b u r n

Context

i. Isaac and Stiles do not get along. Both feel threatened by the other regarding their place in the ‘pack’, in their circle of friends, and both compete for Scott’s time and attention. They both place an extraordinarily high value on being accepted in this context, because they both failed to achieve wider social inclusion before it, and both feel they’d be unable to achieve social inclusion without it.

ii. They have an established history of communication through confrontation, insults and threats. It is the expectation, not the exception, that replies will be caustic.  

Dialogue

Isaac: "They're all locked up because they're insane."

Isaac’s glib jibe answers Allison’s question. On the one hand, this suggests that the comment is general; that he may be tactless, but he’s not insulting Stiles on purpose. However, the scope of the answer includes Stiles because he is both one of the “insane”, and more importantly, because Isaac purposefully turns to look right at him when he says this. Not Allison, to whom he is technically replying, not at Scott who is also losing his mind, but at Stiles.

Stiles: "Can you at least try and be helpful?"

It’s necessary to remember that at this very moment, antagonism has already begun. The tone is set. Isaac knows that this is getting bitchy, and he mentions his trauma after, not before, this. So he brings up his childhood in full knowledge that they are arguing. This is not a list of apologies, but I need you to bear with me in acknowledging that Stiles is actively: sleep deprived, shaken and irrational. He also has a canonical neurological condition which has caused him deep internalized feelings of self-blame and lack of self-worth.

He also currently, legitimately, feels like he is going insane.

These are all things of which Isaac is aware. No, it's not being locked in a freezer, but it is certainly a terrifying and traumatic list of events that Stiles is touchy about, and has every right to be touchy about.

Stiles legitimately takes offence because Isaac, who is not currently in their state of active suffering, makes an unkind joke about that suffering.

Isaac: "For half of my childhood, I was locked in a freezer. So being helpful is kind of a new thing for me."

Now here is the place where it really gets murky, because there are two elements inherent in Isaac’s reply, both equally -- and possibly simultaneously -- in/valid.

i. Isaac points out, bluntly and honestly, his familiarity with prolonged psychological suffering. If he is being tactless, if he is being glib and blunt, it’s because it’s the way he dealt with it, and no-one was tactful to him about it, so yeah, sorry, but he won’t be making you cocoa. It doesn’t mean he’s not taking this seriously, though, because he cares about Scott, and he cares about Allison, so fuck you he’s here isn’t he. (You deserve to be mocked if you missed that memo.) 

ii. Isaac is implying that his trauma is worse than their (or at least, Stiles') current trauma; that he should not be held responsible for his irreverent remarks, even if they do belittle or undermine that trauma (whether intentionally or accidentally). It is the “victims cannot also be abusers” fallacy.

NOW I’m not going to get involved in whether Isaac meant one or the other, or one more so than the other, or something else entirely. The point is that both are valid and reasonable interpretations of what he says, and he doesn't attempt to clarify. 

I think there's sufficient evidence to say Stiles reads interpretation #2, and this is fairly understandable, coming after a prolonged period of loss (Heather, Tara, (almost) his father) followed by his own death, and now a prolonged period of psychological duress. He's quick to feel aggrieved, whether out of resentment, jealousy, or genuine indignation. 

But the point is (and this is relevant to both of them, as well as to all and sundry) no-one’s trauma ever invalidates, or has the right to belittle, anyone else’s trauma, no matter how horrific that trauma was.

Stiles: "Are we still milking that?"

It’s not just Isaac’s life story, but also his insinuation, that Stiles reacts to with such problematic and reprehensible vitriol. Is his response problematic? Absolutely. Is it nasty? Without question. Is it an example of acceptable behavior? No, by God, it is not. But from Stiles’ perspective, Isaac’s trauma is old, and his is Right Now. Isaac went through hideous psychological abuse; Stiles, Scott, and Allison are going through psychological abuse at the moment, and Isaac is joking about it. Moreover, he may be suggesting that he has the right to do so, because of his own history. 

There has been extensive meta on why you should never, ever shut down, or ridicule, someone’s attempt to talk about their trauma, and I won’t rehash it here. No-one’s arguing that these lines, arguably this whole conversation, is deeply problematic and out of line. 

But I'm going to argue that, for the reasons above, I don't actually hold these two in the highest contempt here. And that's because nastiness is not as insidious as erasure.

I said at the start that Jeff Davis’ most problematic choice was ‘laughing off’ this confrontation, and I invite you to go back and look specifically for the reaction of the other characters in this scene, cueing us on how to 'read' it and react to it. 

Scott buries his head in his arms, refusing to comment on or be witness to the exchange.

Allison pulls her head back and rolls her eyes, exasperated.

Lydia physically moves away from the table, distancing it from any business of hers.

They all disconnect from, reject, and / or ridicule the confrontation.

Both sides of it.

Whatever side you fall on, whether you think one character was far more out of line than the other, I think we can agree that what’s really being argued here is neither “exasperating” nor “funny”. And the thing is, neither Isaac nor Stiles dismiss it like it is.  

I actually disagree with “Are you still milking that?” as an example of exasperation or dismissal within this context (though it is an example of an unacceptable shut-down) based on two things:

i. Stiles is perpetuating the confrontation, which in this instance IS the dialogue, by suggesting that Isaac's abused his trauma as an excuse -- taking into consideration the fact that Isaac initially brought up his abuse as an excuse, in a self-aware and arguably facetious manner. Stiles is not refusing to acknowledge Isaac's abuse by redirecting the conversation or ignoring the statement entirely, whatever other problematic elements his response should answer for. 

ii. Isaac and Stiles, as I’ve said, have an established, antagonistic mode of communication. Anything Isaac says to Stiles, or Stiles says to Isaac, is not the same as something Scott, for instance, might say to either of them. Isaac started the confrontation, and he brought up his own abuse, owning both. 

Hence he retaliates, unashamedly:

“Yeah, I’m still milking that.”

These are two caustic, immature people, and neither of them should get Hall Passes for half the shit they do.