#extreme meltdowns karens

[sparklymentalitypanda]

When Crazy Karens Have Extreme Meltdowns: The Best of Karens!

Welcome to our latest video, where we dive into the hilarious and often shocking world of "Karens"! In this compilation, we showcase some of the wildest and most outrageous Karen meltdowns caught on camera. Let's see when crazy Karens have extreme meltdowns. 👉 Subscribe to my channel to stay tuned:    / @instantkarenkarma  

From epic customer service fails to outrageous demands and hilarious outbursts, these moments will leave you both laughing and shaking your head in disbelief. Ever wondered what happens when a customer takes their complaints to the next level? Our video features a range of scenarios—from absurd requests at restaurants to confrontations in retail stores. You'll witness Karens challenging employees, demanding to speak to the manager, and making the most bizarre complaints you can imagine. Each clip highlights the dramatic and sometimes over-the-top reactions that have gone viral across social media.

But this video isn't just about the meltdowns. We also take a closer look at the dynamics of customer service and the challenges that employees face in dealing with difficult customers. The service industry is often underappreciated, and our goal is to shine a light on both the absurdity of these encounters and the resilience of those on the front lines. You'll hear firsthand accounts from employees who have had to navigate these tricky situations, offering insight into how they manage to keep their cool amidst the chaos.

[itsacautionarytale]

Random Mean Girls headcanons im unrelenting about [bway musical & movie musical]

• Karen, very platonically, calls Gretchen “honey”, “sweetie” and “baby”, because she knows that’s what people who love each other call each other. Again, it’s so platonic, but Gretchen reciprocates it.

• Janis’ favourite food is burgers and she loves everything on it - as much sauce and salad as possible.

• Cady is autistic.

• Also Cady hates buffets and this was found out because Janis’ and Damian decided it would be a good idea to help her acclimatise to American food. Cady had a meltdown.

• Gretchen has severe but extremely high functioning anxiety. [This is practically canon lmao]

• Gretchen has notes folders on her phone with everyone’s details. She knows your medical history, darkest secrets, favourite food etc.

• Karen is so sensory seeking. She has no idea about her limits because her introception is terrible. She loves crunchy foods and at parties, drinks far too much because she doesn’t realise it’s too much until it’s too much.

• Regina has a terrible relationship with her mum.

• Aaron is very traumatised by his time with Regina and is so shocked when Cady doesn’t display the behaviours that Regina did.

• Betsy Heron has a special interest in parenting and, post spring-fling, her house becomes The safe space for Cady and her friends. [Betsy is autistic too]

• Damian fucking loves pizza. Easily eats a large pizza himself. Favourite food.

• Cady adores chicken wings. Janis tells her she’ll hate them because they’re so messy, but Cady adores them.

• Cady is straight, Janis is a lesbian, Damian is gay, Regina is an extremely closeted lesbian, Karen is pan, Gretchen is unlabelled, and Aaron is straight. [Damian is also trans].

• Karen has dyslexia and several other undiagnosed learning disabilities / neurodivergencies.

• Cady hates the taste and feeling of alcohol. Still drinks at every single party though.

I know ive focused on some characters more, but these are just the headcanons that I’m so about. The hcs that are my definite, if that makes sense. Feel free to send asks and ask more about different hcs!!! I have so many thoughts

[darkmaga-returns]

As the meltdown continues in the wake of President Trump’s landslide election victory, a new trend has emerged among individuals with extreme cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome: advising women to secretly poison their husbands if they voted for Trump.

We have already seen calls for a sex strike, endorsed by Kathy Griffin and Whoopi Goldberg, and even intentionally downgrading personal appearance to punish patriotic American men.

Now, however, some are escalating the rhetoric, openly suggesting more drastic, even dangerous, responses to a spouse’s political beliefs.

Modernity report: Of course, most of the women in the videos have green hair and/or look like they’ve been possessed by demons.

The New York Post reports that “Women online have taken to filming ghoulish murder-fantasy videos in which they romanticize lacing men’s beverages with deadly poison as a justifiable response to fears about abortion rights under a second Donald Trump presidency.”

“Many of the videos have been viewed millions of times on X or TikTok and feature young women fiendishly grinning as they adulterate a cup of tea or other drink with an unknown substance,” the report adds.

It further explains that “Some of the women have dubbed the videos part of a ‘Make Aqua Tofana Great Again’ (‘MATGA’) movement, a nod both to President-elect Trump’s campaign slogan, ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA), and ancient killer Giulia Tofana, who has been adopted as the disturbed group’s heroine.”

[justamessedupdisneyprincess]

I need help, my life is now a living hell. (TW suicide attempt mention)

I know this is gonna annoy a lot of you for bitching and whining again but as of late my life has been really hard. I had to sell my soul and my life to a demon against my will. There is a toxic parasite I want to cut ties with but can’t. I am talking about a toxic family member who has no respect for boundaries and loves to judge and be rude to everyone around her.

I just really need some help rn guys because at this rate it really feels like I can either endure and sacrifice my sanity for as long as she lives or I could only ever end it via suicide. I have tried to do it twice while she was down and my mother has to hide away medication so I don’t overdose and sharp things such as knives and scissors when her new favourite person ever, her karen on steroids sister is here.

To paint a picture there is a story about when I was a baby with my cousin and toxic aunt. My toxic aunt would use grandma ( her mother) as a slave whenever she came to visit her grandson. “Now that you’re here I want you to do EVERYTHING for him while I go and bitch and whine about coffee and ask to see managers (I’m not joking. She literally does that. Saw it multiple times when she stays with us.). Whilst my Mom would offer to do fun activities with her and us, like go to the beach, etc. Because of this she enjoyed our company more than my toxic aunt who threw a tantrum over it. “You love my sister’s daughters more than my son!”. She got so pissed that she moved out of our place during a vacation. Mother offered to have my cousin and grandma to play in the pool with me and my sister whilst she helped my toxic aunt pack. She EXPLODED over that! Why? Idk. She then stormed into the house screaming and it woke baby me up and I was sobbing. Dad got mad and told her to get out and we had nothing to do with her until grandma died.

She hasn’t changed at all. Very toxic, always complaining and saying horrible things behind our backs. I had multiple extreme meltdowns when she came. She stayed for four whole months last year. One summer, one spring, one for every season. She has this rule too where only she is allowed to talk, all she does to complain and she gets weirdly excited when someone else is struggling…she loves to happily talk about others misfortunes and then she finds no joy in going to the beach and going out for lunch. Instead she complains constantly and it ruins the whole day. Mother told me she says the most horrible things about me behind my back too…which gets her upset but she puts up with it because she is going through a divorce. We put up with her rude behaviour out of pity. I understand how hard getting divorced is but it shouldn’t excuse…whatever the fuck she is doing to us. Mother and I got into extreme arguments because of her as well and we rarely fight. My toxic aunt turns my parents against me. I’m freaking out because she is going to come down again.

