#and it's not just physical violence

[untethereddreams]

Watching the Carnival Job and had a revelation about why I connect with Eliot so much in particular, particularly after seeing that post about Eliot and children.

It's the way he chooses violence as a way to protect the weak, about how he'll do anything to keep the people he cares about safe. It's being the hitter and taking all the hits, of being a meat shield not only because it's his job but because it HAS to be his job because nobody else can take it. It's about the physicality of it all, of breaking his own rules because he, the things he believes in, the things that make him him, all of these things are less important than the people he loves.

It's Andy choosing violence and dying over and over again but she has to do it until she can't anymore. It's Dean soaking up all of John's abuse and turning himself into a weapon because he has to protect his little brother.

It's me, standing myself between my parents and my brother because I know I can take whatever they throw at me, I have before, but by everything that matters in this world HE will not, not because he can't, but because he shouldn't. No one should.

[saints-who-never-existed]

“In the war film, a soldier can hold his buddy—as long as his buddy is dying on the battlefield. In the western, Butch Cassidy can wash the Sundance Kid’s naked flesh—as long as it is wounded. In the boxing film, a trainer can rub the well-developed torso and sinewy back of his protege—as long as it is bruised. In the crime film, a mob lieutenant can embrace his boss like a lover—as long as he is riddled with bullets. 

Violence makes the homo-eroticism of many “male” genres invisible; it is a structural mechanism of plausible deniability.”

–Tarantino’s Incarnational Theology: Reservoir Dogs, Crucifixions, and Spectacular Violence. Kent L. Brintnall.

[gabelew]

gaddison my beloved...

[ruegarding]

the entire point of the blue food was that it was the only way sally could consistently rebel against gabe without getting her or percy punished. sally is not and never was submissive in the books. percy himself says sally has "a rebellious streak, like me." however, sally and percy were under threat of serious abuse from gabe and therefore had to pick their battles. blue food was sally's way of telling percy "i am here and fighting with you" and "there is hope in the world still."

[seance]

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE ❧ i bet on losing dogs.

[bonefall]

the worst parent poll made me realize just how many ppl in the fandom are willing to jump straight into abuse apologia. bc on one hand you have ppl dumbing down crow's abuse to "him just being mean" and on the other end you have ppl saying that curlfeather didnt abuse frostpaw because she sacrificed herself and frost + her siblings love her so she couldnt possibly be an abuser. truly mindboggling stuff take these serious topics away from the fandom asap.

Part of me feels like it's because many in this fandom have a feeling that if a character's actions are abusive, it means you're "not allowed" to like them. Like there's an impulse where if you liked a character, it MUST mean they weren't THAT bad, because you'd personally never like "an abuser."

As if it reflects poorly on your own morality, as a person, that you connected with An Abuser. Understood them, even. Even if it was just a character.

If it's immoral to Like Abusive Characters, of course your reaction is going to end up being abuse apologia. To enjoy something isn't logical, it's emotional, so you will get defensive about it when questioned. When you do, it's not going to be based on logic because you didn't reason yourself into that position in the first place. It's an attack on you as a person.

I feel like that's often the root of abuse apologia in this fandom, and sometimes the world at large; "If I admit that this character/person IS abusive, it means I was doing something bad by liking them, so I have to prove to everyone else that they weren't or it means I'm bad too."

And to that I say... That's a BAD impulse! Grow up and admit you resonated with a character that did a bad thing! If that's an uncomfortable thought, sit with it!

Sometimes abusers are likeable! They usually DO think they're justified in their actions, or doing it for "a good reason," or were just too preoccupied to care. MOST of the time, people who commit abusive actions are also hurt or traumatized in some way. You might even empathize with them. None of this means their actions have to be excused or downplayed.

"Abusers" aren't a type of goddamn yokai, they're people just like you and me. You don't help victims of abuse by putting the people who hurt us in an "untouchable" category.

