#that you are bad or harming people

[library-fae]

Please read this essay before you decide it is ableist. This person majored in oral history and storytelling, they are also dyslexic and have ADHD. They are not against you.

This essay is about class, colonialism and oppression. It is about how the written word makes you put your own thoughts and feelings into the work - which they are right in the fact that you cannot do that with any other medium.

It is a love letter to reading, not a detriment to you.

"Absolutely no one comes to save us but us."

Ismatu Gwendolyn, "you've been traumatized into hating reading (and it makes you easier to oppress)", from Threadings, on Substack [ID'd]

[creekfiend]

I saw this on FB today and I wanna try and express something about it. Like, you know the curbcutter effect? Where when curbcuts are put in it benefits everyone (bicyclists, people with baby strollers etc) and not just disabled people?

There is also whatever the opposite of the curbcutter effect is. And this is that.

This isn't just anti-adhd/autism propaganda... this is anti-child propaganda.

Kids have developmentally appropriate ways that they need to move their bodies and express themselves and sitting perfectly still staring straight ahead is not natural or good for ANY CHILD.

Don't get me wrong, I was punished unduly as a kid for being neurodivergent (and other types of kid will ALSO be punished unduly for it... Black kids come to mind) and thus UNABLE to perform this -- but even the kids who ARE able to perform this type of behavior are not SERVED WELL by it. They don't benefit from it.

This is bad for everyone.

The idea that bc some kids may be capable of complying with unfair expectations, those expectations don't hurt them... is a dangerous idea. Compliance isn't thriving. Expectation of compliance isn't fair treatment.

[uncanny-tranny]

I recently had to do a project in one of my psych classes, and man, I knew that CBT was used for every little thing, but seeing over and over, "do CBT! CBT is the best for every mental illness!" was so jarring. I'm absolutely biased because of my own experiences, but I just don't think it's as universal a treatment model as it's touted.

If you didn't benefit from CBT, it's not because you're lazy or didn't try hard enough or lacked intelligence or foresight into your own needs. Frankly, it's a therapy model that (I think) shouldn't be the only readily-accessible model and among the only therapy models covered by insurance. Some of us should not be treated in a CBT model and that's okay. It's not a sign of poor character or unreasonable demands, and if you don't think it's a model that works for you, then it's your right to express that!

[marypsue]

Man, it's cool and all if you see a metaphor for marginalisation in the monstrous, and if you want the power fantasy of 'what if you could just eat anybody who threatened you/pissed you off'. Me too.

However, as soon as you start saying 'no, these monsters are a 1:1 on Specific Marginalised Group, and you have to treat them in the fiction like they are directly representative of real human members of the marginalised group', BUT you also, in the fiction, make them hurt/kill/eat humans? And then try to shame me, your audience, for noticing or engaging with the bit where they kill people, because you made them directly representative of a real-world marginalised group? You have lost me, and also, I think, the plot.

[shorthaltsjester]

ashton buying into the same ideology as ludinus but replacing predathos with the titans isn’t something i expected but upon further reflection perhaps has been obvious the whole time. ludinus and ashton holding hands as they illustrate freud’s account of melancholia as they are willing to step on whatever ants they need to in the name of gaining back the life they believe they are owed and which they are melancholic over the perceived theft of. get a hobby. go to therapy. certainly shut your damn mouth about being for the little guy or the powerless.

[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.

[furryprovocateur]

we're seeing such huge overcorrection from the "trump is a function of the system and not an exception" crowd that now we're struggling to have nuanced conversations about the harm he caused. he pushed for a new wave of deregulation that resulted in a large upward trend in nationwide food recalls. further, by backing the US out of the paris agreement and pulling funding for it, he severely damaged climate research and support in a critical time, and it is still struggling to recover. this is to say nothing of the things like the muslim ban, the corruption and nepotism, etc.

there is a middleground we can meet in where we discard irony and say "trump was not exceptional, but he did cause macro-scale harm in his position of power" instead of going "eh he was an average president that had an unremarkable term". none of this has to be black-white, we can talk away from extremes.

[aficionadoenthusiast]

once again feeling the need to point out that luke and annabeth's crushes were not meaningless 'gross stuff' but were in fact deliberate use of narrative to show (a) luke's descent to the dark side and (b) luke and annabeth's specific brand of abuse due to neglect and how that caused them (mostly annabeth) to latch onto the first person to show them (really her) love (and not die or immediately abandon her) and not let go even after that relationship turned toxic.

with percy and luke constantly being contrasted, it's literally a bite size way to introduce kids to healthy vs unhealthy relationships (and the difference between luke's rebellion and percy's rebellion on a smaller scale) and how to recognize red flags in a way that they understand (age differences) and frankly it's concerning that so many of you fell for it

[bittsandpieces]

you know what's fucking scary? the number of times a "daddy dom" follows me and when I go to look through the other blogs he's following there are multiple underage girls posting about wanting "older men". I do my best to block and report them (and they do always get deleted) but I know that there are a million more men like that who know how to disable viewing of their following list, and it frightens and disgusts me to know that there must be some following me that I have no way of knowing about. fucking horrifying

[problemnyatic]

Look, the bottom line is this. You're gonna be wrong and fuck up sometimes, that's just how being human works. No matter what you mean or how much you care, sometimes, you're gonna do something or say something that hurts someone or perpetuates bigotry you don't believe in.

The goal isn't to do no wrong, that's an impossible standard. The mark of "a good person" isn't that they always do good, it's that they're willing to admit when they've failed, done wrong, made a mistake, and they're willing to course-correct when they do.

