the implication of the OP wasnât necessarily that dirk and vriska are exactly the same or would react the same way to being in vriskaâs position, but my point in my response is that itâs really difficult to split hairs about how any other character would act in vriskaâs position without getting into some heavy handed nature vs. nurture bullshit. thereâs evidence of vriska being a wildly different person without the constant pressure of abuse (thatâs what (vriska) exists for â and aranea, before anyone even considers her, is not vriska, nor is she an ALTERNATE vriska, and she acts more as vriskaâs foil in the narrative than an indicator of vriskaâs motivations), which makes it difficult to parse how much of vriskaâs behavior is her âtrueâ self. the same is true of dirk and bro â they come from some supposed identical genetic makeup, but by nature of their lived experience they are largely nothing alike.
swamp-wizardâs point original point was that itâs useless to say dirk â who has most certainly made his fair share of mistakes â can be weighed against vriska, who was dealt pretty much the worst hand imaginable in her life. not that dirk had smooth sailing, but itâs pointless to gauge his behavior against vriskaâs when â were he in her shoes â he would probably have been quite a bit like her. many characters probably would. the OP was making a point of how much people disregard the circumstances that made vriska who she was and how fear and suffering built her into the person she ended up being, and the subtle misogyny in assuming a dude character with his fair share of flaws is SO MUCH MORE morally sound than vriska he would somehow Not end up like her, as though her behavior is some intrinsic flaw she was born with and not very obviously built up from a lifetime of abuse starting from a young age. itâs pointless to posture about, and itâs pointless to argue what ifs â putting another character in the same shoes as vriska will never actually happen, and the intricacies of that potential circumstance donât actually matter. the point is that every time people talk about this stuff they REFUSE to view vriska through the lens of an abused child. through most of the comic she is 13 years old. people are so dogged about how amoral she is, as though a fictional 13 year old abused girl is too reprehensible to ever forgive. again, i GET why people donât like her. i get it. but what i said still stands.
my point w/ vriska and feferi is that vriska is⌠coded, i guess, as an abused child, and feferi is not. the similarities in their situations are pointless to argue about because the reader was never privy to seeing feferi have an emotional breakdown, cry, hurt herself, etc. the way we see with vriska. certainly the surface level similarities make sense to compare, but with regards to the narrative and the emotional impact of the comic thereâs no way feferiâs arc holds a candle to the complexity of vriskaâs, nor do we see even a hint of the suffering we see vriska endure for pages upon pages.
âshe hasnât done anything to break the cycle of abuseâ sheâs 13, again, when she abuses tavros. thatâs fucked up regardless, but itâs bizarre that people really put that weight on a character that is literally canonically 13 years old. like iâm not sure how you can gauge the morality of a barely teenage fictional child abuse victim so concisely. itâs cool not to like her or feel uncomfortable w her character, but thereâs some weird staunch moral soundness iâm picking up here i donât quite understand. sheâs meant to be a divisive character. and yeah, when Main Vriska gets to be 16 and isnât removed at all from her constant duress and continues to live as though she could die at any moment she makes no progress emotionally. interestingly, however, (vriska) becomes remorseful, sensitive, and affectionate; removing abused children from high stress situations completely changes the way they develop. when she is allowed to live in an environment that doesnât foster her behavior she considers a part of her survival her personality changes drastically, and again, that was WHY (vriska) existed narratively to begin with.
anyways this got even longer, and tbh i donât think it matters how vriska âtreats peopleâ nearly as much as her actually abusing tavros â abuse is damaging. abuse hurts people in ways itâs hard to recover from. jade, john, jake, and rose find vriska insufferable at most and fairly easy to ignore. when it comes to discussions of morality i think itâs pointless to put âis rude, mean, and bossyâ on the same level as âshe willfully hurt tavros physically and emotionally for her own ends with no regard for his livelihood or well-beingâ
anyways the whole point of this post was dirk has literally never been in a situation anywhere near what vriskaâs was and itâs pointless to say âoh but he isnât like her at he would never be like THATâ because all that means is you probably donât understand the magnitude of vriskaâs situation nor do you offer her the benefit of the doubt that sheâd be a better person if she werenât viciously abused as a child. nature vs nurture is an argument older than time and we will not settle it arguing about fictional characters just bc some people think vriska is Naturally Evil but dirk was Born Wholesome
izzy806
tangentwithtanner
baratheonpilled
germansingergirl
ellievsbear
yousharknotpass
origamiaround
blakekathryn
gummygunk
snowghoul
