#Stop blaming the victims of abuse

[gay-otlc]

Actually I think we should talk about how incredibly fucked up it is for sapphic women to say shit like "I'm no better than a straight man 😔" when attracted to a woman in a way that isn't 100% pure and wholesome, or act like men's attraction to women is inherently dirty, predatory, or objectifying.

[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.

[blissfulrain12]

Okay, I'm just gonna say it. Saying "This abuse victim is partially responsible for their abuser attempting to murder them" is wild! And saying "Because this abuse victim failed another abuse victim they are just as bad as the murdering rapist that physically, emotionally, verbally, medically abused them, canabalized them, and forced them to eat their own leg." is even wilder! Like ya'll know this is just victim blaming, right?

Also by this logic Anya is also as bad as Jimmy! She enabled Curly's physical and medical abuse. Also unlike Curly it wasn't through inaction. Anya asked her rapist to provide medical care to her nonverbal patient and then left them in a room alone together. There were two other guys she could have asked instead. The rapist had also spoken to her about wanting to kill the patient and she had witnessed at least one instance of verbal abuse from the rapist to the patient(Curly's birthday party). And yet she still chose to ask her rapist to perform medical care multiple times.

Also it should be noted that taking needed medication from patients for personal use is a form of medical abuse. So yeah when Anya took all of the remaining pain meds she might have committed medical abuse against Curly. So if Curly is just as bad as Jimmy there's no way that doesn't apply to Anya too!

Seriously the fandom has fallen into the "good/bad victim" dichotomy which is extremely damaging to victims. Anya has been labeled the "good" victim so her flaws are diminished, ignored, or justified. Like I've seen people argue that Anya enabled Jimmy to abuse Curly as revenge and acted like that was a good thing instead of Anya being as bad as Jimmy.

Meanwhile Curly has been labeled the "bad victim". This means Curly is denied victimhood. Instead Curly gets victim blamed (Curly's at fault for his own attempted murder) and his abuse is called "deserved", "karma", and "punishment". His abuse is mostly talked about as metaphor for other people (seriously guys the unborn baby 🤨). When Curly's abuse is talked about there's always a disclaimer: "not to defend Curly", "this doesn't excuse Curly", "CURLY IS NOT INNOCENT" which might as well be saying "this victim is a bad victim/not a worthy victim". Curly's also been equated with his abuser sometimes even being said to be worse than the abusive rapist that ate Curly's leg. Also I'm pretty sure Curly's "bad victim" status is also contributing to the ablism around Curly's disability.

In conclusion stop victim blaming Curly please.

[azelmaandeponine]

Yeah, like, if Filbrick really just wanted to give Stan a wakeup call and help him get his head on straight, he should have made Stan get a job after high school to help pay for Ford to go to college, not kicking him out of home.

Exactly. That would be a wake-up call.

Kicking Stan out of the house before he graduates high school is abusive and cruel.

[necromancer-snail]

Long post about Monty under the cut because I'm a defender until the end of my days

Check tags for TWs

"Monty was evil" "Monty should have known" blah blah blah blah blah!!! Tell me you've never been betrayed by a parental figure without telling me you've never been betrayed by a parental figure. She cared for him and was the first connection he ever made - yes it was toxic, but he was a crow before he was ever human. He, with only a week of human existence under his belt, didn't have the emotional intelligence, lived experience, or support system necessary to a) realize the way she treated him was abusive, b) come to terms with her being a bad person, c) break the bond he had with her, AND d) get himself safely out of the situation while protecting others. Actually, pretty much no one who grows up in an abusive household has the ability to do all of these things until after years of healing and/or therapy!

He is not at fault for wanting her approval. It is shown she cared for him as a crow, and even though she harmed him when he was human, he still recalls being a crow - remembers her affection and how it made him feel. To him, the only way to be rewarded (not even with a material thing; with kindness) is to do exactly as she says. His relationship with Edwin wasn't solid enough for him to trust that he could get support or his emotional needs met, and while Esther wasn't reliable in that either, her conditions to receive affection and kindness were clear and easy to achieve. The only time we see her say anything rude to him or physically harm him is after Monty questions her methods or shows affection for Edwin, which means all he had to do up until episode 6 was hang out with Edwin and gain his trust.

