#and in the victim blaming sense!! | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

Premium Tumblr themes are available from anywhere between $9 to $49.

#and in the victim blaming sense!!

mikakuna · 1 month

Text

my problem is that i always end up emotionally invested in the angry abuse victim character-- the character who is always the "wrong" kind of victim. the one who lashes out and is violent, a complete juxtaposition to their sunshine/lawful good counterparts in the media.

i end up resonating too hard with these characters that i always end up on the shitty side of the fandom where people will see you as a bad person for enjoying representation of an angry victim.

#and then i get brain damage from people's horrible takes that involve real life accusations #why the fuck would i support the death penalty because a fictional character kills people #are you using your minds #what part of seperate fiction and reality do you not understand #you genuinely CANNOT be a part of a fandom if you don't understand that rule #or there's the people in the fandom who don't know shit about abuse victims so when they write stories including such characters #they depict them in such clearly ableist ways #and in the victim blaming sense!!#like fuck #when is it my turn to join a fandom and become a fan of a character who doesn't induce such anger from other fans #jason todd #red hood #batman

95 notes · View notes

fantastic-nonsense · 2 years

Text

the thing that gets me is that Bruce never actually knows how Jason died

he knows the bare bones and that's it: he knows that Jason saw his mother going into the warehouse, and he knows he left Jason there while he ran off to chase down the truck (while telling him to take no action until he got back), and he knows that Jason somehow still ended up in that warehouse anyway, beaten and bloody and blown up by the Joker...but he actually has no idea how or why Jason went inside. He never finds out about Sheila; they're buried next to each other in Gotham Cemetery, and you know he never would have done that if he'd known the truth.

like...who's going to tell Bruce the gory details of his son's last hours? Sheila, who died in Bruce's arms before she could say much other than that Jason was a good boy who threw himself in between her and the bomb in an attempt to make sure she lived? Jason, who was already dead (and then a vegetable and then on the streets and then with Talia)? The Joker, who has little reason to say anything and was presumed dead after the UN Incident anyway?

Who tells Bruce that his son was tricked by his birth mother and then died to save her anyway? Who tells Bruce that Sheila's trickery is the reason Jason ended up in that warehouse, that she told him it was safe and that the Joker was long gone? Who tells Bruce that she pulled a gun on her own son? Who tells Bruce that she watched and turned her head away and smoked while her son was beaten mercilessly with a crowbar? Who tells Bruce that she only showed actual remorse after the Joker double-crossed her and tied her up too? Who tells Bruce that Jason tried to save her anyway, dragging himself on broken bones and borrowed time to untie her when he could have been selfish and saved himself? Who tells Bruce that Jason was a good son and a good man who acted like the hero he was till the very end and it still wasn't enough to save him?

Bruce goes home and grieves and buries his kid and nearly kills the Joker at the UN and puts up a memorial case and starts using Jason as a cautionary tale about recklessness because in his mind, it's the only thing he can do. He told Jason to wait. Jason went into the warehouse anyway. He doesn't know why. He doesn't know how. Those are the only two facts he knows (the only two facts that he'll ever know, since Jason's certainly not willing to tell him once he comes back to Gotham as Red Hood).

So much about how Jason's death is treated in the aftermath of Death in the Family is fucked up, but the fact that there will forever be a gap in Bruce's knowledge of Jason's final hours because it's basically impossible for Bruce to know what happened is just excrutiating. He's left to make his own conclusions about what happened...because neither Jason nor Sheila are alive to tell him differently. And that changes the calculus in really awful and tragic ways.

Bruce blamed himself (not Jason) for years because of that gap before writers started victim-blaming Jason for his own death, but even then that ignorance of his son's final hours hurts because he's left to make his own conclusions and there's never a right answer: if he hadn't tried to bench Jason in the first place, would he still be here? If he'd stopped the truck and doubled back faster, would Jason have had a chance? If he'd stayed and gone into the warehouse with him, would they both have made it? If he'd just forced the issue and brought Jason with him, would his son still be alive?

And he doesn't have an answer, and so Jason becomes a cautionary tale to Tim and Cass about being careful and cautious and following orders (even if neither of them really ever listen). Because if he couldn't save Jason, his death can at least serve a purpose beyond the yawning chasm of grief that threatens to choke him every morning he wakes up and remembers that his son is dead, that he'll never see another sunrise or finish high school or sit in the manor library with him poring over homework again. His son is dead and it's his fault, and that's all Bruce will ever see.

