#In ways that harm the victim

[hometownrockstar]

this whole richard silken thing everywhere on my dash is getting to me unexpectedly... no offense to those who rbd the um post about it i have the tag for it blacklisted but still its hard

[mollysunder]

I just can't turn my brain off for episode 7 because it's foundations are so contradictory. How can we believe that Piltover decided to change it's ways because one Zaunite kid died when Piltover has collectively proven throughout season 1 and 2 that they don't care about those kids?!!??

In season 1 enforcers regularly harassed and assaulted children in Zaun. In Act 1, Marcus tried to fire his pistol at Powder when she tried to escape him, he only stopped because she was out of range. Vi was a teenager when prison guards regularly beat her as she was falsely impropisoned in Stillwater by the same enforcer without question. Caitlyn didn't care that a child as young as Isha (probably 8) got thrown into Stillwater and neither did any of the guards. Jayce felt guilty that he killed Renni's son, but he never apologized for what he did, and chose to leave his body in the same place, in the same position he died for Renni to find her boy.

Remember that one scene where the camera lingered on that one Piltovan kid who has hurt when Jinx diverted the Grey back on Piltover and Ambessa wiped a tear from his eye? It's sad to know a child got hurt by the Grey, but do you know what other child was hurt by the Grey? VIKTOR. He was hurt by the Grey as a child, to the point that it was killing him by the time he was an adult, but Piltover, including Heimerdinger NEVER saw that as a wrong to be righted. I could keep going on about the ways the Piltovan cast have harmed children in one way or another, but that would get repetitive. The point is Piltover and it's cast have consistently proven that they don't care about children in Zaun in any way that matters, so to assume that Vi's death would bring about change is just dishonest to the story that's been told up until that episode.

[dykedvonte]

You ever just see a Mouthwashing take that makes you want to bang your head into a wall? I literally just saw someone claim Curly couldn't have been emotionally abused by Jimmy before the crash because he was in a higher position of power than Jimmy.

-Shrimp Anon

The mouthwashing fandom has shown me that people genuinely do believe that certain types of abuse are not as detrimental as other types especially when they deem those immune/resistant, ergo, believing one is objectively worse no matter how it affects the person nor the intersections of power, history and dynamics at play.

Get ready cause this is a yap session:

Cause like it's heavily implied that Curly and Jimmy's friendship was toxic and abusive, pointedly in the direction of how Jimmy uses Curly's belief/comfort in him. Curly wasn't forced to enable Jimmy but he was emotional and mentally on edge around him in almost every scene in some way. Mental and emotional abuse are not contingent on what positions you have at work. Yeah, he's Jimmy's boss but he was Jimmy's friend first and it's like getting into Psych discussion to talk about how social power tends to overshadow any perceived organizational power in the human mind. People are concerned about their jobs ofc but they tend to hang onto and put more value/investment into their personal relationships, hence why there tends to be laws and restrictions around mixing the two.

I always see the sentiments that "Curly is a grown ass man", "Curly is bigger than Jimmy", "Curly is Jimmy's boss", "He just needed a backbone" as criticisms of Curly and while I do agree that on the surface level all of these to be true and viable ways Curly could've taken more control of the situation, I often look at the parallels of Anya and Curly as victims of Jimmy pre/post crash.

The way Jimmy talks to Anya post crash is how he talked to Curly in the pre-crash segments. It's hard to pin-point mainly because we know he hates and wants nothing to do with Anya compared to his contrary but similarly handled obsessions with Curly. It's a weird sort of "honey-moon" effect of abuse Jimmy does in terms of emotional and mental victimization. He is always horrid to Anya, always talking down or questioning her abilities and thoughts in a situation, this of course includes the harassment and assault. However, he has a moment of attempted gentleness/conditioning when he question her about the mouthwash when she's contemplating drinking it at the table. The key difference is he has no personal investment in Jimmy outside wanting nothing to do with him, meaning there is no sort of romanticized version of him that he can condition her off of. He knows this, hence, why he always reverts to trying to make her to scared to oppose him.