In fact, all it does is make you less likely to recognize your own controlling behavior. You're capable of abuse. People you love are capable of it, too. People who love YOU can still hurt you.

In spite of how often people regurgitate "It's Ok To Like A Character As Long As You're Critical Of Their Actions," every day it is proven to me further and further that no one who says it actually understands what that means.

All that said; I think it's no contest which one's a worse parent, imo.

They both mistreated their children, but Curlfeather did it through manipulation without verbal or physical abuse. She politically groomed her into a position of power so that she could use her as a pawn. It can be argued if this counts as child abuse-- but it's firmly still under the broad category childhood maltreatment, which is damaging.

(though anon I'm with you 100% at seeing RED when "but she sacrificed herself" is used as an excuse. Curlfeather's death does NOT CHANGE what she did to Frostpaw in life. I think it's a valid point to bring up when comparing her to another terrible parent for judgement purposes, such as in the context of this poll, but I really hate the implication that redemption deaths "make up" for maltreatment.)

Crowfeather, meanwhile, is textually responsible for putting Breezepaw through verbal AND physical abuse, as well as child neglect. His motivations include embarrassment from a hurt ego, revenge on his ex, and being sad because of a dead girlfriend. This abuse drives Breezepelt towards radicalization in the Dark Forest.

You could argue Curlfeather is a worse person for Reedwhisker's murder, but as a parent? It's not even a question to me. Crowfeather's one of the worst dads in WC.

[uncanny-tranny]

Important tip for trans men/transmascs/whoever needs the reminder: Even if you pass as a man to cis people, you still need to have either some form of self-protection on you (e.g., mace, knives (if you can use them effectively), ect.) or know some form of self-defense. Please take it from me, you don't know what will happen out there at any given time.

You might assume that if you pass as a cis man to cis people, you will be safe from any harm. While I wish that were true, it simply isn't the world most of us live in. Please do whatever you can to protect yourself out there.

[hedonists]

BAD OMENS - LIMITS

[maxellminidisc]

Idk if you just can't face the fact that the apartheid state of Israel that you're in support of is inherently violent in not only literal violence by inacting a genocidal war against an entire people, but in its very foundation as a settler state that forcibly displaced people using international law, military power, etc, and then spent decades of time and money to further dehumanize said people so you'd be ok with the socially engineered violence so that it has a right to exist in your eyes, than yeah you're STILL supporting zionism lol all zionism is inherently wrong and it is violent!!

[furiousgoldfish]

It doesn't matter if they only lift a hand on you once. You still knew they were capable of it from that day on. You knew they could do it again anytime, and with this knowledge, you knew you had to go out of their way to please them, obey them, make sure they never get angry or upset, only to protect yourself from possible violence. It set you up for a life of fear, for the potential that you live in a violent place and your actions alone could change it from temporary peace to violent assault.

Even if they only threatened violence, they were telling you they were capable and willing! They were telling you 'Do as I say, or I will assault you'. You had to face the possibility that you live with people who would cause you pain to force you into actions against your will. You were forced to live in anticipation of violence, change your behaviour to actively try to prevent or avoid it. You had to make it your responsibility to prevent being assaulted in your own home. You had to live wondering when and if they were going to do it, or do it again. Since the moment they did it or threatened it, you were not safe. You lived with people you knew wanted to hurt you.

[darling-its-blue-and-gay]

I had a dream that Malcolm lost his voice and everyone genuinely hid from him because Jamie said that if he cannot verbally abuse an MP he will just lunge and tear out their jugular with his teeth

Malcolm silently stewing in door frames holding a bic biro like a weapon

[feroluce]

Had the cutest realization last night- so there's a saying we have in English meaning to get something done by any means necessary. It specifically includes dishonest methods, such as violence or lying. So when you're willing to resort to that kind of thing to achieve your goals, you say you're going to do something

"by hook or by crook"

[gabelew]

some recent bazzes from twitter

i like to think that Bazz is, rather uncharacteristically for a Zora, very competent with a sword

[magnetothemagnificent]

Non-ADHD and non-autistic disabled people whose only idea of ADHD and autistic people is shaped by media depictions of a nerdy white boy or a quirky goth girl with low support needs: "Yeah ADHD and autism are destigmatized and we should ignore people with ADHD and autism in favor of real disabilities. I am very smart and progressive."