Last time she claimed to be more respectful of our boundaries. “We don’t have to do something every day, I’m ok to hang out by myself every now and then.” Then she guilt trips us by saying “I don’t know why I bother coming down here if I’m going to be alone.” Over me wanting to spend ONE fucking weekend alone with my mom out of an ENTIRE month of her hovering around us and never shutting up. She also loves to interrupt. I would be in the middle of saying something and she cuts in as if I’m worth nothing! Then I can’t even say anything because she never shuts up ever! Then when I am blessed with a moment of talking (usually because mother says Izzy has something to say) I get nervous about saying something she will judge me for!

She belittles every trigger of mine too. Once I used to like this cafe and she has this huge obsession with their muffins. I don’t go there anymore though because some mean teenage girls work there now and they have been openly rude to me two times when I visited. So rude I ended up crying once. I didn’t want to go back (keep in mind I have been bullied a lot as well, I have a huge fear of mean girls) My aunt gave me this huge lecture about it and tried to force me to go in just so she can get her muffins. I felt completely shattered as she gave me a hard time over it. In the end mother figured out her angle and just dropped her off there whilst I waited in the car…for her to do that though about my own experiences and my triggers and not wanting to return to a cafe with rude service…it was just so insensitive.

She used to say rude things to me because of me displaying typical autistic traits like my weird eating habits and my special obsessions. Mother made her stop saying things to my face but she told me she just says judgemental things behind my back now and she gives me this god awful judgemental stare when we go out to eat…She also shows no respect for mental illnesses such as anxiety, saying it’s not real. She also once made fun of someone who committed suicide…which shows how she isn’t really a good person. She picks at Mom and gives her a hard time and openly judges her and says rude things to her and mother always bottles it and takes it out on me in the end because the one who HAD been rude to her is going through a divorce.

I never want to have to endure her abusive behaviour again but I’m completely powerless. I feel so hopeless. Idk what to do..

[sgokie2024]

“New York glitter-punk outfit The Voluptuous Horror of Karen Black began life as a near-death experience. Shortly before forming the band in 1990, front woman Kembra Pfahler was strangled in a brutal mugging and almost died. While recovering, battered and zonked on painkillers, she watched the 1975 horror movie Trilogy of Terror on television. The film stars Karen Black, the quirky cross-eyed actress whose wildly erratic career encompasses everything from some of the key American films of the 1970s (Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, Nashville, Day of the Locust) to mainstream Hollywood schmaltz (Airport 1975) to obscure straight-to-VHS exploitation / horror dreck. In Trilogy’s best-known segment, Black is stalked by and eventually possessed by a cursed malevolent Zuni fetish doll which has come to life. [SPOILER ALERT] It concludes with a final jolting image of the now-crazed and murderous, knife-wielding Black grinning blank-eyed and maniacal to the camera to reveal a mouthful of razor-sharp teeth identical to the Zuni doll’s … In her traumatized state, that savage and disturbing image -- combined with almost dying -- made a powerful impression on Pfahler. Inspired, she would blacken out her teeth, conceal her natural fine-featured beauty under cadaverous make-up and take to the stage clad in little more than a pair of thigh boots and a coat of body paint. Pfahler’s look can suggest a character from a John Waters film given an “ugly make-over”: think of Divine as the acid-scarred Dawn Davenport in Female Trouble (1974), an image which seems to anticipate TVHKB’s twisted glamour. Like Divine before her, Pfahler shaves off her eyebrows and shaves back her hairline to accommodate her extreme eye make-up. “I want to be both very beautiful and very repulsive,” Pfahler would explain to The Toronto Star in 1994.”

/ From my own blog post “The Voluptuous Horror of Karen Black at Meltdown Festival 10 August 2012” /

Born on this day 63 years ago (4 August 1961): Californian surfer girl-turned-NYC provocative performance artist, Cinema of Transgression actress and Voluptuous Horror of Karen Black voodoo-dolly singer Kembra Pfahler. Pictured: portrait of Pfahler by Fumi Nagasaka, 2019. Read more here: https://tinyurl.com/yxezrp27

[screamingiminlovewithyou]

Tell me about each show you’ve been to and your seats!!!

oh fun!!! I became a fan in 2009, but due to terrible anxiety and not-right medicine (thanks, Zoloft), I didn’t attend the Fearless tour when she came back around in 2010. I remember my sister and her friend were going but my mom said she couldn’t attend and I could go with my sister or not at all. The me of today reply regrets this.

2011- Speak Now Tour in Sunrise. 6/3/2011. This was my firsttttt concert! I wore this shirt and I think I was in 7th grade. That isn’t how I remember the shirt, it was the pictures from Hey Stephen in the Fearless Booklet. However, i do remember having a meltdown about my outfit and eating teriyaki chicken. We were in nosebleeds and I couldn’t really see a thing. I don’t remember it that much.

2011- Speak Now 11/13/11. She came back around and my mom and I got tickets in the lower bowl for like 97 each. It was SO much fun. I made a sign that said I love love love you but I was too shy to hold it up. She came so close on the love story float. I wore the haunted speak now shirt that I still have.

2013- Red tour Miami 4/13/13 (she loves Florida on the 13th). My mom and I went and I remember being at school and SO ready to go. I wore black glitter Keds. Black high waisted shorts. A red glitter 13 on my hands. And this shirt. My friend at the time (we just fell out after graduation but I loved her), had nosebleeds and my mom very kindly gave her her seat and sat with her aunt. We had a blast. Taylor sang today was a fairytale.

2015- 1989 tour NC. I think 6/15/15? Maybe? Or 6/8? Cursed trip due to my mom’s dreaded ex and I was so desperate to meet taylor i sort of put myself in a mood. However, I gave taylor nation a whole booklet of letters from fans. Last arena show I saw of hers.

2015- 1989 Tour Tampa 10/31/15. Went with the same friend and we had nosebleeds but it was the BEST! Leaving was a disaster filled with ant bites, being stranded, exploding diet cokes, and bus rides to unknown locations. We made it home though.

2018- Rep tour Tampa 8/14/18. Same friend and had a BLAST!! We had lower bowl and a great view. She sang invisible and the person who requested it was behind me and was extremely emotional lol.

2018- Rep Tour Miami 8/18/18- Got last minute tickets on StubHub for 100 (fuck!) and went with a different friend and my mom. Had last row seats but it was worth it! She sang breathe and I cried cause that song makes me think of my parents divorce and i didn’t want to hear it lol. My mom was also had lowkey sassy to me so I was a little irate. Had frat bros near me who spilled some beer on my leg.

2023- Eras Tampa- 4/14/23- Middle bowl but I didn’t wear my contacts and was so mad at myself. Magical nonetheless and she sang The Great War and YOYOK for the first time. I left needing so badly to go again that I was led onto a journey of desperation, scammers, and depression. I believe someone near me spilled some beer on me, AGAIN!

