how do i tumblr

In response to this

“Why is it racist to depict Ed as uncontrollably violent?  Because he's not actually depicted that way in the show.”

you talk about Ed baiting the crew to murder him and committing other violent acts. The original point is stating that Ed is not depicted as uncontrollably violent in the show, not claiming that he perpetrated no violence full stop. Yes, Ed does violence. No, he is not uncontrollably violent.

What Ed does is purposeful, not uncontrollable. He doesn’t push Lucius off the ship after he gives up all hope because he’s a violent guy who just does stuff like that, and the mutiny situation in S2E2… as allthinky said in a response, “that’s Ed at the end of his rope,” not him being uncontrollably violent. He’d been working towards suicide ever since he started baiting Low. As a backup plan, he’s been working the crew hard, disregarding their well-being, and being an overall awful boss in an attempt to incite a mutiny. 

Yes, he was “a serious, immediate threat to his crew” by the time he was out of other ideas to make someone take him out. Ed commits acts of violence -- I don’t think I’ve seen anyone claim he doesn’t -- but he always does so with some amount of reason (not necessarily good reasons) and control. 

“Upon reflection, my biggest issue may be with the people who argue that Ed's never been shown to be violent, or that any time he has resorted to violence, he's absolved of blame by the fact that someone was mean to him first. Which... I don't think I've seen you make either of those arguments at any point in the past.”

I’m really glad that you mentioned that OP hadn’t made either of those arguments (that you know of), that was genuinely very cool. As for the rest of it, I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone say that Ed is “never shown to be violent” or that he can always be “absolved of the blame” unless you want to remove all of the nuance from common talking points. 

He is never shown to be more violent than the average pirate and, due to his deep-seated trauma relating to his own capacity for violence, he’s actually on the less violent end of the pirate spectrum. He can’t be absolved of all blame for his actions because he’s a grown man who makes his own choices (and saying otherwise robs him of his agency). What I’ve seen said is that Ed’s actions are informed by things like trauma, abuse, and racism. His actions make sense. They’re not spontaneous violence committed because Ed flies into rages and homicidal spirals out of the blue.

“Not saying we shouldn't consider it [that is, are we “assigning more weight to Ed's violent actions than those of other characters or assuming he's worse than he actually is”], but I mean. If a white character on the show had cut off his employee's toes and fed them to him, shot him in the leg, ordered his death, held a gun on his other subordinates, marooned some/tossed one overboard, threatened to drown the ones that remained... because he was pushed into it, with the same combination of abusive childhood/hostile work environment... would he be equally deserving of that consideration? Would it be an overreaction to call him dangerous?”

Probably, but if everything was the same except Ed Is White Now, his baggage and his relationship with Izzy wouldn’t be exactly the same. Ed's race isn’t inconsequential. We can't really remove race from the story and end up with the same character, y'know?

Also: I do think it’s inappropriate to turn this question back on POC. I don’t think that POC are obligated to reconsider biases against a white character.

“Izzy is crew”

Ed’s relationship to Izzy is not comparable to his relationship with the crew. The crew have done nothing wrong and haven’t behaved antagonistically towards Ed. Izzy and Ed have a complicated, toxic, and difficult relationship (regardless of where you stand on whether or not Izzy’s abusive), therefore any harm caused to Izzy has to be considered differently than harm caused to the rest of the crew.

“Even if we say that he doesn't count, Ed still pushed Lucius off the ship.”

Yes, Ed did do that, but I think that Atticus is talking about Ed’s S2 actions in that point, not what happened in S1. Most (I think all?) meta I’ve read does consider Ed pushing Lucius off the ship an act of violence that Lucius himself did nothing to provoke. 

This might be controversial, but I’d put Ed pushing Lucius overboard on par with, like, a particularly unjust firing in a workplace that isn’t a pirate vessel. When we watch OFMD, we have to adjust our physical violence meters to account for the fact that we’re dealing with an environment that’s full of physical violence.

“Also, emotional abuse directed at the rest of the crew is still abuse”

I don't consider Ed emotionally abusive. He works the crew hard. He’s a terrible boss who doesn’t give his employees vacation days or paid time off and then throws them a sad pizza party. That sucks, it’s not okay, and his final death spiral in S2E2 is terrible and he never should have involved the crew in that. 

Abuse is a pattern of behavior that’s meant to control people. Not all harm is abuse. When I say that Ed isn't abusive, I'm not saying that he didn't hurt people.