All he knew at that point was "gain Edwin's trust = Esther approves + Edwin likes me." I'm sure she hinted at bigger plans, but having only been human a short time, never having a support system, having no reference for a healthy maternal relationship, etc, he trusted her. Anyone in his position would do the same. She was the first person to show him any sort of kindness, to fulfill his basic needs. He was vulnerable around her. There's a trust built there. It's not an easy thing to break.

He was 16 and had barely been human, barely felt things on a deeper level. A 16 year old can recognize their parent is abusive. A 16 year old can attempt to defy their parent. A 16 year old can try to escape. A 16 year old with only a week of humanity? He did try. It's unrealistic, and honestly it's insulting to victims of abuse, to expect him to have been able to recognize the extent of her plans and have the strength to escape with his life. He dies when he tries to leave. That wasn't added to the show simply to have a convenient way to get rid of Monty. It's the reality of abuse victims everywhere. The moment a victim steps out of line, they risk their life.

Engage with your media critically. Analyze the roles each character plays and their relationships and bonds. Fucking research the effects of abuse. He wanted approval from the first person who ever showed him kindness, the first person he bonded with. Children in abusive situations strive for it naturally. It takes years of working on yourself and your past traumas to fully recognize the extent of the abuse and a fuck-ton of willpower to get away from it. Those who try don't always make it.

And to be clear - if you don't like him because you find him annoying, or you simply didn't connect with his character, that's fine. But I firmly believe not liking him because he helped Esther is victim blaming.

[lilcookiebugg]

I think a main problem I have with a lot of the criticism regarding Stolas. Is that their looking at him with a black and white view. When Stolas is not made to be looked at in black and white.

Like something I’ve noticed is a lot of people can’t exactly tell sometimes that a character or thing or show is not always to be written to be viewed as black and white. But gray.

If we try to view Stolas in a black and white view. Then we’d actually never be able to understand his full character.

If we view him through white then we’ll never see how bad his actions can be and affect others. If we view him through black then we may never understand the actual motivations or reasons for doing the actions.

Stolas was made to be seen in gray. To understand nuance. Which is why viewing him in black and white only doesn’t work.

And listen, I’ve heard a ton of “what the fuck was that” things about Stolas people have said. Because it’s like.

Babe you don’t have to paint a character to be a monster to dislike them. You don’t. You could literally just say “Fuck that owl I don’t like him” and that would be fine.

You don’t have to paint him as a gr##mer or r#pist to have a reason to dislike him. It’s not needed. You can dislike him without having to do that.

Stolas is not a good person. He’s not a bad or evil person. He’s a deeply flawed person that has definitely fucked up more than once.

And that’s what he was made to be.

[furiousgoldfish]

narcissists abusing children and vulnerable people: no reaction from other narcissists, perfectly normal and acceptable, nothing to get upset about, not worthy of mentioning

abused children and victims speaking out against the abuse: Hey now. Are you aware that you are evil and hurting mentally ill people everywhere? Come on now. Surely you understand that everything you're saying is causing massive amounts of harm to everyone existing. After all, who is responsible for stigma against narcissistic abuse, you who are abused by them, or the narcissists who are doing the abuse? You of course. Change your language and behaviour immediately. Hey everyone cancel this evil villain trying to hurt mentally ill people. How dare you imply people who abused you and are narcissists are doing the narcissistic abuse or that it is a real thing. How dare you act like all of the data on it and all other victims are experiencing an unique and real type of abuse that has a name. You are the problem, and you should feel ashamed and educate yourself on mental illness. Now, let narcissists abuse in peace and know your place.

[felucians]

I've got men arguing that there's no power imbalance between Caiti's friend (a 20 year old intoxicated woman with a small platform) and Dream and George (26/7 year old men who were still fairly sober with huge platforms) in Dream's literal hotel room.

Because there's "no sexist power imbalance between adult women and adult men".

I am BEGGING for you to think critically about sexism here.

[butchbonerot]

"mommy issues make you a sociopath" could you stop implying that being abused by the wrong parent makes you an evil person. Thanks in advance

[downforastory]

"Memories, memories are torturing my existence"

[lord-squiggletits]

Something else that makes me sympathetic to Pharma's situation is like. Idk if there's an actual term for this or if someone smarter and more academic wrote it about some real life context that actually matters.