2023- Eras Minneapolis 6/24/23- Lowerbowl and amazing seats! Wack ass couple in front of me and the man was like nine feet tall and the girl was drunk and pissy and they completely blocked me from seeing. They were rude and I cried and my mom attempted to ask security for assistance but he was rude as fuck. I cried during the whole lover set cause I couldn’t see anything (of course you can dance and have fun but bro if you’re that tall and you guys are being that annoying have some decorum. I was just so happy to be there and so excited that my bubble was dramatically bursted when i realized i was completely visually blocked. But they ended up scooting over and so did i but I’ll never forgive them). Dear John and Daylight.

2024- Eras MIAMIIII 10/18/24. Last minute tickets. Restricted seats but the view was fine. We had an easy time seeing. Some drunk girls in front of us who also blocked our views and were asked by not just my mother (she can be a bit Karen-like at times) but others to move a little or chill and they were not having it…but eventually they just moved before taylor even came on. I wanted NOTHING more than a fearless or debut song, specifically Tim McGraw cause i never went to the fearless tour and I CANNOT BELIEVE SHE SANG IT!!!!!!!!!! With timeless. I also wanted a folklore song, specifically mirrorball or this is me trying and she sang TIMT. I weirdly had a moment in the car driving down where I felt like she was going to play daylight again and, yes, she did! But that’s okay. It was perfect and I’m so happy i went!!

[wumblr]

i'm seeing several people on my dash engaging in discussion about nuclear policy (oh good, but what, why now, did i miss something, etc) and i would like to encourage two things:

discuss facts or events, not the whole concept in vague and broad strokes (it's easier)

accept that many facts and events regarding nuclear policy are ambiguous or unknown (it's inevitable)

examples of facts and events:

holtec is the only manufacturer of casks; holtec casks are flawed, cracking, and leaking.

hanford is the worst waste site because it has extremely high level waste beyond what is typically considered "high level" (spent fuel rods), because they rushed the cleanup for a million dollar cleanup payout, because they dumped wastewater into the ground, because the wastewater dumping was the subject of peabody award winning journalism, because the director of the site resigned in 2017 (anne white).

there was recently a nuclear bribery scandal in ohio.

san onofre decommissioning has been fraught with resale upon resale to various corporations trying to turn a profit off abdicating responsibilities for waste handling.

design proposals were never able to foresee the scale of sea salp blooms under climate change, which has led to several shutdowns from clogged intakes at sites that rely on the ocean for cooling water.

yucca mountain was cancelled and there are no longterm repositories in the united states. there are also no interim-term storage sites; PFS in goshen utah was cancelled and two are currently under review. interim sites require shipment on trucks across the interstate highway system twice; once from reactor to interim and again from interim to longterm -- none of which, again, exist.

70% of high level waste is uncasked and continually reracked in cooling pools where the rods were spent, the NRC is continually rubber-stamping approval for storage extension for these sites without additional environmental review despite the additional risk.

the united states has abicated responsibility for bikini atoll dome cleanup after failing to pay out reparations as promised to the united nations (these were paid to a trust which is now empty, despite most of the beneficiaries having not received the reparations they were promised for the sacrifice of the marshall islands as a munitions testing site for the hydrogen bomb)

there are hundreds of abandoned uranium mills and mines across the continental united states.

bill gates owns terrapower.

examples of ambiguities and unknowns:

the SL-1 meltdown is typically not accounted for in reviews of nuclear power's "safety record" because it was classified for decades. we will never know whether it was an accident or intentional sabotage by operators

karen silkwood either committed suicide or was murdered by a sandwich containing polonium. she was a former anti-nuclear activist who accepted a job at a reactor

why did anne white resign

how prevalent is cancer among workers at hanford, is this the greatest risk, or is non-nuclear toxic waste a greater risk to cleanup workers

what is the total risk over the whole term of waste storage

have we made an adequate risk assessment if design specifications are not being met (such as aforementioned flawed casks, uncasked waste, further future unpredictable or unforeseeable events such as the sea salps, or the ambiguous possibility of SL-1's intentional operator sabotage)

what language, if any, will be spoken by the final handlers of the waste we generate today

what is the plan for cleanup if the united states collapses before it handles its waste, are we just planning to abandon a hundred reactor sites and several hundred more mills and mines, or what

how many radiation monitors near nuclear munitions test sites are openly available to the public (this one is a trick question, the answer is "none," it's neither ambiguous nor unknown, but many people appeal to their presence without checking whether they're accessible)

[nephrastar]

I have had an ex-friend I was temporarily housing try and do a tiktok live feed of me reacting to them asking me to make a false 911 call for clout. In my own home. Without having me consent much less know what was going on. I said absolutely not, and after 5 minutes of telling him to fuck off I'm not doing it, I had an Autistic Meltdown. The live never went anywhere special, but I didn't fucking know that at the time. I have extreme social anxiety as a result of this.

DO. NOT. FUCKING. DO. THIS. EVER. You hear me?

I am not joking here, if you think other people are your ticket to tiktok clout, you're the shittiest person on the damn planet, not to mention fucking stupid. There are a million other things you can use for clout instead that won't hurt anyone. Cooking videos, drawing, fucking clearing drains and marble races of all things. Your pet, even! I LITERALLY DON'T CARE. Literally anything else. please. I promise there's an audience for that other niche thing that you think only you may be interested in instead.

Not to mention the countless white karens and shit recording BIPoC folks for literally just existing in the comfort of their own personal space and even calling the cops, which will very likely end in someone getting hurt or killed. Or if that doesn't kill them, someone that doxxed them might later instead.

These mfers probably bitch about there being a surveillance state too, completely and utterly unaware that they're being used as the surveillance.

It’s so fucked up how tiktok culture has made clout-poisoned people turn the public into content, every day I see people minding their business have their entire faces put online for thousands of likes, a couple kissing on the train, a lady dancing across a cross walk, a guy nodding his head to the music at a club, a lady buying a banana at the store, ring camera footage of the neighbors kids being stupid. Just let people live jfc

[dmmahfuj]

When Crazy Karens Have Extreme Meltdowns: The Best of Karens!

Welcome to our latest video, where we dive into the hilarious and often shocking world of "Karens"! In this compilation, we showcase some of the wildest and most outrageous Karen meltdowns caught on camera. Let's see when crazy Karens have extreme meltdowns. 👉 Subscribe to my channel to stay tuned:    / @instantkarenkarma  

From epic customer service fails to outrageous demands and hilarious outbursts, these moments will leave you both laughing and shaking your head in disbelief. Ever wondered what happens when a customer takes their complaints to the next level? Our video features a range of scenarios—from absurd requests at restaurants to confrontations in retail stores. You'll witness Karens challenging employees, demanding to speak to the manager, and making the most bizarre complaints you can imagine. Each clip highlights the dramatic and sometimes over-the-top reactions that have gone viral across social media.