“So... I was raised by a physically and psychologically abusive parent. I get that Ed's been hurt, is still hurting, and why. The "why" doesn't matter for the question of "did he or didn't he", though. It may or may not be his fault, he may or may not have done it because he felt unsafe. The point is, his actions did hurt people.”

Same, friend, and I'm sorry you went through that. (That’s actually one of the reasons I’ve always been wary of Izzy. What he says and does in S1 is too familiar to me, sometimes to a point where I can’t watch certain scenes.) I don’t think anyone’s saying that Ed isn’t hurting anyone, or that all of his actions can be attributed to abuse. If that’s not what you’re getting at here, apologies for misunderstanding.

“His boss that he was trying to control was brown.  Was that a factor in his power play though, or was it because Taika wound up being cast as Blackbeard? Any other (white) actor in the role, would Izzy be as bad for trying to control him? Would the scripts have gone a different way?”

Here’s the thing. In the show we have, Blackbeard is played by a Maori/Jewish man, and this fundamentally alters the character. There are things in the show -- whole episodes, if you want to look at S1E5 and the fancy party guests who treat Ed like exotic entertainment and not a peer -- that wouldn’t be the same if Ed was white. 

And yeah, Ed being brown changes the dynamic between Ed and Izzy. It would still be bad if a white guy was trying to control another white guy, but it wouldn’t be bad on the same level. Same goes if they were both brown. A white man trying to control the behavior of an indigenous man is worse.

“Izzy got permanently disfigured, crippled, and dead, while Ed came out largely unscathed in a physical sense, due to Muppet logic. Not to say one is more deserving than the other, but for a bunch of fans, there's probably a sense of Izzy getting the short end of the stick, to consider.”

That’s fine if some people feel like Izzy got the short end of the stick. It’s fine that some people feel like Izzy’s arc was kinder to him than it should have been. It’s okay to feel whatever! We connect emotionally to different characters and that biases our opinions and meta. That’s not a crime. We just need to be aware of our biases and why they exist.

The thing with OFMD is that Ed is a main character with more background and a story that, at every turn, asks you to sympathize with him. We’re given a look into Ed’s psyche. We understand at least some of his trauma and hurt and why he acts the way he does. Izzy has virtually no backstory and we’re never offered a glimpse into his mind; we don’t know why he’s like that. You can totally like a secondary character (or even an antagonist!) with no real canonical background or mental groundwork. It’s fun to ask why characters do what they do when canon doesn’t offer us any answers, and who doesn’t love a mystery box? 

But with OFMD, it can raise eyebrows when people say their main concern is the suffering of a white man who behaves antagonistically towards a brown man, especially when that brown character is a well-developed lead who also suffers (and suffers at the hands of aforementioned white character). It’s not inherently racist for someone to care more about Izzy than Ed, but it’s also not unreasonable to ask that someone to think about the possibility that subconscious racism could be factoring into their point of view.

“I don't think it's fair discussion to have a rule saying ‘even though you didn't directly call out the brown man, your argument is still racist’... even if it's true in many cases, it effectively means that no criticism of the character can ever be considered valid. If someone wants to argue ‘removing your employee's toes and feeding them to him is abusive behavior’, they can't, because of the unspoken skin colors involved? I don't know what the solution to this is.”

No one is saying that all criticism of a character of color is racist or invalid. As allthinky said in response, we’re saying that “those critiques have to be based on real evidence, and placed in a careful context, so that their actions can be understood as human, and not just the brutality of some brute.”

Criticize, but criticize with evidence and with awareness of the context of the criticized behavior. 

With the Izzy example, you have to consider the context of their relationship and Izzy’s actions throughout S1. Izzy isn’t just an employee: he’s a trusted second-in-command who has been insulting, controlling, and disloyal; he endangered not just Stede but also Ed and the rest of the crew; he told Ed that he was better off dead than acting as he was, and that Izzy's loyalty belongs to the violent worksona that Ed wants to shed. Is Ed being abusive when he’s reacting in response to abuse from his abuser? 

“[T]he show has layers (like an onion). Sometimes the meaning is not entirely surface-level, and everyone has a different level of comprehension. Sometimes obvious things to us aren't obvious to other fans/vice-versa. There's a whole 'nother discussion of media literacy to be had.”

I think that Atticus said it best here: “This is not a subtle show. That's not to say it's a simple one [...]. It's amazingly layered and emotional responses by characters are often extremely complex. However, when the show is trying to tell you something, it's not subtle and it never tries to hide it.”

