tf_talk | Gloves Off

AYRT

I have c-ptsd myself, which is what got me thinking along those lines actually. I'm glad everything to do with andy and his victims is so simple black & white in your world, must save a lot of emotional energy.

PTSD is not an excuse for shitty behavior. It never has been and never will be.

Ravenjeep is a useful tool and victim for Blake because of this exact issue. The man has, I assume, diagnosed PTSD from his military service. In modern American society, the status of 'veteran with PTSD' has become unassailable. Anything done by a vet with that diagnosis can be waved away by their great sacrifice and all the trauma associated with their service to their country.

This does not mean that all veterans are angels who would have been perfectly good human beings if they'd never served in the military. This does not mean being a veteran is a 'get out of jail free' card for being nasty and cruel. This excuses NOTHING, except that it leaves Ravenjeep much more vulnerable to Blake's manipulation.

And before any snottiness starts, I am a veteran with a combat tour, diagnosed with PTSD. I am from a family of veterans, several with diagnosed and un-diagnosed PTSD.

I am worried and concerned for Ravenjeep, because Blake's toxic masculinity and manipulative behavior is absolutely detrimental to his health. It plays into the psycho-social conditioning and training that the military seeks to inculcate into its soldiers. It is an ugly, ugly thing, and I wish above all for the man to be free and clear of Blake.

But once again, his behavior isn't because of PTSD. It is either because it is his nature to behave that way, or he is being stirred by Blake and his own -defend my brothers- and -protect my friends- indoctrination to do so, against his own calmer inclinations. I rather think the second is true, but it helps no one to pretend that being a veteran or being diagnosed with PTSD excuses the things he has said to Molly and her friends in defense of a liar like Blake.

AYRT

where did anyone, ever, at any point, say it was an excuse?

in fact, I said it was the exact opposite.

also where did anyone get especially sentimental over vets? I am not sentimental over the military, and I'm also not american so am not subjected to that culture, though I am aware of it.

I opened this topic up as a discussion about how his behaviours might be influenced by andy, because I found it interesting and thought-provoking. not to defend him and it's absolutely ludicrous poor reading comprehension on your part if you interpreted otherwise. if you go back and read over what I originally posted, you will see that for yourself. including the part where I specified I generally feel nothing but contempt for him.

I never said it black and white, and I don't invest emotional energy into Andy's behaviour. That said, examining everything through the lens of a PTSD diagnosis is, no doubt, exhausting.

You know what they say: if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

All snark aside, people have flaws that are unrelated to their trauma. I've read through almost everything RJ has posted, and he comes across as incredibly arrogant and presumptuous. Such people have an incredibly time admitting when they've been duped, no trauma required.

Another thing to remember: Chris may be being manipulated by Andy, but unless there's a lot more going on behind the scenes than we know, Chris is not Andy's VICTIM. If being convinced to/deciding to insert yourself into online arguments now counts as victimization, almost all of the internet is going need therapy.

as I said to the above commenter, I thought this was an interesting topic for discussion. you know. that thing this forum was set up for. you're entitled to your opinion, and to disagree with mine, but acting like floating the very real possibility for contemplation is some sort of preposterous reading, or making excuses (that were never made) or just PROJECTING (real classy, anon - if I was one of the kneejerkers on here I'd be shouting for a mod to check your IP!) is bullshit.

I don't consider it a flaw that the trauma I've experienced often makes me stop and consider how trauma might factor into another's behaviour (which is not the same thing as making excuses or offering leeway - I have directly held chris to account more than once). I consider it a crucial element of me evolving beyond my trauma to extend empathy and compassion to others who may need it. that doesn't preclude reasoned decisions and serious reflection, or that I am not discriminating in how I exercise it (because starting a discussion on a discussion forum intended for discussion is not the same thing as starting a facebook FAQ page all about how poor combat vet army guy is the victim of his own PTSD). but sure, if you think that's something to mock and belittle, you do you, boo.

Check my IP? To what end? Disagreeing with you doesn't make me a troll.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You said seeing "everything in Andy's world" in black and white - which I don't - must save me energy. I responded in kind. Don't snark if you don't want to be snarked at.