#dc comics #jason todd #bruce wayne #sheila haywood #death in the family #jason todd meta #bruce wayne meta #everyone wake up I'm in my cups about Jason's death again #my attempt to wring sense from canon's victim-blaming of Jason for his own death

829 notes · View notes

bartonbones · 9 months

Text

i keep this picture in my wallet to show people when they ask who carmy is bc to me this is Carmy....no sexy arms. no slutty little t-shirts and waist defining aprons. no chain with which to dangle. absolutely no swag. big sad eyes. about to expirence the worst year of his life

#this image just makes me crazy i cant explain it i wanna fix him so bad #feminine urge to save him from the horrors joel mchale urge to add to them #in nyc chef's defense this man really does look vulnerable and easy to verbally abuse. not to victim blame he just looks helpless ngl #this doesnt make any sense i just. sometimes i htink abt this picture it's so important to me #he just looks soo vulnerable so childlike :(#i kno i sound crazy sorry guys #its bc i am crazy

70 notes · View notes

autismserenity · 2 months

Text

Me, looking through books on Palestine: "Ilan Pappé wrote one called 'The Biggest Prison On Earth?!' People in Gaza hate it being called a prison. There's an entire hashtag for it. There's been an account dedicated to collecting pics and videos of #TheGazaYouDontSee for 6 years.

"Is Pappé even Palestinian? oh god wait I can tell already. this is gonna be an 'Israeli apologist' isn't it." Internet: "Yeah, Pappé's Israeli."

Me: "For fuck's--- so people will believe Israelis unquestioningly if they're shit-talking Israel, but in all other situations, Israelis are all liars?"

Internet: "Pretty much. Also, at best, Ilan Pappé must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians."

Me, admittedly in full schadenfreude now: "What?!?!"

Internet: "Benny Morris. That historian who's extremely hard-core about primary source documentation, who wrote that detailed book about how and why each group of Palestinian refugees left in 1947-9. He reviewed three books about Palestine."

Me: "Holy shit. And the book by Pappé is about the Husaynis. The family that Nazi war criminal Amin al-Husseini came from, the guy who fucked absolutely everything up for both Israel and Palestine."

Internet: "That's the one. Morris wrote, 'At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two.'"

Me: "Why??"

Internet: "He says, 'Here is a clear and typical example—in detail, which is where the devil resides—of Pappe’s handiwork. I take this example from The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine'....

"Blah blah blah, basically in 1947 the UN voted to partition the land into Palestine and Israel, and extremist militias started shooting at Jewish towns and people. David Ben-Gurion was the leader of the Jewish community there, and his journal describes a visit from a scientist named Aharon Katzir, telling him about an experiment codenamed "Shimshon." Morris gives us the journal entry:

...An experiment was conducted on animals. The researchers were clothed in gas masks and suit. The suit costs 20 grush, the mask about 20 grush (all must be bought immediately). The operation [or experiment] went well. No animal died, the [animals] remained dazzled [as when a car’s headlights dazzle an oncoming driver] for 24 hours. There are some 50 kilos [of the gas]. [They] were moved to Tel Aviv. The [production] equipment is being moved here. On the laboratory level, some 20 kilos can be produced per day.

"Morris says, 'This is the only accessible source that exists, to the best of my knowledge, about the meeting and the gas experiment, and it is the sole source cited by Pappe for his description of the meeting and the "Shimshon" project. But this is how Pappe gives the passage in English:

Katzir reported to Ben-Gurion: 'We are experimenting with animals. Our researchers were wearing gas masks and adequate outfit. Good results. The animals did not die (they were just blinded). We can produce 20 kilos a day of this stuff.'

"'The translation is flecked with inaccuracies, but the outrage is in Pappe’s perversion of "dazzled," or sunveru, to "blinded"—in Hebrew "blinded" would be uvru, the verb not used by Ben-Gurion—coupled with the willful omission of the qualifier '"for 24 hours."'

"'Pappe’s version of this text is driven by something other than linguistic and historiographical accuracy. Published in English for the English-speaking world, where animal-lovers are legion and deliberately blinding animals would be regarded as a barbaric act, the passage, as published by Pappe, cannot fail to provoke a strong aversion to Ben-Gurion and to Israel.

"'Such distortions, large and small, characterize almost every page of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. So I should add, to make the historical context perfectly clear, that no gas was ever used in the war of 1948 by any of the participants. [Or, he later notes, by either Israel or Palestine ever.] Pappe never tells the reader this.