This sort of give and take of "kindness" doesn't work on her because she knows he is just doing it to take more from her than whatever he could possibly give but it reflects even the "softer" scenes between him and Curly where he always rewords or rephrases Curly's sentiments and concerns to sound more shallow. He is feigning a deeper understanding by reworking Curly's emotions into something bad and needing to be hidden. Everything is laced with envy and resentment, an outburst just around the corner, I mean he even slams the table in the birthday party scene, a tactic in emotional manipulation to set the victim on edge and cloud their ability to respond. Even if Curly knows Jimmy won't get physical in that moment, the physical actions is intended to make him back down in the confrontation in case it does. This is something that is just not person specific. It ingrains itself into how you interact with the world and life and it shows in major and minor ways with Curly.

Post-crash, the abusive nature is more in tandem to the physical victimization Anya went through and the stripping of voice and autonomy we see take place. Like the parasite in HFIM, Jimmy speaks for Curly most of the time and puts words in his mouth, similarly to how he takes Anya's plans as his own. He very commonly, with the both of them mind you, supplements the worst aspects of himself into them; pettiness, selfishness, lack of understanding... And tries to cover himself with their best qualities; kindness, planning, initiative, etc...

These parallel are just to say that positional power has little to do with if a person can be abused and how it can even be flipped to further the abuse. There is no doubt that Curly could've picked up on Jimmy's envy of his position hence another reason he never confronted him as a Captain but as a friend as doing so would immediately put Jimmy in a space to be confrontational/combative.

I think the disdain some people have when they talk about the heavily implied if not implicitly stated emotional/mental abuse Curly experienced being Jimmy's friend is when treating it as an excuse to why he didn't do more. I can understand that completely because it is not an excuse to why he didn't do more but is a very real reason people in his position in these scenarios can experience whether in the context of a work or social environment. However, I also think the way people talk about it really does demonstrate a bigger problem when talking about abuse when somehow who is/was abused is either part of the issue or enabled it.

Harkening back to the sentiments about Curly's inaction regarding Jimmy, I think the exact phrases I used/have seen show how there is an inherent belief that it is easier to overpower the effects of emotional/mental abuse that go in tandem with the perception of Curly as someone who should be able to. There is not an age you suddenly stop being susceptible to abuse nor a set point or low where you realize how it has affected you. You don't suddenly know to stand up or put a face on to face your abuser nor admit that you inadvertently enabled them to subjugate someone else to the same treatment. Maybe it's my psych brain but their is this growing belief that direct action is somehow easy or always the best method with the game shows you instances where it is not always the case. In real life that rings true too. He should have done more, but it's not impossible to see why he struggled to find a way or didn't even if it makes us mad.

It's not easy to suddenly gain a "back-bone". You don't immediately want to resort to aggression, especially if it mirrors the type you were a victim to. You don't want to believe you allowed yourself to be treated this bad, let it get that bad or allowed something bad to happen to someone else. It is easy to be in denial, to retreat to your thoughts or make excuses to avoid the painful truth. It's frustrating but in a way we know is relatable. It why we both hate and love Curly for it. We know we'd be better, we think we'd be better, we like to think we wouldn't falter in the same ways but it's always easier to say that from the outside looking in. It's easy to see what he was doing wrong because we are seeing it, not him, but the game really does make you picture what you would do if this was your raw reality and it's why this debate about Curly seems so never ending/contradictory. We can all say what we'd do but bottom line is that's much different when you're in the moment with all the emotions and human feelings attached.

I personally think Mouthwashing tackles the themes of rape culture, enabling, toxic masculinity, types of abuse and patriarchy in ways that are meant to deconstruct the typical straightforward views we mostly have of these concepts and how little subtilities of them are just as, if not more, detrimental than the overt/obvious parts. The game deals with the idea of little details and bigger picture in a way to show that sometimes the bigger picture is not the issue but the little details that make it up. It's why I have a personal dislike of depictions of Jimmy as the typical horrible person who would of course do something like this because the game is about noticing the little warning signs, the foreshadowing and foresight.

It's why I dislike the typical discussion of "bro code" and "boys will be boys" for the game because the game makes a point to avoid the standard depictions of such. It is about the type of men who still enable despite not condoning, agreeing or even perpetuating harmful beliefs because they can't see the little details or the ways it seeps into their everyday. The severity is not obvious to them as it was not obvious to Curly, Swansea or even Daisuke the way it was to a woman like Anya. There are little details about Jimmy that should ring alarms but if you are too naive like Daisuke, too distant like Swansea or too conditioned like Curly, they are just off markers.