I think assigning Chris's defence of Andy to PTSD and "being fucked with psychologically by Andy in ugly ways" is a big stretch. There's a tendency on this board for people to pathologize behaviour that can be boiled down to simple assholery.

This in particular is bizarre:

"yeah and that's kinda the most tragic part and is really common with abusers' enablers - they're often victims in their own right, but drive everyone off with their horrible behaviour, leaving them vulnerable."

Your eagerness to see Chris as a victim, when there's no evidence that he is, is curious and troubling in light of how he's treating actual victims. And if I'm honest, yeah, your concern for Chris's "vulnerability" in particular leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The guy has been waging a campaign of harassment against actual victims, including telling Abbey that she needs a hobby, demanding police reports from Andy's LA landlord, dismissing Andy's homophobic/transphobic/misogynist body-shaming comments, and denying that Andy is a rapist (a self-admitted rapist, at that!). But poor Chris, right? What is HE going through right now? What ugliness HE possibly suffered at Andy's hands? Is dastardly Andy using his PTSD against him?

Except there's no evidence he's suffered any ugliness at all, other than being fooled into thinking Andy is a decent man.

To go back to the Catholic church analogy: are the fools in the church who defend molester priests "victims"? In the sense that they've been successfully deceived into trusting a predator, sure. Are they "victims" in the same sense that the victims of molestation are victims? Absolutely not. And when they actively attack victims, defend predators, and engage in campaigns of harassment, the people who deserve your "empathy and compassion" are not the apologists. In this context, they are not "victims in their right", they are enablers who need to be shut down, because they are the sort of people who allow predators to thrive in their midst.

Think how it must feel for actual victims to read, "Yes, these people have behaved horribly by defending predators and attacking victims, but they're ALSO victims in their own way, and they've now lost everyone's respect and friendship on top of that! Think of THEIR vulnerability!"

If you think this is an appropriate response, "you do you, boo". And if you're determined to see Chris as a victim, be my guest, but I'll not see him as one until actual evidence arises that he's suffered at Andy's hands, or he comes forward to claim that title for himself.

NAYRT

What's wrong with considering the possibility that Chris is a victim? Remember that before Abbey shared her story people thought she was Andy's co-conspirator. I'm not suggesting that Chris is going through anything like what Abbey went through. I'm just saying we don't know what anyone is going through.

Some of the comments here seem to play into the same ideas of (toxic) masculinity that Andy and Chris believe. Chris has been called a "big boy" and a "grown man" as if being big and grown and (most importantly) male protect him from abuse. HE certainly seems to think that being a big tough guy makes him immune to Andy. But just because Andy is very unlikely to sexually assault him and can't use weapons like transphobia against him doesn't mean he's completely safe from being victimised.

Being a military vet and having PTSD is relevant to how Chris MIGHT be victimised because we know Andy fucking loves soldier trauma stuff. It has been such a huge part of many of his storylines. Now he has access to a real life traumatised soldier, who was putty in his hands the moment Andy put on his scared wounded deer act, and people think he's not going to play with that?

How can we rule out anyone as a potential victim? How is it kind to other victims to do that? Sometimes victims do shitty things when they're under the influence of an abuser. Sometimes shitty people are victims. Chris being a "big boy" and an asshole is not incompatible with him being a victim.

Thank you for the compassion and understanding shown in this reply.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: I'm not saying that it's impossible Chris is a victim; I'm saying there's currently no evidence that he is a victim. Chris has obviously been fooled by Andy, but I think to say he's "putty in Andy's hands", suggesting he's completely powerless and being remolded in the image of Andy's preference, is vastly overstating what's happening here. If you have evidence something like that is going on, other than mere speculation, please share.

Comparing Chris to Abbey is disingenuous. Chris is not in a romantic relationship with Andy. Chris is not living with Andy. Chris has not made lifestyle changes or financial sacrifices because of Andy.