There are a lot of things in OFMD that are subjective and open to interpretation, and those things are fun to discuss even when we have different takes. There are also a lot of things that are very clear. When people try to subvert the messages and ideas that OFMD is conveying loudly and openly, other fans get suspicious and wonder if the folks doing the subverting have an agenda, a bias, or just misunderstand what the show is saying.

As for the rest of it, I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone say that Ed is “never shown to be violent” or that he can always be “absolved of the blame” unless you want to remove all of the nuance from common talking points.

Sadly, I have seen those arguments, hmm, sometime in the last month I'd guess? I don't recall who made them, just noticed them uttered in the daily anti-Izzy rants I scrolled past. I haven't seen them in a few days. Maybe those people blocked me as well.

He is never shown to be more violent than the average pirate and, due to his deep-seated trauma relating to his own capacity for violence, he’s actually on the less violent end of the pirate spectrum.

I mean, back to my question: how many other pirate captains did we see get literally beaten to death by their own crew, in order to stop the violence? I'm not saying Ed was violent without reason, or that he deserved what he got, or anything. He got abuse heaped upon him, and he reacted. It's not the why I was trying to point out, just the fact that it happened.

His actions make sense. They’re not spontaneous violence committed because Ed flies into rages and homicidal spirals out of the blue.

Agreed. But those actions, while perhaps not his fault, had consequences that other people (even people who had done him no harm) had to suffer through. Back to those "absolved of all blame" posts mentioned upthread. It was frustrating to see that argument come up. I won't miss it, if it's gone now.

Ed's race isn’t inconsequential. We can't really remove race from the story and end up with the same character, y'know?

True, though my question here was more directed at PCCP's comment on the subject of racism being used to paint Ed as uncontrollably violent. I wondered what would be different in a situation where everything was the same, but that couldn't be a factor.

Also: I do think it’s inappropriate to turn this question back on POC. I don’t think that POC are obligated to reconsider biases against a white character.

No one's obligated to do anything. I thought the post was meant for debate as is was posted to the general public and labeled "discourse". I had questions, so I asked them.

Ed’s relationship to Izzy is not comparable to his relationship with the crew. The crew have done nothing wrong and haven’t behaved antagonistically towards Ed.

I feel like that's irrelevant. My statement was in response to "Ed never hurt the crew, only Izzy", which I felt was ridiculous, because Izzy is still crew, even if he's bad crew.

Yes, Ed did do that, but I think that Atticus is talking about Ed’s S2 actions in that point, not what happened in S1.

Yeah, valid. I didn't get that on my first read.

When we watch OFMD, we have to adjust our physical violence meters to account for the fact that we’re dealing with an environment that’s full of physical violence.

See, I feel like that leads us back to the "most violent pirate discussion" though...

I don't consider Ed emotionally abusive.

Heh, now here's where I was the one talking about just the Kraken stuff! I was thinking of Ed pointing the gun at everyone, "do you think this is a toxic envionment?", Fang crying... up until they're all facing dying in a shipwreck. Plus, killing Ed was pretty traumatic for them also.

Someone really needs to open up Ye Olde Pyrate Therapy. Maybe Spanish Jackie's new side gig.

Same, friend, and I'm sorry you went through that.

Same to you. :(

(That’s actually one of the reasons I’ve always been wary of Izzy. What he says and does in S1 is too familiar to me, sometimes to a point where I can’t watch certain scenes.)

Hadn't thought of it that way, I guess. I can see how that would make it hard to warm up to the character.

For me, Izzy's redeemable because he actually has a redemption arc, and tries to make amends in a few ways. The abusive people I've known personally never felt the need to change, so it feels kind of hopeful to see that in the fantasy realm of OFMD. I'll admit, Izzy is a prick in the beginning...and the middle... but when he has to change, I dunno, I like the idea that he could come back from where he was.

There are things in the show -- whole episodes, if you want to look at S1E5 and the fancy party guests who treat Ed like exotic entertainment and not a peer

Yep. Each time *cough*too many times*cough* I did a rewatch I'd notice another condescending look or snide remark or whatever. It's brilliantly scripted/acted/directed. But yeah, it is the show we have. My questions around this point in the post were mainly in the "what-if" realm.

And yeah, Ed being brown changes the dynamic between Ed and Izzy.