But, so we've already established among Pharma stans that the circumstances at Delphi were blackmail/torture with no real way out that wouldn't involve Pharma being responsible for people getting killed (either killing patients for the deal or having everyone die bc he failed his end of the deal).

And I feel like while "he's still in the wrong because he killed people" is part of it, another sort of implicit part is the idea that Pharma should've been willing to take more personal risk, maybe even risk dying? I mean, Ratchet does ask "why didn't you just detonate it near the DJD" (to which Pharma responds that he did try to get Sonic and Boom to do it, but they refused) so like

Idk I feel like we do have this social notion of martyrs as a very romantic ideal, people you can praise for being so brave and strong and righteous that they ended their own lives for their cause, while you can also coo about how sad and tragic it is that dying is what it took for them to do the right thing. But at the same time I feel like in reality, having an expectation that people become martyrs is kind of a toxic social norm bc like. It's very easy to demand that others sacrifice their lives for some Ultimate Moral Good when you yourself aren't experiencing the same hardships as they are. And ultimately it is kind of fucked up to tell someone "the moral thing you should've done was risk your life/kill yourself" because asking someone to pay their life to do the right thing is no small request. And sure, the typical response would be to call them a "coward" for caring more about saving their own skin instead of doing the right thing... but again, death is a really scary thing and self-preservation is a really strong instinct, so it kind of feels like having this binary view of "you're either a Brave Hero who sacrifices your life for everyone else or a Dirty Coward who's too scared of dying to do what's right" is kind of fucked up?

I guess the best way to describe it is that if someone willingly gives up their life as a sacrifice to others, it can be a noble thing because it's a choice they made willingly, but if it becomes a Moral Standard that in order to be a Good Person you have to be unafraid of throwing your life away and if you aren't willing to die you're a Cowardly Bad Person, that's when it becomes toxic.

Idk, I guess how this ties back to Pharma is that he was never in a position where he expected to make these kinds of moral decisions/ultimatums. He's a doctor who doesn't even get into combat, his job is to heal and not to kill, he's behind the front lines in a hospital that's supposed to be a safe, neutral place for him to heal people. So in the face of suddenly having a "murder people on behalf of me, or I murder everyone you swore to protect" ultimatum thrust upon him, I understand why Pharma wasn't """"""""""brave enough"""""""""" to "do the right thing" (whatever that would've been in the case of Delphi). You could argue that maybe a frontliner soldier accepted the burden of possibly dying for their cause and they've become used to it as someone who lives that reality every single day, but I feel like for Pharma, who's a doctor and a protected non-combatant (from what we can tell), that sort of risking of his life/living with the fact his life could be snuffed out any day isn't something he would've been prepared for at all.

And for me personally, from an outsider's perspective, it strikes me as kind of unethical to go "oh well he should've just detonated the bomb himself even if it killed him" bc again, there's a difference between witnessing a moral conundrum as a bystander versus being the person living with it and being under time pressure where it's do-or-die. Just as part of my personal standards, I feel like death is such a huge consequence/burden of someone's actions (literally you are no longer alive, any potential you had left is cut short, you cease to exist on this plane) that it feels rather callous to go "Well you should've just been willing to die for your beliefs if you really cared that much!!!"

[recitedemise]

It doesn't need to be said (I am preaching to the choir), but after seeing a very bad faith interpretation of Gale nearly half a year after release, I am going to say it again regardless!

Gale is a victim, not a perpetrator. In his relationship with Mystra, he was preyed on and hurt, not Mystra. Yes, Mystra told Gale not to seek out the missing part of Weave that is a part of her, but Gale had no idea it was Karsite in nature and was not aware he was looking for something that was actively corrupt and dangerous until Act 3. Mystra did not inform him right out the gate. Gale may have went to seek it out despite her disapproval and erred and doomed himself for it, but Gale was also aiming solely to apologize for...wanting to be her equal. And I am saying it one more time: it is NOT Gale's fault for wanting to be on the same footing with his lover. No one wants to feel like they're looking UP at their lover, beneath them and not worthy of them. Gale was groomed. Gale was preyed on and eyed by Mystra since he was a young boy. He was her pupil, she, his mentor, and later, he became her lover. Of course Gale wants to feel equal to her. Of course Gale wants to be more. How could he not want to be more, to live up to his goddess that gave him an OUNCE of her attention? Lord forbid.