"'Raising the subject of gas is historical irrelevance. But the paragraph will dangle in the reader’s imagination as a dark possibility, or worse, a dark reality: the Jews, gassed by the Nazis three years before, were about to gas, or were gassing, Arabs.'"

Me: "Uuuuggghhhhhhhhh. Yeah, it will."

Internet: "He does say, 'Palestinian Dynasty was a good idea.' Then he does some really detailed historian-dragging about the lack of primary sources and reliance on people's interpretations of what they say instead.

"'Almost all of Pappe’s references direct the reader to books and articles in English, Hebrew, and Arabic by other scholars, or to the memoirs of various Arab politicians, which are not the most reliable of sources. Occasionally there is a reference to an Arab or Western travelogue or genealogy, or to a diplomat’s memoir; but there is barely an allusion to documents in the relevant British, American, and Zionist/Israeli archives.

"'When referring to the content of American consular reports about Arab riots in the 1920s, for example, Pappe invariably directs the reader to an article in Hebrew by Gideon Biger—“The American Consulate in Jerusalem and the Events of 1920-1921,” in Cathedra, September 1988—and not to the documents themselves, which are easily accessible in the United States National Archive.

"'Those who falsify history routinely take the path of omission. They ignore crucial facts and important pieces of evidence while cherry-picking from the documentation to prove a case.

"'But Pappe is more brazen. He, too, often omits and ignores significant evidence, and he, too, alleges that a source tells us the opposite of what it in fact says, but he will also simply and straightforwardly falsify evidence.

"'Consider his handling of the Arab anti-Jewish riots of the 1920s.

"'Pappe writes of the “Nabi Musa” riots in April 1920: “The [British] Palin Commission... reported that the Jewish presence in the country was provoking the Arab population and was the cause of the riots.” He also quotes at length Musa Kazim al-Husayni, the clan��s leading notable at the time, to the effect that “it was not the [Arab] Hebronites who had started the riots but the Jews.”

"'But the (never published) [Palin Commission Report], while forthrightly anti-Zionist, thereby accurately reflecting the prevailing views in the British military government that ruled Palestine until mid-1920, flatly and strikingly charged the Arabs with responsibility for the bloodshed.

"'The team chaired by Major-General P.C. Palin wrote that “it is perfectly clear that with... few exceptions the Jews were the sufferers, and were, moreover, the victims of a peculiarly brutal and cowardly attack, the majority of the casualties being old men, women and children.” The inquiry pointed out that whereas 216 Jews were killed or injured, the British security forces and the Jews, in defending themselves or in retaliatory attacks, caused only twenty-five Arab casualties.'"

Me: "Yeah. I'm looking at that report right now and it says there had been an explosion, and then people were looting Jewish stores and beating Jews with stones, and in one case stabbing someone. Some people said that some Jews got up on the roof of a hotel and retaliated by throwing stones themselves.

"And then it literally says, 'The point as to the retaliation by Jews is of importance because it seems to have impressed the Military and led them to imagine that the Jews were to some extent responsible for provoking the rising.' That's the only thing it really says about anyone blaming the Jews.

"Except.... the very beginning gives some historical context. And it does say that when the Balfour Declaration came out, Muslims and Christians 'considered that they were to be handed over to an oppression which they hated far more than the Turk's and were aghast at the thought of this domination....

"'If this intensity of feeling proceeded merely from wounded pride of race and disappointment in political aspirations, it would be easier to criticise and rebuke: but it must be borne in mind that at the bottom of all is a deepseated fear of the Jew, both as a possible ruler and as an economic competitor. Rightly or wrongly they fear the Jew as a ruler, regarding his race as one of the most intolerant known to history....

"'The prospect of extensive Jewish immigration fills him with a panic fear, which may be exaggerated, but is none the less genuine. He sees the ablest race intellectually in the world, past-masters in all the arts of ousting competitors whether on the market, in the farm or the bureaucratic offices, backed by apparently inexhaustible funds given by their compatriots in all lands and possessed of powerful influence in the councils of the nations, prepared to enter the lists against him in every one of his normal occupations, backed by the one thing wanted to make them irresistible, the physical force of a great Imperial Power, and he feels himself overmastered and defeated before the contest is begun.'