Lateral prejudice towards other disabled people will get us nowhere.

[bougiebutchbitch]

cannot believe that 'yelling at your boss when he repeatedly almost gets you and your crew killed and lies to manipulate you into staying when you try to leave, is not emotional abuse, actually' and 'there is such a thing as a mutually toxic and unhealthy relationship where both parties are incredibly shitty to each other - and this is obviously where Ed and Izzy stand until S2, when it becomes blatantly abusive' is a controversial take. But as this is Abuse Apologism And Ableism, The FandomTM, I really should not be surprised

Just.

I was deep in physically and mentally abusive relationships in my teens/twenties - including relationships that started out with mutual toxicity and bad decisions on all sides, but which became outright physical & mental & other sorts of abuse with myself as the victim. I know my shit.

I suppose I can see where 'Izzy emotionally abused Ed' comes from IF people give literally the most uncharitable interpretation to Every Single Scene, and assume Izzy shouts angrily at Ed and negs him all the time rather than this being how he acts when he's incredibly stressed by circumstance caused directly by Ed and at the end of his fucking rope? Which, as we see in S2... Is not the case.

It's not freaking emotional abuse when you're shouting at your boss who keeps almost getting you and your crew killed. Even if this is NOT a kind or productive way to help Ed deal with his mental health, considering that Ed's actions have consequences that he repeatedly and blithely ignores, it's pretty fucking justified!

It's not freaking emotional abuse if your boss OPENLY LOVES MAIMING PEOPLE AND IS MORE THAN HAPPY TO BURN THEM ALIVE and you encourage that, while upholding his right to not kill with his own hands. Even if he has private breakdowns after the fact because he suffers from black-and-white thinking, dissociates himself from any wrongdoing, and is afraid of his potential to become 'a monster'.

Are these choices helpful? No. Are they kind? No. Is Izzy demonstrating Model Citizen Behaviour? Definitely not.

But it's sure as hell not emotional abuse. And it doesn't justify the physical and emotional abuse Ed puts Izzy through in S2.

Nothing you say can 'make' him hit you. If he chooses to hit you (or... choke you out then repeatedly mutilate you and pressure you to commit suicide and makes you constantly live in fear for your life and the lives of people you care about) he makes that decision himself. Yes, even if you shouted at him first. Yes, even if you were arguing. Yes, even if you were in the wrong in that argument. Yes, even if he has a Tragic BackstoryTM and mental health issues. This shit shouldn't be controversial.

Signed: one of those actual abuse survivors.

[uncanny-tranny]

The first mistake I see people make is assuming there are completely "nonviolent" ways to be transphobic. It seems like some people conceptualize transphobia as being either violent (which is always physical in some way) or nonviolent (which is "simple" emotional, verbal, or psychological abuse)

It seems, also, that people presume that when somebody has "noble" intentions for their transphobia - "I'm trying to save you!" for instance - it is suddenly nonviolent. Consider, though, how a transphobe would "save" a trans person. Would they allow that person to exist unadulterated (including being able to transition), or would they prefer to put them through conversion therapy, or revoke their access to bodily autonomy, or force them to have children, or anything that will prevent them from transition or even identifying as trans or otherwise tying them down with the obligations that prevent transition or identifying as trans?

There is no true "nonviolent" way to be transphobic because being transphobic relies on denying one the ability to autonomy and personhood. Fundamentally, even the transphobes who "want to save us" only do so in their own self-interest to save them from the horror of knowing that more people than they are alive and thriving.