But this video isn't just about the meltdowns. We also take a closer look at the dynamics of customer service and the challenges that employees face in dealing with difficult customers. The service industry is often underappreciated, and our goal is to shine a light on both the absurdity of these encounters and the resilience of those on the front lines. You'll hear firsthand accounts from employees who have had to navigate these tricky situations, offering insight into how they manage to keep their cool amidst the chaos.

[theburninggalaxy]

theres no way you didnt get people extremely sick. anti-mask ass karen.

In no way am I anti mask. What I said was that I legally had to attend school and that wearing a mask prevented me and those around me from learning cause I have a meltdown every single time I try to wear one. I have people in my life who are immunocompromised and even they were able to realise that I am unable to mask and we planned accordingly.

Genuinely what was I, as a 16 year old who legally had to attend school, meant to do?

(Also, I was part of a clinical study for testing literally twice a week on top of the mandetory weekly testing kits that were provided by my school and at the end I got tested for some sort of antibody to see if I had ever had covid and that test came back negative so. Yeah.)

[202310271]

Facebook 1

Link to Post on Facebook

Barbara Barrett Thomas Jen Stoddard Pitt Doris Stoddard Desy Christensen Ashley Barbara Em Scherer Nettie Marie Linda Barber Jordan Barb Barrett Joni Barrett Karen Appleby Jolene Newark Wanton Eightyseven Alex Clark

Hi, this is Christina Barrett, age 37, born May 20, 1986: 1/2 South & North Chinese, Irish (with Norwegian & English,) German, French, Dutch, & Swiss.

I want to write to you all on Facebook, like, "from now on."

It seems like people “around” are “looking at” Marjorie, Andre Rieu’s wife of many, many years… You need to all “look past” her. I know she looks babyish and girlish being conceived and born after 1949 AND 1950. I thought Barb (my aunt) would like this because she is often on about manners and to the extreme privately to me. So, you see something and you just not “make a big whoop” or “make a big deal about it.” I mean what I say and not in a horse way. That means, don’t make fun of her, but I realized people both older and younger than her have unique issues and maybe problems and it doesn’t matter to be frank… So, what does Barb think? Is Ellen DeGeneres gonna creep up in the shadows and follow her every move for 11 years and cause a psychiatric meltdown to where her nerves are shocked and she can hardly move in the morning? No! Uh, I don’t think so! So, my point was that there are things people here are interested in that you could just figure out to say they have a problem and you don’t care because it’s a bother and you shouldn’t “insult” people with a case and smoosh them into others or have issues that are unfair and you have to address race first so it’s fair after. So, I’m just saying this was just such a funny little story and something for some people to deal with but not me but maybe my aunt “Barb Barrett.” She is closer to her age a little than my 2nd cousin “Barbara Barrett Thomas.” Family is important, as well, sometimes, and happens often.

[bitter69uk]

“New York glitter-punk outfit The Voluptuous Horror of Karen Black began life as a near-death experience. Shortly before forming the band in 1990, front woman Kembra Pfahler was strangled in a brutal mugging and almost died. While recovering, battered and zonked on painkillers, she watched the 1975 horror movie Trilogy of Terror on television. The film stars Karen Black, the quirky cross-eyed actress whose wildly erratic career encompasses everything from some of the key American films of the 1970s (Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, Nashville, Day of the Locust) to mainstream Hollywood schmaltz (Airport 1975) to obscure straight-to-VHS exploitation / horror dreck. In Trilogy's best-known segment, Black is stalked by and eventually possessed by a cursed malevolent Zuni fetish doll which has come to life. [SPOILER ALERT] It concludes with a final jolting image of the now-crazed and murderous, knife-wielding Black grinning blank-eyed and maniacal to the camera to reveal a mouthful of razor-sharp teeth identical to the Zuni doll’s … In her traumatized state, that savage and disturbing image -- combined with almost dying -- made a powerful impression on Pfahler. Inspired, she would blacken out her teeth, conceal her natural fine-featured beauty under cadaverous make-up and take to the stage clad in little more than a pair of thigh boots and a coat of body paint. Pfahler’s look can suggest a character from a John Waters film given an “ugly make-over”: think of Divine as the acid-scarred Dawn Davenport in Female Trouble (1974), an image which seems to anticipate TVHKB’s twisted glamour. Like Divine before her, Pfahler shaves off her eyebrows and shaves back her hairline to accommodate her extreme eye make-up. “I want to be both very beautiful and very repulsive,” Pfahler would explain to The Toronto Star in 1994.”

/ From my own blog post “The Voluptuous Horror of Karen Black at Meltdown Festival 10 August 2012” /

Born on this day 62 years ago (4 August 1961): California girl-turned-NYC provocative performance artist, Cinema of Transgression actress and Voluptuous Horror of Karen Black voodoo-dolly singer Kembra Pfahler. Photo of Pfahler by me!

[the-bjd-community-confess]

Not trying to start shit but wasn't the whole "danni is ableist" thing kind of misconstrued? I will refer to the person who was that the doll wasn't made for them as OP. OP has a disability, and that makes it hard for them to reconstruct Smart Dolls, which is understandably frustrating. But OP has a melt-down, and posted a very long and quite hateful comment that was essentially calling Smart D0lls trash and trashing on not only the dolls but the company itself. Danni responded negatively to this (as anyone would after being attacked and having their brand shat on in their own facebook group). His response was bad, yes, but it was out of emotion just as OP's gross meltdown was. Reading Danni's message with context, yes, sounds bad, but it essentially said "if the product gives you this much trouble then maybe you shouldn't buy it". Yes, it's mean but I mean it's very true. If your disability(s) make you publicly attack, demean, and bash on a product on account of being frustrated with the product due to your physical disability, you should probably keep away from the product, for your mental health AND for the company's mental health.

Smart D0ll is not a large company, it's very much on the small side, there is no PR team, Danni himself IS the PR team and he had to read a VERY long post on his own Company's facebook page about how his beloved product was shit and terrible, I would respond very similarly. "If you hate my product, then it's not for you". OP was an asshole in the situation, a complete asshole that quite literally acted like a Karen, and them using their mental disorder as an excuse for why they lashed out at Danni from frustration is not acceptable. Danni did come off as ableist with his statement, but OP is as much to blame as he is for the situation. Danni should understand he is a now a public figure and should treat sensitive subjects like this better, and OP shouldn't have acted like a complete douchebag. Especially when it wasn;t just their outrage post and then Danni immediately responding "this product isn't made for you", OP MULTIPLE TIMES posted terrible long comments attacking the company and even responded rudely and aggressively when the company tried to calm them down, it wasn't a one time thing. It was essentially harassment.

