but also like. guys you don’t need to leave the minecraft youtube community bc one person is bad to clarify. like. shelby is a minecraft youtuber. a lot of her friends are minecraft youtubers. those friends are supportive and as far as we know all believe her. the vast majority of minecraft youtubers are like. fine. this shit is something that Happens because Abusers are Manipulative, going to another hobby will Not shield you from anything and you’re not immoral for liking something bad people also liked. which is. one of the biggest video games ever. like in this situation no one was knowingly harbouring an abuser and it seems everyone was supportive. this is just a case of some people being shit, not anything to do with mcyt. hell, the guy hasn’t been on minecraft in like a year lmao.
i fully understand why the content might be uncomfortable to you guys now but like, please don’t self flagellate and cut yourself off from an entire genre of media because of one guy again. i saw that happen after the dream stuff and a lot of people ended up losing important things because they made rash decisions and felt like they Had to leave. but please. take one deep fucking breath. this has happened before. this has happened so much before, and in ways far worse than this. because abusers, unfortunately, exist. you should not feel guilty for being manipulated by a manipulative abuser, don’t blame yourself. do what you have to, but please, please keep in mind that the majority of minecraft youtube is fine. it is fine to continue engaging with it. it’s fine to be manipulated by an abuser and it’s not your fault. please don’t make rash decisions and end up losing things you care deeply about and being unable to get them back. distance yourself all you want, but please be careful to not do so out of emotional self harm from the guilt. that’s something this fandom encourages far too much- even outside of this- and it’s unhealthy and anyone expecting it of you is cruel.
405 notes
·
View notes
How many posts do you have on dotc? also, i havent seen it before if you have, but you talked about the huge battle where starclan spontaneously pops into existence in order to tell everyone to stop fighting
TONS. It's the most frequent canon material I post about here. It's usually tagged #Warrior Cats Analysis.
I am also doing a live re-read and have been for a couple months. It started on this blog as #Bonefall Reads DOTC, and continued over on my other blog @bonebabbles as #Bones Reads DOTC, so that I was spamming my followers less.
I usually tag my harshest posts with #DOTC Hate out of respect to the main tag.
53 notes
·
View notes
i think movie vanessa is criminally underrated. regardless of your feelings about the game/comic lore, the movie is it’s own canon and she is an incredible character. she is a three-dimensional, complex, traumatized character and i think a lot of the hate surrounding her is a classic example of Fandom (not just the fnaf fandom, this happens in ALL fandoms) demonizing female characters for the same traits they praise in male characters. everyone is thirsting after afton, a child serial killer, yet somehow vanessa is worse cuz she’s *checks notes* a cop?? i thought the movie was great and i loved all the characters especially vanessa, and i really hope they expand more on her backstory in future movies. she is a survivor of childhood trauma, she helped kill her abuser and made friends along the way, she saved a kid’s life!! can we get appreciation for my girl pLEASE?
84 notes
·
View notes
Things like prolonged abuse can give people very uneven social and emotional development. They can be very responsible and "mature for your age" in some areas and also very stunted and immature in others.
This can also happen for, say, LGBT people who were closeted during pivotal periods of development too, where dating and discovering themselves happens later and there can be a development gap for a time. And grief around never getting to be a kid when they were a kid can be a thing for people once they try to connect with the things they had to cut off because they weren't safe to feel them. I went through some of that myself, from various sources, so I have a lot of empathy for that and how absurd/frustrating it can be.
(And a lot of hope - it doesn't, as far as I've seen and experienced, take someone very long to "catch up" after a while of fumbling around like an idiot)
Anyway - sometimes I see people reading Carmy's "accidental fuckboi" behavior in terms of how a grown man who's been dating since he was a teen would be thinking/feeling, if he behaved like that. But, for me, I interpret that differently because of the “first” situation and the developmental stuff. IMO, he's basically being a feckless/inexperienced teenager dating for the first time here, because in this area of his life he is still developmentally a dumb feckless teenager (and one who is trying and failing "not to be shitty" without much of a clue what that looks like).
Doesn't make the harm less real, but the intent I think is shaped deeply by the fact that, for the first time in his life, he feels safe enough (because of how much responsibility Sydney and Nat are taking on and that is absolutely not fair to them!!) to try to enjoy things. And he thinks maybe he can even make that work with being responsible somehow, but... utterly clueless about how.
There's the caveat that he didn't go out and choose to start dating at this pivotal moment for the business - dating found him and there's complexities around how much he wanted it to find him right here and now and how much he feels obligated to be what his family/friends/Claire wants him to be. I think he'd have been able to turn down anyone who wasn't as deeply tied to his family as Claire, and I'm not ignoring his agency in the situation, but they chose to bring someone in who he'd find it incredibly difficult to balance pleasing/doing what he's expected to do by while balancing everything else for a reason.