The reason I singled out this point in the original post was that "Izzy tried to control Ed" was used as an example underneath the heading "are all Izzy fans racist"... TBH I don't remember exactly where I was going with this, but it struck me as a sort of loaded question type argument, and I wondered how it would go if the difference in race was removed

That’s fine if some people feel like Izzy got the short end of the stick. It’s fine that some people feel like Izzy’s arc was kinder to him than it should have been. It’s okay to feel whatever!

Agreed. The only problem being when the one side says the other side isn't allowed to feel whatever. (This applies to every side)

But with OFMD, it can raise eyebrows when people say their main concern is the suffering of a white man who behaves antagonistically towards a brown man

Honest question: Has anyone actually said that? (Some of my problem here is I'm somehow missing most of the arguments that trigger these "ugh the Izzy fans are at it again" posts) Or is that just something that people are reading into it, every time somebody says Izzy's their favorite character? I don't think that being a bigger fan of Izzy than you are of Ed, actually equals "the white man's pain is greater". Some people just root for the asshole characters?

and that Izzy's loyalty belongs to the violent worksona that Ed wants to shed.

I just want to take a moment to delight in the word "worksona", which is perfect. Okay, moving on.

Is Ed being abusive when he’s reacting in response to abuse from his abuser? 

In retaliation for abuse directed at him, no. When he later directs the abuse at subordinates who hadn't previously hurt him, yes. (I know that wasn't part of your argument)

There are also a lot of things that are very clear. When people try to subvert the messages and ideas that OFMD is conveying loudly and openly, other fans get suspicious and wonder if the folks doing the subverting have an agenda, a bias, or just misunderstand what the show is saying.

We're back to the "I haven't even seen these posts" again, which is why I'm so damn confused. Seriously, is it stuff bleeding over from Twitter or somewhere, 'cause I'm not really on any other platform.

Or are you trying to tell me that my posting was the problem? In which case... I can only wave at the word "discourse" one final time, and promise I'm not trolling here.

What I was talking about specifically with the whole "there are clear messages in OFMD and people get suspicious when others miss or misinterpret those messages" thing was racism. The show has a strong anti-racist, anti-colonial stance and subverts common racist tropes. There are many characters of color instead of one or two token POC, and all of those characters have actual characterization. They're funny, they're bright, they don't need our white protagonist to save them. And then there's Ed! He's brilliant, he's fastidiously clean, he's complex, he's sympathetic, and he's not an inherently violent man. He's bucking every stereotype I've seen befall indigenous characters, and that's extremely important. 

When people -- especially fans of color, especially indigenous fans -- see others characterize Ed as exceptionally violent or quick to anger or unsympathetic or abusive, they're immediately on the defensive. Ed is shown time and time again in canon to give people chances to back down, to hold his temper, to calculate before taking action, to have massive issues with violence; failure to acknowledge that feels kind of racist, even when there's no ill-intent. The feeling is compounded if they also characterize Izzy as a victim of Ed's abuse or as someone more worthy of sympathy. Does that make any sense? 

So going through your reply, I think it's clear that one issue we've both had is with takes that accuse "our side" of saying something that we've never even seen. It's a big ol' fandom with a bunch of different fandom neighborhoods. I've seen plenty of Ed takes that I'm certain you'd disagree with, and I know there are out-of-pocket ideas that only, like, a couple of people share. For example, I don't think that there's a widespread, genuine belief that Izzy is intended to act as a Christ figure and an AIDS metaphor, but at least one person was super serious about that! We should all try to be aware of what’s a widespread issue and what’s just a few outliers doing whatever. 

Maybe we miss the more egregious things that “our side” says because we’re entrenched enough in our own neighborhoods to already have those people blocked. I probably miss Izzy takes from people I follow that I might disagree with because I tend to scroll past things that’re primarily about Izzy.

There’s also a significant problem with generalization and bad faith interpretations of dissenting ideas, but that’s been an issue everywhere forever.

“I did agree with PCCP, that Ed was not uncontrollably violent, but the fact remains that he was a danger/did harm to his crew (which I've seen other people argue against).”

Valid! I wouldn’t agree with anyone who says that Ed doesn’t endanger or harm the crew. Those are definitely things he does.

“Maybe those people blocked me as well.”

Honestly? I kind of hope they did, just like I hope anyone who thinks my takes are the worst blocks me. I generally limit my blocking to people with takes so bad that they make me mad or, in a few instances, people who might get mad if a post of mine lands on their dash. Some of us are better off as strangers.

