Black Hat and White Hat Morality System

 So, this set of observations of how people handle choosing what choices are moral and immoral has been slowly developing over a while, in various different stages of stuff

I, also, suspect I had a REALLY bad reaction to one of my recent attempts at migraine medication. One that resembles how I react poorly to taking ASA (AcetylSalicylic Acid). So looks like the options for migraines are... uh... not really as much of a thing as I'd like

I've noticed a set of behaviour that doesn't quite fit the whole "Tribalism" thing people claim people do

It more closer resembles Saturday Morning Cartoons from the 1980s handling of Ethics

In that one side is super good goodness... and the other side is evil

If you take a look at the actions of characters... you will notice that when the evil person does it--it is incredibly evil. However, when the good person does it, it is now the greatest good that one could accomplish

I remember that even as a kid this never actually made any sense to watch happen

I also, incorrectly, was under the impression that other people could see it was stupid

Which, would get in the way of it being a major underlying portion of how algorithmic content works today

It Was Okay, They Were Evil, Bro

"But I'm a good person!" -- Anonymous

So, I had noticed a common thing people would do is that dumb behaviour of "once wrong, it means they are always wrong". Most people will go off on it, without even actually really thinking overly hard about it

But, it seems more to be part of a pattern of behaviour people do

See, if somebody is evil, they are only capable of doing evil. They are a bad guy--everything they do is inherently bad

Now, when somebody is a "good guy" it means every bit of their behaviour is based around valour, glory and heroic good guy goodness of being good. Genocide is fine, if the hero is doing it to evil

Up until a few years ago, I would have assumed most people viewed this as laughable, or preposterous

People cannot really be that affected by depictions in media they watch and consume, can they?

Turns Out, People Are More Affected By Media They Consume Than Expected

"The pyramids in Cairo are surrounded by desert, with no signs of civilisation around" -- Hollywood Writers

The notion that a decent way to navigate morality for a good majority of people is to try to figure out who wears the Black Hat, and who attacks the person wearing the Black Hat

See, attacking those that are declared as being "The Bad Guys" is how most people determine what are good actions of good people

You would think that various other elements of constructing a decent community and building decent interpersonal relationships and helping those around them would factor into these things... but those are more just claimed to have been done _after_ a person is viewed as a good good person of goodness

Take that Mr. Beast guy. Everybody knows he does all the activities above. Why he has to do them--he is the good guy. Look, he smiles a lot. Like, so much smiling out of him. IT is impossible for somebody who smiles that much to not be a good person

He also engages in philanthropy. The bum living in the back ally has never paid the medical bills of about 3% of a population affected by a single particular medical issue. What is that homeless person even doing, having not even made a single viral video where he spends a large amount of money to benefit the community?

Now, if only there was some body or group of people, that could be organised to act as a toy box to help improve the lives of a community. By providing various things required for the community to function better. I will considering petitioning my city council to look into the creation of such a group--maybe even talk to my local MLA and MPs towards this "group of people to help facilitate the construction and maintenance of stuff ultimately beneficial to people in the community"... maybe I could bounce some ideas of what such a group might be able to look like

Mr. Beast smiles a lot in his videos--and people in his videos get to not suffer from medical debt (as much) and so they are happy. This means everything he does must be a good good guy of super heroic heroism--and I can assume everything else a hero does applies to him

... but... we really shouldn't...

See, Mr. Beast gets really really upset at people going on his image. Because that actually is important. It shouldn't be important. Mr. Beast should be able to just be a guy... but if anything shows through the crack to show that he has something bad he does

Well, that means he is entirely bad, and has been secretly wearing the Black Hat underneath that White Hat

The White Hat he wears is a total scam, sure yeah... but it is a scam that he does so out of necessity 

Like Godwin's Law, Except With Gundam and Warhammer 40K

"I typo'd K as L once... and debated leaving it in for a joke." --Johnathan Wernstrum, Business Blogs for Success

So, it is nearly cliche at this point... (or maybe only I am able to see it), that part of the issue people have with getting into a franchise if there is no clear "good guy" or clear "bad guy"

In the Universal Century Timeline Gundam series, Japan is working to figure out its own position in World War 2, via method of giant fscking robot battles. Truly a more correct way to explore various forms of cultural themes and notions. All of Russian Literature would be greatly improved by the addition of giant robots engaging in giant robot battles

Warhammer 40K is edgy dark darkness material to the point of it being self-parody. Think of it like a poor man's version of the Tara Gilsby classic "My Immortal" for prepz. Real goffs would never ship The Emperor of Mankind with Enoby--as Enoby isn't into Pedros

Now that I have verbally masticated regarding enjoyment for some contemporary media, the point

 People have issues following UC Gundam and 40K because of the age old question of "who is the good guy"

Anytime you have a movie, tv-show or book that makes use of "moral ambiguity" you run into the exact same complaint over and over again "who is the good guy? Who am I suppose to cheer for?"