When people talk about Danni being ableist it's almost as if they have never seen the original post and the context given. Out of context it sounds like Danni was telling every disabled person the product is not for them, but in-context it's just Danni saying "if the product is giving you a hard time, don't buy the product." And it really is as simple as that? I have ET. I don't consider it a disability but I get it. I get extremely frustrated with a lot of BJD-related and unrelated stuff due to my tremors but I never once blame the company that I'm buying stuff from. It honestly seemed like OP used their disabilities as an excuse for attacking Smart D0ll and Danni for no reason. Is the response ableist? Yes. Is OP a POS? Yes. But the situation isn't black or white. Both are shit in the situation but quite frankly I don't judge Danni for saying what he did.

~Anonymous

[iamanartichoke]

I wrote a Thing. It’s extremely long. I’d prefer it not be reblogged; I wrote this for my own catharsis and would prefer it not be circulated, bc of Reasons. 

I changed my mind, okay to reblog. <3 

Under a cut for (extreme, did I mention?) length. 

So I got about 12 minutes of sleep last night, as you do, and around 3am or so I found myself - out of sheer curiosity - going down a meta hole of Ragnarok discourse, trying to figure out where this "satisfying redemption arc" for Loki happened. (I mean, there's a lot of things I would like to figure out, but I started there.) Because I could. 

Basically I was looking for meta that went into detail about how Loki was redeemed in a satisfactory way. The ‘satisfactory’  is an important word here bc there is a redemption arc in the film, in that Loki starts off the film as an antagonist (kinda) to Thor and he ends the film as an ally to Thor, standing at Thor's side. In that sense, yes, there's a redemption arc. I didn't find much (and I had no idea how much people just despise Ragnarok "antis" [I really dislike that word] but that's another topic [that I don't particularly want to get into, tbh]) but I did find some. I read what I could find, and I read it open-mindedly, and overall I came away feeling like, okay, there are some valid points being made here and I can kinda see where they're coming from.

But it was a bit (a lot) like -- flat. Idk. The best comparison I can think of is that it’s like if a literature class read, I don't know, The Yellow Wallpaper for an assignment, and some of the students came away from it feeling like it was a creepy story about a woman slowly driving herself insane, and the other students came away from it incensed at the oppression and infantilization of women in the late 19th century -

- and neither side is wrong, but the former is a very surface-level reading and the latter isn't (bc it stems from looking at why she drives herself insane, why she was prescribed 'rest' in the first place, the context of what women could and couldn't do back then, etc; basically, a bit more work has to go into it). 

[Note: I am not disparaging the quality of The Yellow Wallpaper. At all. It’s just the first relatively well-known story that popped into my head.]

In this sense, I can see the argument for Loki's redemption arc, but I don't think it's a very good argument. Not invalid, but not great.

I mean, for example, I think the most consistent argument I found variations of re: Loki's redemption is that Ragnarok shows Loki finally taking responsibility for his bad behaviour and misdeeds. This includes recognizing that his actions were fueled from a place of self-hatred and a desire to self-destruct in addition to bringing destruction on others. That he probably feels awkward and regretful of these things and doesn't know how to act around Thor, but he figures it out by the end, and decides that returning to Asgard is the best way to show that he's ready to make amends. His act of bringing the Statesman to Asgard is an apology. He allies himself with Thor and ends up in a better place, both narratively (united with Thor once again) and mentally (having taken responsibility and made amends for his past).

And setting aside that he had already made amends by sacrificing his life in TDW (and also setting aside that the argument is made that Loki redeems himself in IW by sacrificing himself to Thanos but if that's the case, wouldn't that imply that he hadn't achieved redemption in Ragnarok or else there would be no need to achieve it again in IW? Or, if you think he did achieve redemption in Ragnarok, then what the fuck did he give his life in IW for? What was his motivation there, and why did the narrative not make it clearer? I digress.) 

- setting aside those two factors, I think this is a very fair argument. Loki is fueled by self-hatred, and he does want to self-destruct, and he does want to inflict that pain on others as well (particularly Thor). No lies detected here. 

However, I also need to know where that self-hatred and desire for destruction (toward himself and others) comes from and for that, we need to go back to Thor 1.

Thor 1. 

Loki starts Thor 1 out as "a clenched fist with hair," to borrow a quote from the Haunting of Hill House (that I tucked away in my mental box of Lovely Things bc it says so much so very simply). He's very used to bottling everything up, pushing it down; he slinks around behind the scenes, pulling the strings to this plot or that. He's "always been one for mischief," but the narrative implies that the coronation incident is the first time Loki's done anything truly terrible. And it all immediately pretty much goes to shit, so Loki spends the rest of the movie frantically juggling all these moving pieces while trying to seem as if he's got it all under control, every step of the way. That's how I view his actions. 

But I always come back to that quote where Kenneth Branaugh tells Tom, of the scene in the vault, "This is where the thin steel rod that's been holding your mind together snaps." In other words this is where Loki discovering he's Jotun is just one thing too many. He can't take it. But though the rod snaps, his descent isn't a nosedive. It's a tumble. As the story progresses, the clenched fist starts to loosen, the muscles are flexed in unfamiliar ways (that feel kinda good, after being stiff for so long), and it culminates with the hand opening completely and shaking itself out. All of that repression, that self-hatred, that rage and jealousy just explodes so that, by the time the bifrost scene happens, Loki's already hit bottom. It's not just about proving his worthiness to Odin. He wants to hurt Thor, too; he, essentially, throws a tantrum. (That's right, I said tantrum.) 

(Note: The word 'tantrum’ has negative connotations bc we normally equate it with a toddler stamping their feet and screaming in the aisle when their parent won't buy them the toy they want. But in itself, the word tantrum isn't infantalizing. It's an "emotional outburst, an uncontrolled explosion of anger and frustration" [paraphrasing from dictionary.com]. That's exactly what happens here [and why Tom called Loki's actions a massive tantrum, but people took that to mean Tom agreed it was childish whereas I doubt Tom meant it that way]).

He's been pushed past his limit, and he does bad things. He does really shitty things. He hurts Thor, he hurts his family. I'm pretty sure he knows this all along so this isn't, like, some revelation further down the line that "hey, those things I did were probably kinda bad." He got the memo already. 

Ragnarok 

Fast forward to Ragnarok, and we're introduced to a version of Loki who's had 4ish years to sit with everything that's happened. To sit with it and not do much else. The rawness of it has faded, and now it seems as though it's just become a thing, like when you move through life aware of your childhood traumas and have more or less just accepted them (and you probably share a lot of really funny depression memes on Facebook, which is kinda the equivalent of Loki's play, but that's probably just me). 

Loki has, more or less, chilled out. He seems more bored than anything else; he's been masquerading as Odin for longer than he ever planned or intended to, so he's more or less ended up hanging out, letting Asgard mind its own business, and entertaining himself with silly plays. This is the version that starts out the movie as an antagonist to Thor - a version that is, arguably, in a much different place [and is a much milder threat] than the version who originally did those Bad Things. 