"Wow! What a great fucking example of how 'positive' stereotypes are actually used to fuck people over! We're not antisemitic, we actually think Jews are the smartest, most powerful, richest group with tremendous global power! So positive!! Not at all being used here to justify antisemitic violence!

"Also, immigration from all over the world actually meant that different agricultural and manufacturing techniques were brought into the region, and yes, financial investments to start businesses sometimes, which meant that Arab Palestinians there had the highest per capita income in the Middle East, the highest daily wages, and started a lot of businesses of their own. But go off, I guess."

"Anyfuckingway.... it basically says that the Muslims and Christians were angry and scared, the Jews were too quick to set up the functioning government that the Brits were supposed to be there to help both sides create -- and which the Arab leaders completely refused to create for Palestine, because (1) fascists and (2) didn't want Jews nearby -- and that they were "ready prey for any form of agitation hostile to the British Government and the Jews." Then it says the movement for a United Syria was agitating them real hard, and so were the Sherifians.

"Is that what Ilan Passe, I mean Pappe, meant by the Palin Report blaming the Jews?! That when it says it's understandable the Arabs were freaking out, because antisemitism, Pappe thinks it's saying the Jews were provoking them?!"

Internet: "I don't know. I kinda tuned out after the first hour you were talking."

Me: "OGH MY GOD"

Internet: "So anyway, then Morris ALSO says, 'About the 1929 “Temple Mount” riots, which included two large-scale massacres of Jews, in Hebron and in Safed, Pappe writes: “The opposite camp, Zionist and British, was no less ruthless [than the Arabs]. In Jaffa a Jewish mob murdered seven Palestinians.”

Me: "What the ENTIRE FUCK? There was no united 'Zionist and British' camp! The Brits would barely let any Holocaust refugees in, ffs!"

Internet: "Morris says, 'Actually, there were no massacres of Arabs by Jews, though a number of Arabs were killed when Jews defended themselves or retaliated after Arab violence.

"'Pappe adds that the British “Shaw Commission,” so-called because it was chaired by Sir Walter Shaw (a former chief justice of the Straits Settlements), which investigated the riots, “upheld the basic Arab claim that Jewish provocations had caused the violent outbreak. ‘The principal cause... was twelve years of pro-Zionist [British] policy.’”

"'It is unclear what Pappe is quoting from. I did not find this sentence in the commission’s report. Pappe’s bibliography refers, under “Primary Sources,” simply to “The Shaw Commission.” The report? The deliberations? Memoranda by or about? Who can tell?

"'The footnote attached to the quote, presumably to give its source, says, simply, “Ibid.”

"'The one before it says, “Ibid., p. 103.”

"'The one before that says, “The Shaw Commission, session 46, p. 92.”

"'But the quoted passage does not appear on page 103 of the report.

"In the text of Palestinian Dynasty, Pappe states that “Shaw wrote [this] after leaving the country [Palestine].” But if it is not in the report, where did Shaw “write” it?'"

Me: "I'M ON IT. [rapid-fire googling] OMG. This is.... Not the first time. In 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,' he reported that in a 1937 letter to his son, David Ben-Gurion declared: 'The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war.'

"It's not in the source he gave. It's not in any of the three different sources he's given for it.

"He apparently has never responded to any requests for an explanation, either from the journal he published in, or from other historians. But it says he did "obliquely [acknowledge] the controversy in an article in Electronic Intifada, in which he portrayed himself as the victim of intimidation at the hands of “Zionist hooligans.”'

"This is absolutely fucking wild. THEN it says the chair of the Ethics Committee where he was teaching eventually said that the second part of the quote ('but one needs,' etc) was a (combined?) paraphrase of a diary entry and a speech Ben-Gurion gave, and that the first half is 'based on' a letter to his son.

"And it's so convincing! The chair says, 'Shabtai Teveth[,] Ben Gurion’s biographer, Benny Morris and the historian Nur Maslaha have all quoted this letter. In fact their translation was stronger than the quotation from Professor Pappé: ‘We must expel the Arabs and take their place.’ Professor Pappé has documentary evidence of these quotations and the source will ensure that this is correctly cited in any future editions of the publication or related studies.'

"And IT'S NOT EVEN TRUE?!

"Ben-Gurion's actual diary entry (not a letter) says the opposite.

“'We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places.... All our aspiration is built on the assumption – proven throughout all our activity – that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.'

"Benny Morris misquoted it as "We must expel the Arabs and take their places" in the English version of his 1987 book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, although it was correct in the Hebrew version. He corrected himself in the 2001 book Righteous Victims.