Gale is not some manipulator. How the idea that he, a mere mortal, could manipulate Mystra, a goddess, is truly beyond me—a goddess who told him to literally die to earn her forgiveness. While he may have had a more haughty personality in EA and was originally supposed to have tried to usurp Mystra in CONCEPT, a lot and a considerable lot has changed upon release. Gale is remarkably human. He is remarkably honest. He is so bare, so forward, and is practically the FIRST person to reveal to you everything you need to know about him among the party if you prove yourself trustworthy, which, let's be real, is a low bar (you save a child and he's impressed. Like. Truly. The bar is THAT low). Gale is arrogant, sure, but is also remarkably modest with his desires and has befuddlingly low self confidence and self worth. He does not try to manipulate Mystra or the player into anything. He's a dying man who honestly just wants to be told he's worthy of everything as just Gale DEKARIOS, not just as Gale of Waterdeep. He's ambitious because he has lived his whole life with the impression he's only worth something if he makes himself out to be something. There is no manipulation here, just a deeply wanting man who looks at 'the world is better FOR you' like it's worth more than all the riches in the world.

Gale may have his hang ups because he is well and truly traumatized, but that's because he's absolutely the victim in his situation. I get it. He's older. He's a grown man and Mystra talked so 'calmly' and didn't physically hurt him (even though she did turn a blind eye when Gale, you know, was afflicted with and living with a bomb in his chest), but that doesn't make Mystra any less the perpetrator of his traumas.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

among the boundless billions zaniness like laugh track as it definitely has that moment of expressing "rolling my eyes as The Left makes a kerfuffle of Acting like they have a stance as a veneer over the true belief that [xyz] is cool & chill actually" like what, approximate 0.000% chance wendy isn't, as usual, given the Objective Stance of "yeah yeah ohh we are cancelling involved parties talking about how we Don't watch this But. we all love this damn epic movie & already have it memorized so shut the fuck up, kids today" like. don't wanna really delve into how much billions thinks taylor or anyone is "really" trans / nonbinary like not too much benefit of the doubt in this material including what does provide info abt that specifically

& the general like [head in hands. what do you think any of this could possibly be about (you're the one that made your show at all about Power)] of "yes, it's bad/wrong to be someone that someone has done something to / victim of something" like that to be anti misogyny All Women Must Be Epic Winners b/c there's something to be proved: that they don't Deserve to be victims (of misogyny), not taken as a Given. while when we see some epic winner men stepping on other men (who need not all be guaranteed Winners so as to say misogyny is wrong), that's often Good, well beyond any assumption that various forms of basic disrespect / violation / patterns of emergent/entrenched power difference as Bad (for being things done to people, not for there being people they're being done to), & generally billions has to take an extra step when ppl get shitted on & tell us the Specific Cases when it was undeserved actually & someone was being mean to a specific person who didn't deserve that. & the specific cases when hey guess it wasn't that bad(tm) or when hey It's Okay that you're someone something was done to, in this case. & tell us what we were supposed to know all along like when someone who something was being done to (wrong Of Them, whether b/c they inherently deserve it no matter what, &/or b/c they failed to be someone who could make it Impossible to do anything to them, which, how do you do that besides being The Authority / Superior yourself, exactly? nonrhetorically? what if the in group vs out group / fascism / authoritarianism protected Me?) was actually being treated Too Well b/c ah well the abuse meant you were getting any attention, maybe it meant you were claimed as any superior's property, maybe it meant you weren't Already disposed of, as all Losers were in the end, You're Welcome.

