tf_talk | continued Thatfucker discussion

Skip to Main Content

Entry tags:

continued Thatfucker discussion

Since we've been kicked off FFA for the week, please feel free to continue the anon discussion here. Apologies if this is a big flop - I've never made a DW community before!

The rules are vaguely the same as they are over on FFA. Please refrain from being too much of an asshole, making personal attacks, posting identifying information or engaging in transfail.

ETA: If there's information you'd like to see archived (journal/blog posts related to Andy, etc.), please dump it here and link to it from the main post for discussing.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I've always suspected this. There are lots and lots of reasons a person could want privacy, so it's not inherently suspect, but didn't the guy who recorded it want ut taken down? I figured it was possible that was why, though please don't take this as anything but speculation.

I agree with you, not just because of the person involved wanting it gone but because the whole premise of climbing up a hill or whatever, with this child that two other people were supposed to be looking after, made no freaking sense. I think the child was just a shared fantasy that Andy and B. dragged their friend into.

Until I see proof the kid is real, I don't believe it either. I still have the audio. The story was that the mom had to pick up the other kids and wanted the child to go down for a nap, so Brittany told Andy and his male friend to "take him out" somewhere. WTF? You don't get a kid all riled up with an outing right before his nap. Apparently they had this kid hauling rocks he could barely lift.

Also, maybe it's just me, but if I'm the mom, I want the relative caring for my kids to accompany their friends if they're taking him out for a walk. This woman definitely didn't know Andy's friend at all, and probably barely knew Andy. You could be nicest two guys in the world but if I don't know you, I don't want you wandering away from my house to a secluded area with my young child. I definitely don't want you hiking up a rocky cliff as you my sleeping kid.

P.S. Relistened. Apparently it was a "tough journey" up the rocky cliff to get back to the house, with the sleeping toddler balanced on someone's shoulders. Yeah, that sounds safe. Gist is: "I was terrified of anything happening to him. I kept imagining him falling off and getting hurt. Words cannot describe my relief when we got back." Discussions of how death or a broken limb would be preferable to child injury occur. Andy apparently remarked how taut all the guy's muscles were as he climbed. Kid sleeps through the dangerous cliff climb but wakes up when they get back, plays some more, and zero attempt is made to actually put the kid down for the nap his mother requested.

The whole thing is really overwrought and purple prose-y as hell. Parts of it definitely sound like something Andy would produce. I also hope to hell it isn't true, because if it is, what the audio describes is irresponsible as fuck.

Well that all sounds extremely unlikely. A sleeping kid can't hold on to shoulders. If they were actually climbing a cliff, there's no way he wouldn't fall. Who the hell takes a toddler rock climbing anyway.

Yeah, fake as hell.

The story was the guy was holding onto his ankles and the kid slumped over his head. How you would manage cliff-climbing so dangerous that you were "terrified" of an accident without waking the kid up, I do not know.

I mean, why the fuck even attempt something like that?

So yeah, smells like bullshit to me.

This sounds like an account by someone who has never climbed a cliff or held as sleeping child.

You need to hold on to a cliff face to go up. You can't hold a kid's ankles while holding on to a cliff face. Plus you need to change the positioning of your shoulders and neck a lot on a climb. No way a slumping kid will balance.

At MOST, Andy and his friend walked up a hill while giving a sleepy but awake tot a piggyback. But I still think it's entirely fiction.

This. Also, it's hard to communicate the depth of the wtfuckery until you hear the prose about "protecting the life I literally held in my hands", "I would die or break my legs before allowing this child to be hurt", "This child trusted me beyond all rationality, beyond reason. The idea that I would hurt him is unthinkable. It's heady stuff."

Dude, who decided to take him up a fucking cliff in the first place?

Like you said, it's either classic Andy-flavoured melodrama about mundane stuff, or a complete fabrication. If it was real and occurred as described, it would be child endangerment.

I have never needed to emphasize that I would never hurt a child. When Andrew vehemently denies something/goes all "I would NEVER" I think something fishy is going up. He didn't care about the small animals he hurt, children are perfect targets for his fucked up make believe.

Andrew Blake is a godawful human.

DA
This!! These kinds of statements always put me in mind of the Captain Awkward posts about how being told explicitly "I would never hurt you" is actually a red flag for abusive men - if they have to say that, it means they consider harming you on the spectrum of possible actions available to them. Not hurting another person is the default state, not some superhuman act of goodness.

AUGH +1

Yep. It's right there in the speech - "the idea that I would hurt him is unthinkable". Dude - you just THOUGHT it. I've never in my life held a sleeping baby and had to consciously tell myself I wasn't going to hurt it.

Also, you take a baby on a climb up a cliff, you are endangering him so much you might as well be hurting him. I'm really glad this was all likely false, because they honestly could have killed a kid.

What I think happened, though obviously this is speculation, is that Andy made their friend "prove himself" by struggling his way up a steep path while pretending to carry a fictitious child. Sort of the equivalent of making a pledge hike with his hands on his head, only with bonus lying and emotional manipulation.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only