"Teveth also misquoted it in the English version of his 1985 book Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, but again, had it correct in the Hebrew edition.

"And both Morris and Teveth explicitly point out the rest of the entry. The part about all their aspiration being built on the assumption and experience that there was enough room in the country for everyone.

"Historian Efraim Karsh’s 1997 book Fabricating Israeli History pointed out and corrected their mistakes.

"This is apparently a very well-known issue among historians of Israel and Palestine. It was a big deal in 2003, when an evangelist Christian publisher put out a book FULL of disinformation, which not only used the same quote as Pappe does, but also could not give a real source for it.

"But Pappe STILL USED THE MISQUOTE AND DOUBLED DOWN ON IT EVERY SINGLE TIME."

Internet: "Are you done? I know all this already."

Me: "Also, there are literally only two places where the phrase 'twelve years of pro-Zionist policy' shows up online, and they're both about Pappe making quotes up.

"NOW I'm done."

Benny Morris wasn't, though. The review continues at the link below. And the next part starts, "To the deliberate slanting of history Pappe adds a profound ignorance of basic facts. Together these sins and deficiencies render his “histories” worthless as representations of the past, though they are important as documents in the current political and historiographic disputations about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Pappe’s grasp of the facts of World War I, for example, is weak in the extreme."

#i hate people misrepresenting history in general #i extra hate it when people do it with malice aforethought #ilan pappe #is a lying liar and people need to stop recommending his bullshit when it's been so thoroughly debunked #this is a good example of anti-Zionism being antisemitism tbh. I have yet to see anti-Zionist accounts of history that are accurate #like if you have to victim-blame people who were baked in ovens during an anti-Jewish riot you are PROBABLY in the wrong #I was looking for a piece explaining the 1920 and 1929 anti-Jewish riots that I could link here that wasn't from an explicitly Jewish sourc #because I don't trust people to take an article from the Jewish Virtual Library or whatever without being like “this is Zionist propaganda!#even if it's about an extremely violent massacre of Jews #so I clicked specifically on the Encyclopedia of the Palestine Question and similar sources #and what all of them did was gloss right over the massacres and violence and just vaguely mention “the demonstrations in 1920”#or not mention them at all of course #I guess that makes sense but wow. now I understand more of how ignorant people are about the entire history here #not only has it all been presented to you as “this started in 1947 or 48! the Jews stole all the land! it's been genocide ever since!”#so that people literally tell me “they invaded in 1947 and kicked out the Palestinians and took their land”#but also you have to fill in anything before that yourself #and the only propaganda you have access to usually is this myth that everyone was perfectly happy together until Israel... killed everyone?#it's really super weird to see people say that Jews and Muslims and Christians all lived happily together before this #like what do you think happened? everyone was happy and suddenly the jews were like “fuck you we're taking over and killing everyone?”#that probably is what people think happened tbh #they don't need for there to be any motivation or for that to make sense because they've bought the idea that it's just pure evil ig #for some reason people have to reverse-engineer hamas's massacre and imagine that israel did even worse to justify it #a terrorist group doesn't come out of nowhere! i don't think you know what terrorism is tbh #but they're happy to assume that whatever they think israel did came out of nowhere #god i'm fucking tired #anyway fuck ilan pappe #there are WAY BETTER HISTORIES OF PALESTINE #i've heard good things about Gaza: A History but of course that's not all of palestine #long post #such a long post

20 notes · View notes

fromtheseventhhell · 9 months

Text

Robert, Cersei, and Joffrey watching everyone blame Ned and Arya for Lady's death (and barely talk about Mycah cause who cares about an unimportant low-born boy? 🤪)

Arya committed the horrible crime of wanting to defend her friend and Ned physically carried out the act...after her death had already been decided. Right. It's interesting that of the three, Sansa is the one who gets blamed the least despite George saying she held some responsibility.

He was a bit coy in answering our questions but in the end he did indicate that Sansa did have responsibility for Lady's and Ned's deaths.