Because a narrative story bringing insight to facets of human nature can only really function, if we have one person who we think is awesome and the best and the greatest and we all love him

It has become such a crutch for people not being able to comprehend basic notions of morality, that you could have a person with a "Grey Hat Morality"--and have it be "look at this villain protagonist"

Or have a person who literally is the worst person ever be viewed as "the good guy" simple because the camera follows him around everywhere

The camera following somebody around is code for "this person wears a white hat" to a large amount of people. This is how we all know, and do not question at all, that Rick Sanchez is a great guy, who only does good things, and is the person we should all model our personalities upon. If not him, then Bojack Horseman--who also cannot do anything terrible or wrong or bad... because well, he is the guy the camera follows around

The amount of effort to be "the good guy in the white hat" ends up becoming so nonexistent--that all you have to do is have the camera follow you, smile (or sneer--sneering is the smiling of being emotionally stunted!) and be somewhat close to financially stable

Turns out, you really do not have to fight any bad guys. Anybody you have conflict with, will be viewed as you doing this "important" step

Dr. Eggman's Gay Representation Power Hour

"People don't like to think about behaviours for the same reason they don't like to think too much. So they will generally go into autopilot mode, which would be fine if the autopilot program wasn't just every five year old doing a bad job copying and pasting what they understood adults in their life doing. Though, some might say I am bias on this one" -- Frigyth The Grumpy, Musings Before Ketchup

So, we recently got a wonderful addition to the great world of fictional Gay Representation

Jim Carry's depiction of Dr. Ivo Robotnik, got a brief speech at the end of Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (the one where they give a Hedgehog a gun)

This... caused a bit of a ripple. Because people were concerned it would be a return to the world of gay coded villains. Though, nobody ever thought to make a joke about all of Dr. Ivo Robotnik's robotic creations being "gay coded" that I have personally ran into

If being the "White Hat Good Guy" only requires smiling (or smirking, the smiling of being emotionally repressed) and having the camera follow you around. Then one should ask what is required to be "The Dastardly Black Hat Evil Guy of Bad Evil"

It appears to require being unfashionable

That is pretty much it, for knowing who is The Black Hat

Except in cases where being unfashionable is actually very fashionable, in which case it is the people who are extremely into fashion who will be determined to be unfashionable

Don't think about it... it will risk you being seduced by the dark side. You might consider posting... Cringe. You might use a hairstyle that is not of the current era. You might not wear the latest clothing--and not even in the sense where not wearing the latest clothing is the latest clothing. No... you will be wearing a wrong set of latest clothing

Right now, people will point to people "not being fashionable" by claiming they are not inclined to show critical thinking skills, or are ignorant, or not able to do basic logic

See, that is the easiest bit of demonstrating not being fashionable, is if it is some abstract concept or quality the person is missing

If you claim they are evil because they have a mustache or goatee--they absolutely do need to have that mustache or goatee. Or at least you able to show that they have a razor and shaving cream to shave that mustache. Showing they were secretly mustached the whole time--hiding under the disguise of "shaving their mustache"

But, this requires the effort of producing razor blade and shaving cream to show this guy without a mustache has secretly been in possession of a mustache this whole time, thus bamboozling us all

But if you claim somebody who disagrees with you is being irrational, unreasonable and not using logic... well, you don't actually have do any effort

See, if the person is disagreeing with the White Hat person, that should be proof enough they are not being rational

I mean, the White Hat person has the good sense to smile (or smirk) with a camera following them around. It seems pretty crazy to disagree with that sort of person

There are plenty of ways somebody could be considered insane

For example, not being born to rich parents. That seems to just be a bad idea--and clearly if they were born to somebody not rich, this means they started off with the most unfashionable of ideas imaginable. With them almost never recovering from the dreaded crime of "not doing the current fashion"

Wearing clothing that are the incorrect clothing is also something that indicates a person is completely insane

I mean, there are some people who will buy clothing from the wrong aisle in the department store. Clearly we need to treat those sorts like hoards of brainless bad guys in a video game. I mean, the aisles are very clearly labelled--and they went, and rebelled against the system decided by the Good God of Good at the dawn of time. Don't actually bring up changes in what those aisles have looked like... that is just you justifying your evil--of being unfashionable

Also an indication of being insane is being Neurally Divergent. It is not possible for any neurally divergent person to be fashionable. This is why if somebody says they have ASD, you can just look at the clothes they are wearing, and determine if they are telling the truth or not

You might have noticed this whole "being irrational is unfashionable" seem to be really really linked to each other. In a way that seems to not favour marginalised groups that well

This is how there are people who can say "Poor people are crazy and evil"... though, only evil people say that--as actually flat out saying it like that is itself unfashionable

Maintaining the balance of coloured hats

"It is shaped like itself" -- The Awakened Light of Tomorrow, Mantra No. 1 through 4

See, like most morality systems--there is a somewhat shifting  set of the balance of power. In this case the balance between black, grey and white hats

The balance is maintained by nobody ever actually noticing that people actually do this

See, only the unfashionable would ever do more than suggest it is a dumb thing that use to happen in old movies in which Italians tried to pretend to be Spanish people pretending to be Americans (ignore the history of those borders. Noticing it is ALSO unfashionable)

You can do things to approach acknowledging it, like commentary about there being Tribalism

You can even accuse somebody of "having main character syndrome"--as that is not something fashionable to actually have. Even if morality requires that you be the main character and smile a lot. Noticing that is unfashionable, remember?

Most of the accusations of being "unfashionable" do not need to be adequately explained or gone over. As well... evil is incapable of comprehending. And expecting it to need to be explained, is tantamount to saying you don't understand... and that means you secretly have a goatee you have be shaving this whole time

This whole approach to morality has always struck me as... really really stupid

Morality should be based upon a persons actions and behaviours. That trying to order stuff into sides of good and evil seem to not actually reflect anything real in how stuff happens--and generally falls about

This is how you know I secretly have a twirly mustache that I am concealing in some way

As actions are always good when you do them while wearing a white hat. And actions are always bad when you do them while wearing a black hat (the cringest of hats)

If you say somebody is behaving poorly, you need to point to their hat not being the based hat of whiteness. Demonstrate that they have had the Skibbidi Ohio Black Hat on their head--evilly evil like that

And... you'd only question an arrangement... if you are a person who needs to be defeated by the hero