And of course Thor is still mad at him, and of course they're going to butt heads, because that's what they do (and Thor's grievances are genuine, I’ll add, bc it's not really his fault he assumed Loki faked his death, nor can he be blamed for being pissed about Odin).

One argument framed this version of Loki as being a person who is facing the awkwardness of coming out of a dark place, which is fair. If we're going to frame his actions in Thor 1 as a tantrum, then Ragnarok would be the part where the toddler has been taken home, possibly has had some lunch and a juice box, and is now watching cartoons. They're over the tantrum, and would probably feel pretty silly about it if they weren't, yknow, toddlers. They probably can't remember why they even wanted that toy so badly. If they're a little older and self-aware, they might even be embarrassed for having melted down.

Like the word tantrum, this feeling isn't a thing limited to toddlers. I know I've had a few epic meltdowns as a grown ass adult, and I know I always feel deeply embarrassed afterwards - like, want to crawl into a hole and die. I've said things I can't take back. Adolescents and teenagers throw tantrums, mentally ill people throw tantrums, adults throw tantrums (I mean, my god, look at all the videos of Karens having screaming meltdowns - screaming! - over having to wear masks in order to shop at stores). Humans throw tantrums. And usually, after the feelings have been let out and the tantrum has passed, humans feel pretty regretful and awkward and embarrassed about whatever they did and said in the midst of their meltdown. 

I get all of that and agree it's valid and that Loki probably feels it. By the time Ragnarok happens, Loki's had some time to reflect and think hmm, yeah, probably could've handled that one a lot better. The argument further goes that in order to navigate this awkward period, Loki must come to terms with what he's done, acknowledge that some things can't be unsaid or undone, and begin to make amends. Supposedly, some people feel that Loki becomes a better person because he does "own" everything he did wrong and, even though he feels like a jackass (paraphrasing), he sets that aside to become a become a better person by choosing to help Thor and Asgard at the end. 

Thus, the overall arc goes like this. Loki, Thor's jealous little brother, 

throws a tantrum of epic proportions bc Reasons 

continues to act badly and make things even worse (Avengers) 

has to face consequences for his actions (prison sentence) 

ends up with a stretch of time in which he's free to contemplate and chill out 

feels embarrassed and awkward about how he's behaved

sees an opportunity to make up for it and decides to take it 

helps Thor, saves the day, and ends the film a better person. 

Redemption achieved.

None of this is wrong. The film supports it. It's a fair interpretation. But it leaves. out. so. much.

To circle all the way back around Loki being "a clenched fist with hair," and his actions stemming from his self-hatred, you have to ask - how did he get that way? He didn't end up with all this self-hatred on accident. Generally, one isn't born despising themselves, it's a learned behavior. (I realize chemical imbalances are a thing, obviously, as I have Mental Shit myself, but for argument's sake I'm assuming that's not the case with Loki [at this point in time]). 

Where did Loki learn it? From his family, from his surroundings, from his culture. We see examples of these microaggressions in the first, like, twenty minutes of the movie - a guard openly laughs at Loki's magic after Thor makes a joke about it (the tone of the conversation implies that Thor "jokes" like this often) and though Loki does the snake thing, the guard faces no real consequences. Thor doesn't acknowledge that anything went amiss. Not much later, on their way to Jotunheim, Loki's barely gotten two words out to Heimdall before Thor cuts him off, steps in front of him, and takes charge. Loki doesn't look annoyed at this; he looks resigned. 

Then, for absolutely no reason at all, Volstagg decides to make a jab at Loki ("silver tongue turned to lead?") just because he can. The ease with which he makes this comment and the way that no one else blinks an eye at it implies that this isn't out of the norm. And Loki doesn't react, not really. In the deleted version, he delivers a particularly nasty comeback but he delivers it under his breath, without intending Volstagg to hear it. In the final version, he simply says nothing, though his expression can be read as hurt or stung. Either way, the audience sees an example of Loki being walked all over by Thor and his friends and bottling up his reactions instead of standing up for himself. 

Microaggressions matter. They are mentally and emotionally damaging. They hurt. The implication that this is not unusual treatment for Loki means that Loki's probably gone through this for most of his life. It's like the equivalent of being, I don't know, twenty two and you're the friend who has to walk behind the others when the sidewalk isn't wide enough, and it's been that way since the first day of kindergarten. At this point, you're used to it, but that doesn't make it hurt any less when the jabs come seemingly out of nowhere, for no reason other than to make you feel bad.

(I personally identify a lot with this bc I experienced passive bullying in social settings for years. I was the 'doesn't fit on the sidewalk' friend; I hung around with people who'd pretend to be my friend and would be more or less nice to my face, but would laugh at me and make fun of me behind my back for whatever reasons. And often there'd be the random jabs at me, things that would come out of nowhere to smack me in the face, followed by the fake laugh and “just kidding!" so that I couldn't even get upset without being made to feel like I was overreacting and couldn't take a joke. I'd deal with this socially, particularly in middle school when girls are their most vicious, and then I'd go home and, because I was the only girl with a lot of brothers and because boys are mean and because I am who I am, the dynamic was that my brothers would just endlessly roast me to my face and sometimes it was a "just kidding!" thing, where I was the only one not laughing. But that’s beside the point; my point is that microaggressions, passive bullying, and consistent invalidation are harmful and that shit stays with you into adulthood.) 

So, yes, Loki needs to be held responsible for his misdeeds, and it's valid to say that he recognizes those misdeeds and wants to make amends. I have never disagreed with that. But the problem with this interpretation is that it lets every single other character who contributed to Loki's self-hatred and mental breakdown (let's just call a spade a spade here, that's what it was; he was broken psychologically) get off scot-free.

First of all,

Odin is not held accountable for instilling in the princes a mentality of Asgard first, everyone is beneath us but Jotuns are benath us the most, they are literal monsters. He is not held accountable for pitting his sons against one another (even if it was unintentional, he still did it) with "you were both born to be kings but only one of you can rule" being the general tone of their upbringing. He's not held accountable for his favoritism toward Thor.

Frigga is not held accountable for deferring to Odin both in supporting the above things and in keeping the truth of Loki's origins a secret while doing nothing to discourage the "monsters" narrative. 

Thor is not held accountable for his own tendency of taking Loki for granted (he assumes Loki will come to Jotunheim, he oversteps Loki constantly, “know your place,” etc.. He grants his implicit permission for Loki to be treated as the sidewalk friend in their “group,” a group which is loyal to and takes their cues from Thor as Thor continues to do nothing in his brother's defense).

[Note: Wanting Thor to be held accountable for things he's done wrong isn't vilifying him. Acknowledging that Thor benefited from Odin's favoritism and his own place as Crown Prince doesn't negate Thor also being raised in an abusive environment. I don't think anyone's saying that or, if they have, it's not something I agree with.]