There is 100% more constructive/concise ways to say "Curly was a victim of Jimmy's abuse on an emotional and mental aspect that clouded his judgements and perceptions in the scenario" while also critiquing on the side of "Curly still had a responsibility to protect Anya as a crew mate and Captain that he failed to do due to biases and stigma's he failed to surpass" without the weird condemnation people give him about should've knowing better than to let himself be manipulated by a person he considered a close, if not family/best-friend and had his own reasons to trust initially. Also stop being weird about victims of abuse in general with this fandom, like sorry not everyone has a like social epiphany the moment someone's nasty to them. People are treating it like you immediately know when you are in a toxic relationship immediately or comprehend when a person is actively dangerous and either it's your fault for not knowing how to leave/cut them off or you deserve it. Like the hypocrisy of people believing how certain fans treat the story reflect their irl views but not their own is crazy.

End statement is: I honestly don't even know man, I've been writing this too long and just like no man on that ship was perfect or really helped Anya when it mattered and I feel like pitting them against each other in discussion on who did the least or most or how it was justified sucks cause in the end Anya always did the most and best thing for herself.

[proshippers-against-censorship]

Not so gentle reminder that if you're standing there, and in front of you is a victim of assault and a victim of sexual assault, and when asked who went through the worse crime you point to the victim of sexual assault and not to both of them, you are a victim of Puritan values and you should really work on that.

[illmoraineakoi]

If the theme for AvA Season 3 is really "Your actions have consequences"...

I am genuinely curious to see what the consequences for Victim's actions will be.

Both Alan and Chosen are reaping the consequences of their actions. How is Victim going to reap his own?

How is all of this going to backfire on him?

And at what point will he realize he's gone too far, that he's made a mistake? That he's become someone he never wanted to become?

[kelocitta]

The last thing I'll say, and I'm saying it because it applies broadly- is that there is very rarely a perfect victim OR evil mastermind and everyone needs to get better at recognizing and responding to that fact. Victims of legitimate crimes or horrible acts can be aggressive, or bitter, or biased or a dozen things that make them 'unappealing' to listen too. They can have willfully exposed themselves to content or been in circles they really shouldn't have. They could have been given warning signs that they missed or outright ignored. They might exaggerate or misremember their claims. That does not mean they are no longer victims. If you completely missed the red flags and were taken advantage of- you were still taken advantage of. If you exposed yourself to harmful content that was upsetting or distressing, you were ultimately still exposed to harmful content. Maybe it is "your fault" for being there, but you were still there and it still happened. Especially in terms of online, its just shockingly very easy to end up in places where you are in danger of harm- and its shockingly easy to not notice that you may have put yourself in that position until its too late. If you want to be supportive of victims, you need to recognize that very often victims did things that were inappropriate themselves, put themselves in harmful situations, didn't back out when they should have, missed "obvious" signs... and are still a victim in the end. Likewise, abuse ranges from the intentional to the neglectful. Sometimes an abuser can even do both at once. People do harmful things completely on accident- even repeatedly. It can be mental illness or stress, it can be a dozen things- but yes sometimes people have patterns of behavior that are harmful and destructive that they either aren't aware of, in denial of, or don't get how bad they are about it. That does not erase the harm those behaviors cause. If you handle a situation poorly, it could just be that you handled it poorly- you didn't think through your actions or their implications. But from the receiving end, it doesn't matter how accidental it was, its going to often read as intentional, or a pattern, or whatever. And ultimately the harm is still done regardless of what it was. There is a world of difference between harm done intentionally and harm done through stupidity, neglect, or plain old mistake- but it not always easy to identify which is which- and harm is still done in the end. Sometimes people are harmed because someone saw an opportunity to do so, and sometimes they're harmed because no one stopped to question if it was even a risk. Both of those still ultimately result in someone getting hurt. The point of this is that if you are ever going to analyze situations critically you can not be looking for just "the good one" and "the bad one". You can't just weigh initial impressions on a scale and hope one side tips further and call it a day. Believing victims doesn't mean you need to throw caution to the wind, but likewise bad actors or misinformation doesn't mean your reaction should be that there couldn't possibly be victims. Be very mindful of how you interact in situations where someone was potentially hurt. Being 'critical' can easily boil over into disregard for harm- both the harm the involved might have done to each other and the harm you yourself do in how you respond to it.