I've never said being male protects Chris from being abused. When I call him a "big boy", I'm not referring to his physical size. I'm referring to the fact that's an adult in his 30's or 40's, which is an age at which people bear responsibility for their actions. No, I'm not saying you can't be abused in 30's or 40's, but remember that no one has yet presented any evidence that Chris is an abuse victim. People here seem to have trouble distinguishing between scenarios that are possible and scenarios that are supported by evidence.

The narrative being pushed here - that Chris is "putty in Andy's hands", that he's being "fucked with psychologically in some really ugly ways that are explicitly designed to play into his trauma" has not been demonstrated. Let me underline that: HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED. Chris is being deceived by Andy. Abused? Defending Andy in and of itself does not indicate Chris is being abused, only that Andy has fooled him into thinking he's a decent human being.

The result of this is that we a person who actively attacking victims being posited as a victim, complete with concerns with his "vulnerability", when his victimhood has not even been established. This is something that I've seen before, again, during the Catholic abuse scandal. Catholic lay people would attack victims in defends of abusers until the evidence against them became overwhelming, and which point the narrative became, "Well, those who attacked the victims were ALSO the victims of pedophile priests by virtue of being deceived by them!", as though being deceived by an abuser (and attacking victims as a result) puts one on par with those who were actually abused by predators.

I'll sum it up this way: "Won't someone think of the enablers? They're victims, too!"

This is salt in the wounds of actual victims, who now must endure hand-wringing over the "victimhood" (by a virtue of deception, not by virtue of actual abuse) of the very people who attacked them for coming forward. This is precisely the situation being created on this forum now.

And then this: "Well, perhaps the enablers that attacked victims are in fact TRUE victims in some way, shape, or form! Couldn't that be possible? Might that not account for their horrible behaviour?" Well, yes, it could be, and it might, but the intense focus on the enabler's theoretical, potential victimhood is very suspect indeed when there are confirmed victims suffering at their hands, and no evidence has been presented that the enablers have actually been abused The end result is that the focus shifts from real, confirmed suffering to the completely theoretical suffering of people who have engaged in/are currently engaging in campaigns of harassment against victims. This is not where compassion and energy should be directed in such a situation (at least, until evidence arises that that the enablers have ACTUALLY been victimized), and the currently unsupported narrative that Chris must be "putty in Andy's hands" as a result of being "fucked with in psychologically in ugly ways involving his trauma" leaves a bad taste in my mouth for that reason.

Hear, hear. Thank you for saying this so firmly, nonnie,

AYRT

You're combining my words with those of another poster. I didn't say Chris was putty in Andy's hands as a result of being fucked with psychologically in ways involving his trauma. I do think the latter suggestion is possible (and even likely) but when I said "putty in his hands" I was only referring to Chris's gullibility regarding Andy's "I'm scared and need your help" routine.

I don't think that speculating that Chris might also be a victim takes away from the known victims. Compasssion isn't a finite resource. I think the posters discussing the possibility of Chris being victimised have all stated that even if it's true it would not excuse his behaviour.

My comparison between Chris and Abbey was Only meant in regards to the perception of outsiders at the time that Abbey was not a victim. Of course there are many many differences between the two of them and their respective relationships with Andy. But I feel like what you're saying could have been said about Andy's victims back then - "Turimel is Andy's victim. Sympathy for Andy's enablers shifts focus from Turimel's suffering." Abbey, if you read this, I'm sorry if my comparison is bad and hurtful. Again, I'm not trying to compare You to Chris, I'm trying to compare the perception of you both by outsiders. If doing that (or the way I've done it) is shitty, I'm truly sorry.

Nah, I'm cool. -KQ

dude, you are completely misrepresenting what's been said. your logic fails & hysteria make you seem a lot like chris though. maybe I should ask for an IP check.

Gloves Off

Re: ravenjeep & ptsd

Re: ravenjeep & ptsd

Re: ravenjeep & ptsd

Re: ravenjeep & ptsd

Re: ravenjeep & ptsd

Re: ravenjeep & ptsd

Re: ravenjeep & ptsd

Re: ravenjeep & ptsd

Re: ravenjeep & ptsd

Re: ravenjeep & ptsd

Re: ravenjeep & ptsd

Re: ravenjeep & ptsd

Re: ravenjeep & ptsd