obviously referring to winston where it's spelled out all the abuse towards him was deserved, & More than he deserved in the case of rian having more access & taking advantage of that, all for billions' enjoying its own sendoff there of, again, maximizing violation & violence short of [real violence is physical & leaves bruises / draws blood / Literally kills] which would be distasteful in general But doesn't it make wags look like the winner & winston the loser is that the former's completely unrelated completely impersonal ego blow gets way amplified taken out on winston, the most vulnerable recurring character when spyros as [first & ultimate Everyone Hates Him role] is more entrenched in there & billions still magnanimously pities tuk, as it does winston too, just not quite as much. again that like completely surface level realized power fantasy of forcing the mirror up to the Inferior so they're like nooo my inferiorityyyy & in doing so like, the projection in that lmao, we get it re: the valuing of & need(tm) for such Power Tripping & Reaffirming My Superiority & My Ego Restored; Everyone Claps like good god. & then for all ben & tuk are the slightly softer Two Too Nice Boys duo to the rian & winston quant duo, also like too nice i guess but not as much, ben is in charge of tuk but Any instance of rian being in charge of winston outstrips them in that "yay interpersonal abuse" dynamic, like then in the end billions may be like "yeah it's possible to be mean to them unlike how being mean to winston is actually Nice b/c he deserves everything he gets, we only vicariously enjoy it vs Feeling Bad for tuk & ben sometimes (still magnanimously & it's Not That Bad / just goofin)" like ben & tuk still Fail by not being people it's impossible to do anything to. & not Exceptions who anyone is really being Too Mean to. like if they were women, in which case, no problem surely with a "positive" kind of victim blaming where there is something Inherent that Will be victimized so hey how about to cancel that out there's this special Paternal Protection you Need always, Or Else? :) but instead they are men who are asian & is ben gay & w/tuk & winston nobody mentions glasses or fatness but billions doesn't really do much or very in depth textual mentioning of Anything, even w/nonzero mention that there may be gender & race in this world. a gay man, once. no disability. we just Know who are the inferiors who deserve it when they're treated inferiorly, or if they don't, they start deserving it when they fail to stop/avoid it, but if you start mentioning the factors behind who we all totally agree is inferior like whoa nobody was Saying any of that? being the real agent of oppression on the basis of the factors only You spelled out, much? nonbinary? i never say anything about the Gender Binary when i'm subscribing to it, sounds like You've created & enforced it. obfuscation & deflection onto [so Just Normal nobody has to label, explain, or argue it] couldn't serve a purpose & protect the existing power differences as they are. maybe You're the problem? perhaps you brought it upon yourself & now you're causing too much trouble standing up for yourself while everyone else's criticism is laser focused on you as the prior & continuing negative actions done to you are taken as a given / unquestioned / covertly protected to overtly encouraged?

anyway so wild if the Completely Normal(tm) Victim Blaming is uncritically recreated & oft embraced for "if you're watching this & don't wish you were axe / find him appealing" [billions as a sequence of vicarious power trips] purposes in this series....but a bit wild considering like this is your multiseason show that wasn't just purporting to be those power trips for [enough demographic & apparently specific personal tastes overlap w/creators] & was at all purporting to question the matters of power at play in the material, or yknow, at least to not be completely superficial material while said material is textually & thematically all about power difference being leveraged, how, the consequences, & so on. thus i will have to intermittently talk about it forever like this like lord unbelievable. & the funny little & sometimes less funny less little characters it has trapped in there so that those of us who were never meant to be in the audience can be cursed with this knowledge. like i have some feedback. "imagine not victim blaming" & "imagine adjusting your perspective can go beyond superficial layers added to politely defer to some other ppl while they're present but really like cmon do they deserve that. am i not just saying what we're allll thinking"

[azelmaandeponine]

Hi thanks for answering my question! I tried to explain to my friend that even though they had a strained relationship, Ford still loved and missed Stan. And well, their answer was... I'll leave the message they sent me:

"What strained relationship? Ford cut Stan out of his life the day Filbrick kicked him out of the house. Their relationship ended that day, as Ford cut ties with his brother. It's like you end a friendship with someone but still call this person your friend. It doesn't make any sense. Also, it was only when Ford needed Stanley’s help that he was willing to contact him. For some reason Ford believed that a person he had cut all ties with should come running to him when he called them like a dog. Like, it was Stan's obligation to help him over ten years after their ties had been cut."

I honestly give up, I'm going to stop talking to them about Gravity Falls so I don't have to stress myself out.

Wow. Again, no media literacy, but also I think they need a reality check because that's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

It's obvious Ford still cared about Stan. He kept the picture of them as kids with him, and he referenced Stan a lot in the Journal, meaning he missed him.

He also called Stan the "someone he could trust" which are not words you use about people you don't care about.

You literally have to ignore like all of canon to come to the conclusion your friend did. They are engaging with a version of Gravity Falls that only exists in their head.

I've already been over the fact that it would have been very difficult for Ford to get in touch with Stan due to the time period. However, Ford had every right to remain angry with Stan, and Stan did not try reaching out, either (remember, he hung up before saying anything when he tried calling). It takes to two to communicate.