“I mean, back to my question: how many other pirate captains did we see get literally beaten to death by their own crew, in order to stop the violence? I'm not saying Ed was violent without reason, or that he deserved what he got, or anything. He got abuse heaped upon him, and he reacted. It's not the why I was trying to point out, just the fact that it happened.”

We don’t see a ton of pirate captains! Stede narrowly escaped mutiny, Jack was mutinied loads of times, and Izzy was tied to an anchor and on his way for a swim in, like, a day. We don’t know what’s up with Hornigold, but the sailcloth he wears in Ed’s subconscious makes me think he was mutinied as well. 

Ed’s situation is different. He has some kind of relationship with the named characters on his crew, and that relationship is broadly positive; they keep on with him long past a point where they would’ve been justified in mutinying. They hope he’s going to get better as late as the day Ed has decided that he’s going to die. Consequently, Ed has to do THE MOST to get them to cannonball him in the head. I’d wager that most pirate captains don’t want to be mutinied, and even fewer would get as far along as Ed did without being murdered.

“[T]hose actions, while perhaps not his fault, had consequences that other people (even people who had done him no harm) had to suffer through. Back to those "absolved of all blame" posts mentioned upthread. It was frustrating to see that argument come up.”

I agree that his actions hurt people who never hurt him. “Ed never physically hurt the crew during his kraken spiral, just Izzy” -- is that the part of Atticus’ post that you’re talking about? I’ve been in a few conversations about Ed and Kraken-era violence and I’m pretty sure we’re all in agreement that Ed caused psychological/emotional harm. 

Since we (me and the people I usually talk to) consider Izzy separately given his very different relationship with Ed, “the crew” is a shorthand for “all of the named characters on the Kraken ship who aren’t Izzy.” Possibly not entirely clear, especially if you’re used to lumping Izzy in with the rest in discussion.

“[...] my question here was more directed at PCCP's comment on the subject of racism being used to paint Ed as uncontrollably violent. I wondered what would be different in a situation where everything was the same, but that couldn't be a factor.”

I’m not sure I completely understand what you’re saying. Ed being portrayed as uncontrollably violent is bad because it (1) isn’t what canon conveys and (2) falls into a racist stereotype (the angry brown man). If Ed was white -- ignoring everything I said about how that’d change the story, whatever -- then saying he’s uncontrollably violent would still be contrary to canon. That would be annoying, but it wouldn’t be as bad because no racist stereotypes would be in play.

Let me know if I totally missed the mark there!

“Someone really needs to open up Ye Olde Pyrate Therapy. Maybe Spanish Jackie's new side gig.”

Lol, the show would be so short if we could just get these guys to a therapist (and maybe a pharmacy). Tbh, Jackie would make bank if she went in on psychological services.

As for issues of emotional abuse, I don’t think we’ll see eye-to-eye on that one and, since we’ve both experienced abuse, I’m not keen on going into what does and doesn’t “count.” 

Like… I avoid conversations about whether or not Izzy is abusive because I know that, because of my background, I’m always going to say that yes, he is. I’m not in a position to approach the issue with any kind of objectivity. I’m also not going to be at my best if I feel like someone is, in trying to defend Izzy, invalidating my own lived experiences. It sucks! I really, really don’t want to hurt you by defending Ed here if there’s a chance that I’d be dismissing something you’ve gone through.

“For me, Izzy's redeemable because he actually has a redemption arc, and tries to make amends in a few ways. The abusive people I've known personally never felt the need to change, so it feels kind of hopeful to see that in the fantasy realm of OFMD. I'll admit, Izzy is a prick in the beginning...and the middle... but when he has to change, I dunno, I like the idea that he could come back from where he was.”

You know what? I like that. I’m glad that you got something out of his arc, even if we don’t have the same feelings about the character. Someone on here once said that Izzy’s S2 arc is an abuse victim’s fantasy: an abuser is motivated to change for the better and ultimately admits to being in the wrong. That’s awesome. It is hopeful. I’ve also never encountered an abusive person who wanted to change (or who could be convinced that they should change, for that matter), so it’s nice to see, even in fiction. 

“The only problem being when the one side says the other side isn't allowed to feel whatever. (This applies to every side)”

I don’t know what to do about that one. I’m firmly in camp “feel what you feel,” but I also think we should interrogate our feelings if there’s a chance that we’re being motivated by some kind of internalized force (racism, etc). Feelings are a tough subject!