[statementlou]

I am gonna say something crazy so please don’t get angry at me. I think among all of this that is happening right now, people should leave Liam alone and i am not saying this as some crazy ass defender who believes that “boys are innocent 😣”. I am saying this because i agree with people saying that Liam is lost. He is distressed and I believe he reads all this shit that is said about him and goes back to his old addictions, which will lead only to more destruction and we are here talking not even about him, but about people AROUND HIM. Think about it for a second before you try to ease you stress and life anger by keeping on talking about him on social media. If his coping mechanism that he picked up since 1d days (that he talked about) is drinking as an answer to all stress and shit that has been happening, then if goes back to drinking every time he is distress and probably online stuff is part of it, then he will keep on hurting more people around him. And if we are really wanna be on “side of the victims” then Ignoring his person for some time will be a better option than keeping hate on him.

I just don’t want more people to be hurt by him and i am almost 90% sure that Liam lurks on socials to see what people talk about him. And let’s be honest, bad or good, nobody reacts well on online hate and again, i think it’s better for people to not cause Liam to go back to drinking (if he didn’t already) so he would go and hurt more people, because people under influence are unpredictable and completely unaware of their actions which makes them more dangerous. And Liam will become more agressive and more dangerous if he will not sober up completely . He has to stop drinking at ALL to calm down. He needs some proper therapy and have to cut off alcohol and any kind of addiction that he has (god fucking knows) from his life. I felt like Teardrops was a sign of finally taking a good turn, but i guess addictions are way more harder to beat ( never been addicted, thankfully, but had people around me who had been :) )

ok well first of yes, Liam does lurk on socials and check what people are saying about him and take to to heart: he has told us so, his sister has said so, and Maya has said so. Liam's sister has, like you, asked people to take on responsibility for his mental health by doing or not doing certain things online (this was a while back, not just now); Maya on the other hand has asked that people not enable his abusive behaviors by ignoring or excusing them, and has told us that he not only expects fans to do that but uses it as a way of avoiding taking responsibility for his actions and as a threat. No matter what any of those people say, it is neither our job nor possible for us to fix him by posting or not posting certain things! But in a way that feels different to me from any other celebrities or public figures, the relationship between the fans and the 1D guys has always been incredibly two way and reciprocal, and I do think it matters how we use the incredible power of this fandom. We've done great useful things with it in the past, and a lot of pretty silly things, and have also done things that have had profound and lasting impacts on the guys' actual lives that continue to effect them to this day, some good and some... not. We actually do have impact on their lives for better and worse. So while there is nothing we could post or not post that will cure Liam's mental health issues, also I agree, it doesn't NOT matter what we post. If nothing else, it matters because WE spend our time in this fandom and WE are impacted, and acting like the things we've found out are in any way okay (which ignoring them also would be) is unacceptable and as I said here, harms other fans. But on top of that we have been SPECIFICALLY ASKED by a victim of abuse to do something: she has asked that we stop enabling Liam's behavior by posting and not posting certain things online. So will talking about it hurt Liam, and if so should we not do that? It might distress Liam to have people tell him what he's done and is doing is not okay! That's very likely. And obviously I don't like people telling him to kill himself or posting revenge porn because those are NEVER acceptable things to do; but Liam's distress is actually less important in this situation than holding Liam accountable for his actions is. I worry about the possible impacts of that too, I think we have all pictured the worst case scenarios. But the thing is that what you are suggesting is to try to figure out how we can act to prevent an abuser from being abusive or from hurting themselves, how to do things that will keep them calm and fix them; this ISN'T POSSIBLE in any kind of real way, and the idea that is a troubling symptom of clinical codependency. It IS however important and necessary for people who care about them to tell abusers that their behavior is not okay, and that we will not look the other way when they fuck up! tldr: No abuser or addict has ever changed because things simply got easier and so they no longer "needed" to lash out or to medicate; but people have been encouraged to change by people whose good opinion they want telling them their behavior is unacceptable.

[sainthomura]

Magireco if the writers didn’t characterize the magius as bumbling idiots who were stupid for joining a cult for comic relief and actually put effort and empathy into writing them

[proudfreakmetarusonikku]

it’s bizarre how people took “don’t be parasocial you don’t know these people” to “you should never trust people to be at all decent unless you personally know them” bc like. one that’s terrible advice to give considering you’re far more likely to be harmed by someone you know with like, most crimes, but also like… Yeah you should be able to reasonably expect that people aren’t horrible criminals? That isn’t absurd or being overly trusting thats very normal to expect. Y'all have reinvented severe life destroying paranoia and victim blaming (bc I’ve seen people start talking over Actual Victims bc they were stupid for trusting people) bc one minecraft youtuber you watched was shitty like. No we should not expect Every Random Person or even Every Random Man to be a rapist by default that's extremely unhealthy in so many ways. That’s not reasonable caution that’s like, a phobia. Please stop getting into echo chambers that reinforce emotional self harm to stay safe it’s not helping!