Stan and Ford's relationship is that of family, not between friends. And that does change things. Like I have a cousin I was close with when I was younger, but now I hardly talk to. That doesn't mean my relationship with her is nonexistent.

Also Ford is not wrong for asking Stan for help in regards to Ford's situation with Bill (Ford's abuser), holy shit. Stan was not obligated to come, but Ford asked because he had no one left he could trust but Stan, and again, Ford was being tortured and severely abused by Bill and Ford deserved help.

Asking your estranged twin brother for help--especially when you're in a horrifically abusive situation--is not treating him like he's "obligated" to come help you or "treating him like a dog" or whatever.

I think your friend just hates autistic-coded abuse victims.

[dirtytransmasc]

I'll rephrase, Alicent in the first episodes after the time skip treat rhaenyra like shit before aemond's episode and whisper to aegon how he will become king, so, in this time rhaenyra did nothing to be seen as a threat to alicent's children. And mostly because alicent is aware that viserys loves only rhaenyra, alicent should have preserve her relationship with rhaenyra if she really care for her children, not give rhaenyra a reason to hate her. The cold truth is that before aemond's episode most of alicent's choise are guided not by the love she have for her children but by her resentment toward rhaenyra. Alicent herself plant the seed for the dance, not rhaenyra. She crown aegon aware that rhaenyra will not bend the knee and that houses will support her but still forces aegon to take the crown and start a war, the reason why her children are in danger ARE HER NOT RHAENYRA. When people say that they're happy for alicent's end honestly i can't agree more because all the blood of the dance, not only her children or rhaenyra's but the blood of everyone, is on her shoulders and on her choise.

***EDIT AT BOTTOM***

ok, so, gonna try and be nice, but I've tackled takes close to this one before, and I'm getting a wee bit tired of it, but I'm gonna do it again anyway.

Alicent had no reason, to respect, love, or foster a relationship with Rhaenyra during the timeskip, and tried her hardest to prior to the timeskip, only to get walked all over, so she stopped trying.

I've gone over this in a few posts like this, this, and this one (these are similar takes, not exactly catering to this one exactly, so like, take them with a pinch of salt and focus on what caters to this take if your gonna go through reading them), but Alicent does not owe Rhaenyra any good will, at all, point blank.

Alicent tried for years, long enough to have 2 children, to reforge her relationship with Rhaenyra. this was after she was prayed upon by a grown ass man who forced her hand in marriage (after her own father sent her to the mans chambers, and if you try and argue she had any choice or say, or try to blame her for her marriage to Viserys I will gladly just send you to my many posts as to why that's a straight up lie, cause I've beaten that horse beyond death, its pulverized) and Rhaenyra treated her like absolute garbage, abandoning her in her greatest time of need. but she still tried to rekindle that bond, tried to include rhaenyra, tried to befriend her, she tried, and Rhaenyra walked all over her, leaving her completely alone outside of Viserys, her father, and her children.

Alicent tried, time and time again to help Rhaenyra as well. she tried to give Rhaenyra a choice in her marriage, kept Viserys's temper calm with her, helped set up a grand tour with dozens of suitors for her to pick from, a good grace no noble girl, or any girl really, could ever dream of.

when Rhaenyra had her scandal with Daemon and Criston, she tried her hardest to protect her then, even when it hurt her to do so. she believed Rhaenyra when she lied to her, on her dead mothers name, making a fool of herself in front of Viserys. she proclaimed Rhaenyra's innocence only to find out she had not only lied, but from her prospective, she had slept with two men in one night, one of those times it was coerced (since she had no way of knowing Rhaenyra hadn't gone all the way with Daemon), and that while her father received punishment and was removed from KL (leaving her alone at court), Viserys still didn't believe her and sent her the tea.

that is a lot for one person to process, especially from someone they considered a close friend to do to them. to be treated with cruelty over a marriage she had no say in and was hurt by immensely, lied to, used, walked all over, and abandoned none the less? I would have hated her too.