The "executive function" stuff where he's staring at the calls coming in and unable to answer either of them is key for me, in terms of this being someone who just isn't functioning well rn at all and is coming to a real crisis point and trying to ignore that/salve that any way he can think of. Masking really hard and deep in denial and trying to keep a lot of plates spinning without being very intentional about any of it.
It leads to sucky behavior and he's responsible for that--and the other characters can and should hold him responsible for that, but especially for actually addressing the core gravity warping untreated mental illness that's motivating a lot of this frantic rushing around and being a prick-- but I don't personally see much of it as a crime of intent. Intent requires a level of insight and experience that he doesn't have in the area of dating specifically lol
That balance of someone being responsible for their actions but also, for various reasons, in a place that mitigates and shapes what they're able to do--based on the tools they have--is an interesting part of the story that gets touched on again and again through various characters. It's interesting and it can coexist with the people around someone having the right to protect their own peace and boundaries.
66 notes
·
View notes
i feel like ppl (izzy fans especially) rlly get hung up on the toe scene and seeing it like "what if this happened in real life??" or even just "what if this happened in a realistic show that placed moral judgement on characters for enacting physical violence??" and like YEAH in real life i think having your toe cut off and fed to you would be Pretty Fucking Traumatizing and you'd probably be the victim of the situation, not the guy feeding you your own toe. and in MOST shows, if someone's feeding ppl their own toes, that's probably a bad guy
but one of my favorite things abt ofmd is how it DOESNT make moral statements about physical violence. like, ever. this show never takes a stance on when it's okay to kill people, or how much violence you can do while still being a good person. because all the important characters are fucking pirates! if this show tried to take a realistic approach to the morality of physical violence it would get really hypocritical really, really fast!
what matters in ofmd isn't whether the characters are physically violent or not, it's how the characters feel about being the ones to enact violence.
buttons and roach both enjoy violence in a slapstick goofy way that's meant as comedic relief. jim clearly has no regrets about murdering the man who killed their family, but they're not that enthusiastic about going on a whole revenge killing spree and hunting down six (or five, now) other guys. stede at the beginning is somewhat afraid of violence, and is insecure about how afraid he is, but i do think his feelings about violence are changing and will continue to change in the next season(s).
izzy considers violence a requirement to be a real pirate (aka a Real Man) and is loyal to ed so long as he thinks ed is willing to use violence to maintain power and control
and ed. ed actually doesn't like physically hurting people! he's deeply traumatized by murdering his own father, so much so that he's made up weird rules about when someone's death is his fault as a way to distance himself from the violence that is necessitated by his profession! when those rules are called into question, and his responsibility in people's death scrutinized, he gets uncomfortable! all ed wants is to leave behind his violent lifestyle and go enjoy a hedonistic lifestyle for the rest of his life!!
but it's not that ofmd doesn't have a moral compass. in the fictional world of ofmd, "morality" (aka When Characters Are Rewarded/Punished By The Narrative) has two axes: colonialism and emotional vulnerability
the first one is pretty straight forward and has been talked abt a lot already so quick summary: in ofmd, when characters are explicitly and maliciously racist (british navy in e1, rich french people in e5) or side with european colonizers (izzy in e9), they face physical harm. british soldiers in e1 get beat up, the french ppl in e5 get their ship burnt down, and izzy nearly gets thrown overboard in e9, and in e10... yknow. toes.
as for Emotional Vulnerability, that's the whole fucking core of the show. people being their authentic selves, openly expressing their emotions and clearly stating their emotional needs, that's the end goal for every character who's gonna get a happy ending. characters denying parts of themselves, suppressing their desires and contorting themselves to fit into a certain box they feel obligated to get into—that's what our protagonists are trying to unlearn.
in e10, izzy is trying to force ed back into the blackbeard box. he demands ed return to the role that makes him unhappy, a role that requires physical violence to maintain. and ed goes, and we know, we are told, like, multiple fucking times before and after that this is not what ed wants to be doing. ed has stated, over and over again, that he's tired of being blackbeard, that he wants to pack it all in, that he wants to do the things that make ed happy. we learn in e6 that he's actually been traumatized by his OWN PHYSICAL VIOLENCE!!! and he even talks about feeding ppl their own toes as a fucking example of shit he Does Not Want To Do!!!! and the last fucking shot of him we have is him literally sobbing his eyes out!!!!!!!
yes, in real fucking life, and in almost any other story, izzy would be the victim of the toe scene
in the fictional world of ofmd, in the narrative of a slapstick pirate romcom that we're being told, ED IS THE PRIMARY VICTIM IN THE TOE SCENE. ED IS THE ONE WHO IS SUFFERS MORE IN THAT SCENE
392 notes
·
View notes