It's important that you're trying. It's okay to be the bad guy. You don't need to get defensive, you don't need to stake your identity in "person who never does that kind of wrong." You just gotta be able to say "Fuck, my bad, I'm sorry," accept that your behavior didn't reflect your beliefs, and change your behavior so that it better represents who you mean to be.

The less time you spend lingering on whether it feels like people believe you are who you say you are, the more time you can spend getting better at being that person.

Some people will try to tear you down when you make mistakes, they'll try to pigeonhole you as a "bad person," someone whose very existence is defined by doing harm. This isn't your problem, and it's not your responsibility to prove anything to them. They don't have to believe you, and you don't have to appease them. So long as you're willing to accept when you *do* hurt someone, intentional or not, and you're willng to put in the effort to make reparations and change, you'll never "be a bad person."

Let yourself fuck up. All you have to do is course-correct when you notice your actions' impact have strayed from your intentions. The right people will notice that effort, and they'll be proud of you. And perhaps most importantly of all, they'll let you make that effort. Anyone who tells you it's too late to change, to discourage you from improving, or stop you from trying, is not your frend. You don't have to impress them. Ignore them, and let yourself change.

[blueskittlesart]

deeply refreshing to see someone critical of Swift who also like, genuinely likes her. Like i'm neutral to positive on her, but the online discourse has been absolutely rancid. flipping between "Taylor Swift has never done anything wrong ever and she's a fucking genius" and "Taylor Swift is the worst lyricist of all time and also a bad person" is exhausting, so thank you for like. nuance or something lmao

not to make it serious for a sec but i genuinely think that being able to like things that are bad is really important. like I think that it's an important skill to be able to look at something and see what you personally enjoy about it and then take a step back and acknowledge that objectively it's flawed. and to also be able to acknowledge that liking something isn't necessarily an identity or a moral stance. and i think that fandom space in general could really benefit from more people taking the time to learn how to do that. it's okay to like things that are bad

[foundfamilywhump]

see like the thing with 'carewhumpers' as a concept to me is it just like... i know this is prrrrobably not really how it's meant but something skeeves me out about the idea that kindness or caretaking mixed in with hurting someone can somehow meaningfully complicate or dilute the harm done to the point of making that character no longer a 'whumper' whereas someone doing the same 'bad' things but not ever being gentle or caring for them would just be a straight-out whumper. when like... that's how 90% of irl abuse dynamics work? so i just... don't really get the point, i guess. like to me it implies something about the 'care' provided somehow mitigating or combating the harm done that. i just do not personally appreciate or enjoy.

[uncanny-tranny]

Your fears that you don't have a body that will transition "well" are, sure, understandable, but there isn't truly such thing as a body that's unworthy of transition. Perhaps your changing body won't suit everybody's taste, but would you rather live for yourself or for the whims of random people who don't care about your happiness as long as they're attracted to what they see?

Transition is for anybody who wants it. It's okay to be fearful. It's okay to be uncertain. But it isn't the end of the world. You are in control, and if you choose to transition to any capacity, it should be at your behest. You and your body are worthy of transition. I hope you are able to seize transition and do what you truly want for yourself.

[ganondoodle]

"its FICTION though, and anything in fiction is not real, has no effect and doesnt affect anyone real ever!! you cant criticize this piece of media for its repetition of old harmful tropes bc it doesnt matter!! its not real LOL can you not separate whats real and what isnt??"

and

"this piece of fiction is not morally pure!! something that is definitely a real and tangible thing to define and totally doesnt depend on whatever i think it means! if you like this thing i have deemed unpure you are automatically a reprehensible person!!"

are two mindsets that are both wrong and yet somehow still coexist and im frankly tired of it

[take-care-of-it]

I think taking Jimmy at face value with his “attracted to cartoon horses” thing is a mistake. I think in hindsight, the subtext is pretty clear that he said that to make Anya uncomfortable. Taking him at face value is the mistake that curly makes (albeit curly thinks he’s joking).

I also don’t think depicting a Jimmy with morally taboo paraphilias is necessarily missing the point, but I do think there’s this impulse to make him ~sexually deviant~ in a way that serves to distance him from “normal society.” As if he isn’t supposed to be emblematic of it.

Like, I think if you’re genuinely trying to explore that, you have to grapple with the idea that Jimmy himself thinks he’s normal. He isn’t “deviant and loving it” or whatever. He isn’t a sadist knowing and loving the harm he’s doing.* He’s genuinely convinced himself he’s a normal guy. He does not want to grapple with the harm he’s done. Jimmy’s way of getting around guilt is refusing to admit he’s done anything he needs to feel guilty about.

Jimmy wouldn’t be secretly guilty and self-flagellating about it. (Actively. He DOES feel guilt, but subconsciously.) He also wouldn’t be openly “admitting” this to Anya if he were being serious. It’s a joke, Curly’s right to take it as such. But it’s subtextually a joke at Anya’s expense. Something to make her uncomfortable.

Thinking that Jimmy associating Polle with both Anya and the unborn baby is something that came first, as a serious thing before the joke, is a mistake imo. I think it’s something that comes back to bite him when the subconscious guilt starts getting a little less subconscious. A joke association twisted into a more serious one by Jimmy’s unrelenting refusal to see Anya as a person.

* The exception here is people Jimmy thinks “deserve” the harm being done to them. “Morally justifiable harm,” if you will. I think Jimmy does take some satisfaction from hurting a post-crash curly, for example, but he justifies that to himself with the idea that Curly “looked down on him in the same way” pre-crash. He always has to view the harm he does acknowledge doing as punching up harm. He always has to be the righteous one.

[morganbritton132]

Sometimes I feel like people get mad at you if you have a mental illness and a good relationship with your parents.