“Has anyone actually said that?”

Sorry to take that in isolation, but I think it’s so funny because I find myself asking that all the time. Like, “Yeah, that would be a bad opinion to have, but do people actually have it?” 

But I have seen several instances of people saying that Izzy is a pitiable, sympathetic victim of abuse and characterizing Ed as a violent, abusive monster all in the same post -- enough to consider this a thing that people do say. It’s not just liking Izzy more (totally fine) or not liking Ed (also fine); it’s an unwillingness to view Ed as a complex character with trauma and motives and emotional complexity. It’s removing Izzy and Ed from their canonical context -- their complicated relationship, their toxicity, their previous actions. It’s placing all of the blame on the big, scary, violent indigenous man.

(I’m not trying to insinuate that you’re saying any of that or would agree with it, btw!)

“I just want to take a moment to delight in the word "worksona", which is perfect.”

I wish I could take credit for it, but I’m 98% sure I picked that up from someone else. Come get your laurels, inventor of the word worksona!

I promise I wouldn't take time to type at you if I thought you were trolling. 

Appreciated! I didn't really think you were pointing fingers at me. Your wording was polite and nonspecific enough, I just wanted to check if you were trying to gently tell me what an asshole I am. I'm a tad sensitive to passive aggression (not that you were! it's totally a me-side issue).

I'm a big fan of earnest discussion, and I think that it's worthwhile even if we're ultimately going to disagree.

I agree (even if we disagree, lol).

When people -- especially fans of color, especially indigenous fans -- see others characterize Ed as exceptionally violent or quick to anger or unsympathetic or abusive, they're immediately on the defensive.

I don't, and never did, think that Ed was uncontrollably violent, quick to violence, inherently dangerous, or any of that. I acknowledge that he was pushed to his limit until he couldn't take it anymore. I simply can't accept that he was never violent or never hurt the crew, because we saw it happen in the show. That's the whole of the argument I was making in the beginning.

I get where fans of color don't want to wade through racist shit once more, but all I can do is repeat, that's not what I was saying... I do, however, see where I made a terrible decision, responding where I did. It was a combination of poor timing (I'd just been irritated by someone else's post) and I've always admired PCCP's argument/writing style, so I thought I'd try talking it through there, since he was writing on the subject/potentially in response to the bitchy post I'd just made.

So here we are... I keep making the same argument, explanation, and apology, and I don't believe it's getting us anywhere. Someone just literally asked me if I understood the definition of "uncontrollable", which... yeah, I do, that's why I said Ed wasn't uncontrollable, way back in one of the first post.

Can't help but begin to wonder if people are really reading what I wrote, or just went: hey, the latest racist idiot said something, better go prove them wrong.

For example, I don't think that there's a widespread, genuine belief that Izzy is intended to act as a Christ figure and an AIDS metaphor,

I got nothing. I can't even imagine where to begin the mental process that would lead someone to that conclusion.

bad faith interpretations of dissenting ideas, but that’s been an issue everywhere forever.

I do feel the bad faith thing is a large part of my particular situation here. The thing that set me off down this discourse journey was a post by someone who just screamed troll in the way they constantly posted about how tired they were of having to correct people on how much Izzy sucks all the time, intermingled with unsolicited "PSA: Izzy is shit." I made a bitchy post about that person, PCCP came along with his post, and...

I know, I shouldn't have taken the bait in the first place.

Valid! I wouldn’t agree with anyone who says that Ed doesn’t endanger or harm the crew. Those are definitely things he does.

Thank you. That's all I wanted to get across.

I generally limit my blocking to people with takes so bad that they make me mad or, in a few instances, people who might get mad if a post of mine lands on their dash. Some of us are better off as strangers.

Very true. I've advocated for blocking people in the past, in the name of peace, but I recently went through and unblocked a bunch that I couldn't recall being particularly annoyed with. Shouldn't have tempted fate.

We don’t know what’s up with Hornigold, but the sailcloth he wears in Ed’s subconscious makes me think he was mutinied as well. 

Interesting! Can I ask why? I've always thought it was a neat character detail, but I didn't catch the mutiny angle. Like, he got stranded with only the bit of sail to wear?

Since we (me and the people I usually talk to) consider Izzy separately given his very different relationship with Ed, “the crew” is a shorthand for “all of the named characters on the Kraken ship who aren’t Izzy.”