Rhaenyra goes on to do whatever she wants at court, while Alicent suffers her fate of duty. she has bastards and proclaims them legitimate, showing she has yet to change whatsoever since that event, an event that has had a negative impact on Alicent's life. Viserys turns a blind eye to it, as he practically had with the scandal (cause a moon tea and a marriage is barely anything compared to the consequence's Rhaenyra should have faced. not wishing ill on Rhaenyra either, just saying the heir to the iron throne deserves a little more than a pat, not even a slap, on the wrist for that). she's angry, its understandable.

and yet, even through her anger, she keeps her temper. sure she speaks to Viserys and Cole about it, but thats her husband, Rhaenyra's father, and her sworn sword and seemingly only trusted friend. at court (especially prior to the time skip) she is amiable, if a little passive aggressive. she protect Rhaenyra's name more than she has to, is respectful when she doesn't have to, even keeps those around her to honor some level of repsect when it comes to Rhaenyra when she doesn't have to (namely calling Criston when he calls her a cunt).

when they usurp her, she orders no harm to come to Rhaenyra and stands up to her manipulative father after years of falling to his words, and orders that he follow her lead, because she doesn't want to hurt Rhaenyra if its not necessary.

will I say she was the kindest person in the whole wide world to Rhaenyra? never, that's laughable. will I say she was kinder, more respectful, and protected her more than Rhaenyra ever even attempted to be, let alone was towards her? 100% absolutely.

she never wanted to have a bad relationship with Rhaenyra, but one person can only take so much before they break. she couldn't try anymore, Rhaenyra made it clear that Alicent was nothing more than a means to an end for her, that she would step on her if she needed to. Alicent shouldn't be expected to put up with that.

she attempted to remain amiable over the years, to keep some semblance of peace within the house until Rhaenyra was a threat, which honestly would have most likely happened regardless, as we've seen, Rhaenyra will step over whoever it takes to keep her head above water, being friends probably would have doomed Alicent and her kids even faster.

Alicent was never the seed of the dance, Rhaenyra and Viserys were. Viserys allowed Rhaenyra to grow into the person she was, a person who sought self benefit with little care for the realm and her image, she doomed herself and Alicent was caught in the crossfire. to

expecting someone to kiss another person's feet, even after that person has kicked them into the dirt time and time again, when that person had even tried to grovel and make friends once more for years, only to blame them when they don't, when they pick themselves up out of the dirt and brush themselves off and act in their own (rightful) self interest, for a war that they never wanted and were merely a pawn in, is actually wild to me.

Alicent acted well in her own rights towards Rhaenyra and it brought her nothing but pain. she tried to be respectful and dutiful for the house and the courts sake and Rhaenyra only became more of a threat. she tried her best to protect her children, the kingdom, and rhaenyra, and was faced with war, the death of her children, and her own demise. one woman can only do and be so much, and its never enough.

and if you want to point out the ways Alicent could have been better, start pointing out the ways Rhaenyra could have been, cause her list is a lot longer. they both weren't perfect, but Alicent was forced into a life she did not ask for, given children to protect that went unloved and unwanted by their father, thrown into a conflict that had been building for years, and still tried, Rhaenyra made her own bed and refused to lay in it. one deserves more blame for the war than the other.

Edit: one thing I forgot to mention in both posts. Alicent stopped trusting Rhaenyra after her father was removed from court, rightfully so, cause she saw Rhaenyra would always get away with anything at the expense of others, and then years pass, so yeah, she wants Aegon to be king. is this wise or kind of her? I don't know, I think she's fucking earned it, we have 0 idea what has happened in those years inbetween, other than Rhaenyra having 3 bastards and claiming them as legitimate. I'd be pissed, I'd be scared (cause thats threat enough alone in my opinion), and I'd want to push my own legitimate children, especially if I had been at the but of Rhaenyra's behavior prior, I would not trust that situation to go anyway but belly up for me. if you disagree so be it, I'm not gonna convince anyone to change their minds on this specific scene. she told Aegon he would be king because despite not being a massive sore thumb of a threat, she's still, as a female heir with a firstborn son right behind her, a threat to her children nonetheless (cause politics, yippee, I don't like it but its true). she knew it would be Rhaenyra or her child, and she would always pick her son.

[aloeverawrites]

Some people seem to believe that abuse is a natural part of being human, of some human minds, and not a product of a belief system we can overcome and not perpetuate.

Like they believe that some people just have idk, abuse genes that makes it impossible for them not to be abusive. And if you want to challenge abusive beliefs that lead to people getting actually harmed, people will look at you like you’re trying to stop the earth from being round, like why bother?