I hold out hope for the future. But even if I concede that government remains a necessary evil, I’ll add that it is still has the potential for great evil. As such, I have to support strong limits on government power, and I believe the very best limit is for people to actively think about the justice and morality of laws and what the state does in their name. “I was just following orders!” is not a defense that will fly with me.

Hmmm.
From a career based in quality systems the questions that comes to mind are;
Whats the damage?
How to best mitigate it now?
Afterwards you do the whys and corrective action steps.

If the answer to the first question is limited to “someones panties would get in a knot” then there is no actual problem outside of said panties twisting butt.

Thomas’ hair spikes started out small at the beginning of this arc, but they’ve been getting bigger the whole time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.