[sukibenders]

A female artist/celebrity: Hey, while I'm really happy for all the support you guys as my fans have shown me, can we please establish some boundaries? Some things are starting to make me uncomfortable. Again, I'm grateful but--

Said people the response was aimed towards: Oh so now she thinks she's too good for us? She's so ungrateful, letting all the fame get to her head. Doesn't she know that without us, she wouldn't be as famous? She should just suck it up!

[spop-romanticizes-abuse]

“y'all want toxic ships in media but you couldn't even handle c//a!!”

hate to break it to you but you're not thinking of the same people.

c//a antis aren't the ones who want toxic relationships in media. most of us want to see healthy relationships that are built on mutual trust and understanding.

and let's just say, even if we do want to see toxic ships in media, we want to see them as they are. not romanticized, not sexualized, not framed as anything but a toxic relationship.

[brick-van-dyke]

If there's one thing I've respectively noticed from Zionists and defenders of Israeli war crimes, it's that every source, argument and potential avenue to explore each explanation is riddled with cherry picking, moving the goalposts and mental gymnastics to explain why their conclusions, which typically are barely even related to the sources they use, somehow overshadow literal reality and what we see with our own eyes.

While scrolling, one example I came across was the repetitive misrepresentation of BLM, antifa and quotes from Martin Luther King Jr, as well as statistics, scholarly journal articles and government website information. These are all good sources, yet every single time they're mangled completely until the only possible "interpretation" of any of them is "well Israel is right to defend itself after shorting rockets beforehand because the retaliation was brutal and all Arabs are bad by default therefore". As if any of these sources are even about individual exceptions of Israel versus hatred towards Arabs.

I think what I find most absurd, as someone in the middle of their own studies, is how every bit of critical thinking and logic goes out the window as they do every single thing possible to do what professors worldwide say NOT to do when evaluating sources. It's like watching a race to see who can tangle and misconstrue scientific information to fit their world view the fastest. Then said people say "um actually I studied at university before so it's actually not wrong that I'm doing this exact this everyone is warned not to do because I have a permit". Ignorance I can forgive, but willful and arrogant manipulation? That's another thing entirely.

[dykedvonte]

Something something perhaps the reason Curly lacks a truly undamaged ID where his face is visible is to represent how much damage Jimmy had already affected on him throughout their relationship and the way Curly obscured part of who he is and what he stood to unintentionally cater to this toxic influence in his life.

[qweerhet]

i think people heavily involved with leftist ~discourse~ could stand to take a step back from questions of morality and recognize:

when you brutally torture people for their entire lives, they will eventually react with extreme and brutal violence.

it's not a question of whether that reaction is moral or not. it's certainly not a question of if they will react like this; the only question is when.

it's pointless to try to ascribe moral value to the actions of torture victims while they are being tortured. if someone is starved, beaten, denied medical care, denied humanity their entire lives... they will (at the very least try to) lash out with brutal and horrific violence at some point. this is how our bodyminds respond to torture. this is how the endless trauma of being subjected to such conditions manifests itself. morality doesn't factor in.

[peony-pearl]

June was the only woman older than Katara and Suki to show up and help the Gaang in the finale and I think that’s ridiculous. We could have seen Yagoda and the Herbalist in the White Lotus (and Miyuki!! She has a cute miniature lotus collar). Perhaps even Haru’s mom showing up somewhere??  IDK the lack of older ladies as respected guides and teachers is irksome and until further notice I’m headcanoning out of spite that they were there we just didn’t see their scenes but they were there dammit

[uncanny-tranny]

Man, as a trans guy and abuse survivor, whenever I see people saying the likes of, "lmao, men shouldn't be allowed in anything deemed 'women's healthcare'!" It just reminds me that - especially in healthcare - my safety and comfort will never matter so long as it continues to condradict people's preconceived notions of what constitutes people worthy of healthcare. It's just something I wish the well-meaning people who are rightfully frustrated with the state of healthcare would take a second to remember.

Yes, the healthcare system sucks and we must fix it. No, that doesn't mean we ought to leave behind people just because they challenge us on our own biases.