I'm not saying she should be blamed but if you're pointing fingers and not including her, then it seems more about personal opinion than the story being told. I'm all for her age being a factor in people not blaming her but it just has to be consistent. It can't be that Sansa shouldn't be blamed because of her age AND that Arya can be held responsible despite being younger. And yes, Ned is an adult, but what does that really mean in this situation? He's going against the Queen, a King who refuses to intervene, and a Prince making accusations while surrounded by Lannister guards and traveling South to become the hand of the King...I'm genuinely wondering what he was expected to do? He'd already taken the best course of action by bringing Sansa to tell the truth about what happened. According to George, her lying had an impact on Lady being killed so...why exactly does he get blamed? Why does Arya? This is the moment that tells us the Lannisters aren't to be trusted and the Starks aren't safe in KL, but who cares about the narrative right? It's really one of those situations when you can tell people are only looking at a scene from the perspective of a specific character.

#asoiaf #ned stark #arya stark #sansa stark #robert baratheon #cersei lannister #joffrey baratheon #once again my point isn't that Sansa should be blamed it's that other characters shouldn't be unfairly blamed for her sake #it makes absolutely no sense to blame Ned and Arya when Joffrey Cersei and Robert are right there but when has this fandom ever had sense??#I'm tired of them getting blamed from a certain group of stans who only care about one character #Arya wasn't wrong for trying to defend Mycah and there was nothing Ned could've done to save Lady #Lady dying before her and Sansa really had a chance to bond and Sansa holding some responsibility was done for a specific narrative purpose #deciding that she alone isn't to blame and everyone else is isn't going to change the story #This moment helps set up one of the main conflicts in that book but it gets reduced to a petty blame game so Sansa can be THE victim

65 notes · View notes

girl4music · 4 months

Text

My time with ‘Angel the Series’ is officially over. I will not be continuing watching the show from this point onwards because I’ve just watched something that shocked, angered and revolted me all at the same time that I almost projectile vomited. And no I will not elaborate on why or how. The tags will clue you in. It’s too NSFW to write about in the main post. But god…

To the writer of this episode -

I hope you went to therapy because that was horrific.

How this got passed The WB censors is beyond me.

I just… this is too much for me. So yeah, I’m done.

This was the last straw. Enough is e-fucking-nough!

I did want to watch Season 5 but I just can’t continue.

Not after seeing that. Experiencing that. I cannot.

This is worse than Willow and Tara, Spike and Buffy, Faith and Riley. It’s even worse than Buffy and Angel.

Network TV greenlit this for production and aired it in primetime hours. This could have destroyed the actors’ careers completely. Probably most likely did. ‘Angel the Series’ had a 9PM slot on a weekday so they would have likely avoided young children watching when it was a school night most nights. But my god… to show something like that in primetime is just wrong. Especially for a TV network like The WB.

#angel the series #apocalypse nowish #the worst part is I cannot blame either character #because one had amnesia and was clearly being mind controlled #and the other was a minor that was clearly being groomed #so in a sense both were a victim of rape #what was the writer thinking?#joss whedon is one sick fucking bastard #that was the most visceral reaction I’ve ever had watching anything in my life #that was depraved #holy fucking shit #talk about nonconsent issues in the buffyverse #that was the worst one I’ve seen yet #the direction of it was obscene #the way it was framed #like it was making love #it just made it even worse #guys I’m absolutely fucking floored #I cannot believe what I’ve just watched #I cannot believe this was even allowed to be aired on TV #I feel physically sick #I’ll never be able to get the imagery of it out of my mind #I’m traumatised for life watching that horror show #and I love horror #it was so bad guys #she was his surrogate mother for crying out loud!#she changed his fucking diapers!#she was in love with his father!#why?!#this is beyond fucked up

14 notes · View notes

glsneeg-enthusiast · 8 months

Note

hey i just wanted to ask you about something bc i don’t really understand it, why do you think charlie and sneeg would hate ranboo after what happened? i’ve like never seen that interpretation or whatever of their characters and i’m curious as to where you drew it from

idk i just think itd be interesting. yknow showfall raised them and everything and they have a fucked up relationship with them but they still need someone to blame. the only person theyve got just happens to be the guy that killed them over and over again

#sorry im insane nothing i say makes sense to anybody except me #i think dying to ranboo however many times would fuck up their relationship a little bit #even if it wasnt ranboos fault #its not a hate hate thing its just. blame #because to me they love showfall too much to blame them #yknow like stereotypical abuse victim #except its alot more than that but thats the easiest way to explain it i think

9 notes · View notes

Last Seen Blogs

severelystrangewriter

You Must Be REALLY Lost

laladu

Untitled

authenticintimacylover

Untitled

beginbed

Just Another Cum Slut

em-tee-gee

Magic and the Gatherings