Furthermore, 

Odin is not held accountable for his cruelty in disowning Loki (”your birthright was to die” is never going to be forgotten, speaking of people saying things that can't be unsaid or taken back) and in sentencing Loki to a severe prison sentence (life! only bc Frigga wouldn't let him execute Loki) for crimes that are no worse than what Odin himself has committed (around which the entire plot of Ragnarok revolves! Colonialism (and subjugation) is wrong is, like, a major theme [that people rush to praise, even] here). 

Thor is also never held accountable for not trying harder to understand what made Loki snap (fair enough, he didn't have a ton of time after returning from Earth, but certainly he had lots of time to sit around reflecting while Loki was being tortured by Thanos for a year). He knows Loki is "not himself" and "beyond reason" and accepts it at face value; he questions it once and then lets it go. He's fine with assuming Loki's just lost his mind, and isn't that a shame. (I realize I'm simplifying Thor's emotions but my point is that Thor could've tried harder to figure out that Loki was being influenced and/or not acting completely autonomously.) 

Thor is also never held accountable for - if not facing consequences for his own slaughter of Jotuns - then at least addressing why Loki can't kill an entire race even though Thor tried to do that, like, two days ago. (Granted, it’s difficult to understand how Thor got from Point A ("let's finish them together, Father!") to Point B (this is wrong!), but that failing belongs to Thor 1 (which is not, by the way, a perfect movie).

The interpretation that Loki is fully redeemed because he took responsibility for his actions, returned to Asgard, and allied himself with Thor to save their people is all well and good - but, why is Loki the only one here who has to take responsibility for their actions? 

What about all the loose threads in his story? 

For example, how did he get from: 

Point A (believing himself a literal monster, having a complete mental breakdown, getting tortured and further traumatized after that, etc) 

to 

Point B (Hey, yknow what would be fun? I'm going to write and direct a play about how I heroically died to save Thor and Jane, and I'll go ahead and have Odin say he accepts me and has always loved me. I'm going to do these things because Odin never said this in real life and instead of acknowledging my sacrifice, Thor left my body in the dirt, so someone has to validate what I've done right and that someone might as well be me. And hey, while I'm at it, I'm going to control the narrative on revealing myself as Jotun to Asgard, instead of living in fear of it being found out, and I'm going to do it in a way that they have to sympathize with me and revere me in death, bc they never bothered to do so when I was alive. And Matt Damon should play me, also.) 

to 

Point C (Yeah, I guess I feel kinda awkward about that whole tantrum thing, also I should help Thor and support him being king.)

? 

The answers to these questions are handwaved and the audience takes that to mean they don't matter. Furthermore, framing Loki's redemption around an act of service (more or less) to Thor makes Loki's redemption about Thor. Does Loki make this decision for the sake of Thor and of Asgard, or does he make it for himself? It's not super clear to me, and I think arguments can be made for both. Which, again, is fine, but - whatever.

If we're going to collectively agree, as a fandom, that Loki is complex, that he's morally gray, that he's worthy of redemption and therefore arguably a good person who's done bad things, then why is it asking too much to have it acknowledged that Thor (also a good person who's done bad things) played a part in Loki's downfall and has shit to apologize for, too? Bc one can only assume the reason is that you're taking a very gray concept and making it black and white by saying Loki has to apologize and make amends because he is the villain, and Thor doesn't because he is the hero (and it's his movie). And it's lazy.

This is where the crux of the issue lands. There's more than one valid interpretation, yes. And no two people (or groups of people, or whatever) are going to consume and therefore interpret or analyze the source material in the same way. I think I saw a post recently about how studies have been done on this, in fact. But, there is a lot going on under the surface that tends to get overlooked when exploring Loki's redemption arc in Ragnarok, as far as I can see, and that’s why I don’t consider it satisfactory. 

[I did read similar arguments regarding other issues that are often debated ('debated'), like Loki's magic and/or being underpowered, whether or not Loki's betrayal of Thor was the natural outcome of the situation on Sakaar or not, whether Thor actually gets closure with Odin [if he does, how does he reconcile the father he's idolized with the imperialistic conqueror he's discovered? Why doesn't he hold Odin responsible for covering up Hela's existence and the threat of her return, especially as he knew he was nearing the end of his life? Is Thor's "I'm not as strong as you" meant to imply that he acknowledges those shortcomings of Odin's and that he's okay with them, or that he's just overlooking them, or is he not okay with them but didn't have the chance to get into it bc he was in the middle of battle? T'Challa confronted his father on his wrongdoings in Black Panther; could Thor not have had at least one line that was confrontational enough to establish where he stands as opposed to this gray middle? Can someone explain to me how any of this equates to Thor gaining closure? Please?) but obviously I'm not going to go into all of them (well, I tried not to), bc this mammoth post has gone on long enough (I may not even post this tbh)]

- but my overall point to this entire thing is that when I say I'm critical of Ragnarok bc it's flawed, that Loki's arc was neither complete nor satisfactory, that many things went unaddressed and, due to all of these things, I do not think Ragnarok is a very good movie nor a very cohesive movie, this is where I'm coming from. I have not seen anything to change my mind to the contrary. 

But I am not saying that anyone satisfied with it is wrong, or shouldn't have the interpretation that they do. I'm not vilifying Thor in order to lift Loki up, just acknowledging that Thor is arguably just as flawed as Loki without the stigma of being Designated Villain. I think a lot of these arguments get overlooked or dismissed, and that's fine, but it doesn't make the people who do engage with them hateful, or bitter, or trying to excuse Loki's crimes, or feeling like redemption means that Loki's crimes should be erased rather than reconciled. 

And sure, yes, perhaps we are expecting too much and exploring all of these themes (or wanting them explored) means that somehow we think it should be Loki's movie (we don't). Loki is a supporting character, but he's still a character. And the movie itself doesn't have to delve into all these things - no one's saying that. (At least, I'm not.) We just want acknowledgement, from the narrative, that this stuff was an Issue. 

This could have been accomplished with - 

Some dialogue closer to the novelization (and original script), like Thor and Loki both acknowledging the harm they've done one another and their kingdom due to their Feels.

 A single line of Thor confronting Odin, or even asking "Why?" 

A narrative acknowledgement that Odin did both Thor and Loki dirty (”I love you, my sons” isn't an apology, because it doesn't acknowledge either that there's been wrong-doing or express regret for having done the wrong in the first place). 

A little bit more nuance in the way Loki treats his own past (ie, instead of flippantly telling the story of his suicide attempt, maybe - if it must be flippant - talk about getting blasted in the face with Hawkeye's arrow or sailing through to Svartalfheim [And in that moment, I sang ta-daaaa!]) or whatever. 

I recognize that wanting full, in-depth exploration on all of these issues regarding a supporting character is probably too much to ask or expect - but, I also feel like, if you're going to be professionally writing a narrative (or rewriting/improvising, as it were), it's not too much to ask that a little more care be taken in regards to all of the layers that have contributed to said supporting character's downfall and subsequent redemption arc. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to want. 

And maybe if there had been more nuance and continuity in how these things were portrayed on screen (ie, if TW had actually done as good a job as his stans think he did), the fandom wouldn't have divided and conquered itself over which "version" of the same character is more valid and whether or not the film did its best to close out a trilogy (not start a new one), to the point where everyone in this fandom space makes navigating it feel like walking through a minefield. 

But, I mean 

(Again, please don’t reblog if possible.) 

Edit: Okay to reblog. <3 

[mentalisttraceur-long]

So a Karen had a crying breakdown, after (not?) trying to hit black woman.

Ideally I just wouldn't have to experience this discourse, let alone ever need to talk about it, but if this preempts even on unpleasant-for-me take on this recent event, it's worth it. So here's why (almost) everyone is wrong somehow about this latest thing:

Your immediate reaction, in every situation ever, should be to consider the possibility that before the start of the footage, the seemingly obviously in-the-right party was doing something awful which justified what the seemingly obviously in-the-wrong party did. Ideally you readily think of at least one such situation, put yourself in the shoes of the superficially in-the-wrong party, and go on in alert for evidence of that possibility.

Similarly, you do not get to instead jump to the conclusion that the party most superficially in-the-right, was just looking to game how it looked and turn social outrage against the person. Same requirement: you should be able to think of at least one scenario where the party actually is really in-the-right, but for some reason feels legitimately worried and looking for evidence, put yourself in their shoes, and go in alert for evidence of that possibility.

In almost every situation where something bad happens, more than one person can be at fault or bad in some way, and that is almost always the case. Finding one person in the wrong in a situation is for immature children - you should be expecting that each person did something that was bad in itself, or made the situation worse than it should have been.

In this specific situation, the facial expression at the start of the footage is clearly pleading, possibly escalating to panicky, not one of the looks people tend to have on their faces when deliberately assaulting someone.

In this specific situation, the movements at the start of the footage look most like a reflexive panicky movement of instinctively wanting to grab or push down the recording phone. Given the facial features in the split second prior, this is the more likely interpretation. Given everything that happens after, this is the even more likely interpretation. Less likely in the unfavorable direction, the hand was being raised in a wind-up for hitting. Less likely in the favorable direction, the hand was being raised as emphasis/communication. More than one of of these could have been true, either at various moments, or even at the same time if the person was conflicted or still figuring out what they wanted to do.

In this specific situation, the recording person maybe had very good reason to want to record the interaction for their own safety, and the good reason may have included race-related stuff.

In general in the current social reality, a person in a confrontation often enough has good reason to want to record the interaction for their own safety, and a black person confronting a white person often enough has extra good reason on top of the race-independent good reasons.

We do not have good enough resolution on the face in a lot of frames to easily judge facial expressions, and this increases the danger of people reading in whatever they want into her facial expressions. I already see this. People seeing smiles in pixelated frames where I would say a more experienced gaze sees no likely smile, and where even if there is a smile there is not enough detail to distinguish a nervous or supplicating or reassurance-seeking smile from the smiles that would suggest malice or duplicity.

The person being recorded exhibits what is both entirely consistent with a genuine meltdown of an emotionally sensitive person being severely upset and panicking because they don't know how to handle the situation they are in, and which is consistent with a deliberately played-up reaction.

The repeated insistence of "no I didn't" with no elaboration could be true and the person is having a hard time figuring out how to say what they actually were doing, or could be false and the person is having a hard time coming up with a cover. Personally I find it much easier to come up with a believable lie which fits people's impressions on the spot, than to come up with a believable way of getting the truth around people's already-formed/forming wrong impressions.

The slow sink to the floor, especially with a sudden reduction in crying volume around the same time, is extremely consistent with people having a really bad upset. People freak out while crying badly enough, until they get light-headed and weak and it's like a half-involuntary thing which looks exactly like that - the involuntary part being that the person recognized that if they don't do a controlled descent, they're gonna have a worse uncontrolled collapse instead. On the other hand, any emotion is consistent with this - it's the crying and degree of physical activation that does it, not the nature or legitimacy of the emotion. But of course a skilled-enough faker can probably either fake it or work themselves up to a real one.

The person recording the interaction repeatedly exhibits signs of callousness, and a couple of instances of what sounds like cruel glee. If you have a person who's having a crying fit or is lying on the ground, what the fuck compels you to make snide comments or laughs at or about them, especially within hearing range? I understand that you might want to keep the camera on just in case something bad or new suddenly happens, but I'm sure if you tried to think really hard you could find a way to maybe not keep your camera persistently trained on a person actively begging you not to record their breakdown, or to least be less of an agitating, escalating dick about it.

But if we're being maximally charitable, the person recording it was probably in a very confrontational state, the kind where all sorts of social monkey politics instincts and emotions sway how we act. She might have also been trying to communicate with her TicTok friends live, giving them an update, and maybe her friends were genuinely worried.

The person doing the recording is also persistently managing to interpret and spin everything towards the bad-faith interpretation. I think this should be understandable and sympathetic and ideally you find a way to relate, but it also should be recognized as uncritically presenting some possible explanations as certain while omitting roughly-as-likely less-bad explanations.

We should also consider that as a black woman, the person recording was almost certainly acting from substantial pain history - who knows how many other experiences with people, and with white people or white women in particular, she was really cumulatively reacting to in that moment? Like when I finally physically fought back and won against my dad in my teens, in that situation I was needlessly escalating and if you looked at that situation by itself I was overly vicious, but I was lashing out against my entire history of his physical discipline and growing up in fear of angering him, and it felt very righteous at the time. (Of course, white people and Karens are not all one entity the way my dad is, so one overkill victory doesn't cash out the same way, but our brains and instincts aren't really built to handle that - in a small tribe where everyone knows each other, if you were routinely abused or oppressed or coerced by tribe members, one over-retaliation against one person would be very adaptive.)

Anyway, when the person being recorded eventually gets up and starts actively charing the person still recording them, that's obviously the same kind of thing psychologically going on as when you have a cornered animal in pain and you keep poking it with a fucking stick. If the recording person had been less of a persistent ass after basically "winning" the whole interaction, that would not have happened. It is not proof of violent or hostile nature, and it does not suggest any greater odds that the person had violent or hostile intent in any prior situation unless they were already persistently and severely harassed by then as well.

In fact, that was still communication - it was physical bodily communication implying that the recording person was hurting the recorded person enough that it's getting desperate enough for physical retaliation to be tempting, but actually attempted violence is usually silent. When people get serious about doing bodily harm, they tend to shut up. If she wanted that to get violent she wouldn't have been yelling "get her away from me" the entire time. That was a plea for help to the other humans so that the situation could still be resolved non-violently.

When the cops and security finally got there, the recording woman has some legitimate critiques/complaints/grievances. For example, if the two women's races were reversed, there is a real chance that the cops would've handled the situation very differently.