I guess we've reached the point where we have to agree to disagree, because I just can't accept the exclusion of the ship's first mate from the rest of the crew. He might be on a different level from "just the crew", but he's still crew. *shrug*

I’m also not going to be at my best if I feel like someone is, in trying to defend Izzy, invalidating my own lived experiences. It sucks!

It really does, and I'm sorry if I contributed to that.. I feel like that's a little part of what made me so crazy (also I'm just pedantic) about the posts I'd see claiming Ed never hurt anyone, even though we all watched it happen. After a certain point, it felt like fandom gaslighting, for lack of a better term. There was this underlying threat of "if you don't accept my version, you're the problem". I've lived through that IRL, it wasn't even that big a deal overall, that person is no longer in my life now... but I'm still pissed about it, lol.

I really, really don’t want to hurt you by defending Ed here if there’s a chance that I’d be dismissing something you’ve gone through.

I appreciate that, and I also don't want to do that. So then, how do we do this fandom thing? Do the sides just never interact, or can we find a common ground that isn't riddled with landmines? I don't know how to proceed...

Someone on here once said that Izzy’s S2 arc is an abuse victim’s fantasy: an abuser is motivated to change for the better and ultimately admits to being in the wrong.

I recall seeing the term referenced, but I got the impression that it went the other way: the abuser got what what coming to him, and the victim lived happily ever after. I prefer the interpretation you gave!

But I have seen several instances of people saying that Izzy is a pitiable, sympathetic victim of abuse and characterizing Ed as a violent, abusive monster all in the same post -- enough to consider this a thing that people do say.

Too much to hope that's some of that bad actor posting at work? No... no, I've been in fandom spaces for ...officially decades now (god I'm old). I know there are just as many people who really have the blind spots, as there are trolls wanting to stir up shit. Hell, maybe more.

It’s not just liking Izzy more (totally fine) or not liking Ed (also fine); it’s an unwillingness to view Ed as a complex character with trauma and motives and emotional complexity.

And, as many have pointed out, it's not even hard to see Ed's motivation and trauma. It's not subtext, it's something explicitly shown in canon.

It’s placing all of the blame on the big, scary, violent indigenous man.

I wonder... I want to think that we're all equally drawn to a show for good reasons, I want to give people the benefit of the doubt. I've known enough blatantly racist/homophobic twats that wouldn't even give this show the time of day. I guess I'm unaccustomed to the more subtle variety.

(I’m not trying to insinuate that you’re saying any of that or would agree with it, btw!)

In response to this

“Why is it racist to depict Ed as uncontrollably violent?  Because he's not actually depicted that way in the show.”

you talk about Ed baiting the crew to murder him and committing other violent acts. The original point is stating that Ed is not depicted as uncontrollably violent in the show, not claiming that he perpetrated no violence full stop. Yes, Ed does violence. No, he is not uncontrollably violent.

What Ed does is purposeful, not uncontrollable. He doesn’t push Lucius off the ship after he gives up all hope because he’s a violent guy who just does stuff like that, and the mutiny situation in S2E2… as allthinky said in a response, “that’s Ed at the end of his rope,” not him being uncontrollably violent. He’d been working towards suicide ever since he started baiting Low. As a backup plan, he’s been working the crew hard, disregarding their well-being, and being an overall awful boss in an attempt to incite a mutiny. 

Yes, he was “a serious, immediate threat to his crew” by the time he was out of other ideas to make someone take him out. Ed commits acts of violence -- I don’t think I’ve seen anyone claim he doesn’t -- but he always does so with some amount of reason (not necessarily good reasons) and control. 

“Upon reflection, my biggest issue may be with the people who argue that Ed's never been shown to be violent, or that any time he has resorted to violence, he's absolved of blame by the fact that someone was mean to him first. Which... I don't think I've seen you make either of those arguments at any point in the past.”

I’m really glad that you mentioned that OP hadn’t made either of those arguments (that you know of), that was genuinely very cool. As for the rest of it, I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone say that Ed is “never shown to be violent” or that he can always be “absolved of the blame” unless you want to remove all of the nuance from common talking points. 

He is never shown to be more violent than the average pirate and, due to his deep-seated trauma relating to his own capacity for violence, he’s actually on the less violent end of the pirate spectrum. He can’t be absolved of all blame for his actions because he’s a grown man who makes his own choices (and saying otherwise robs him of his agency). What I’ve seen said is that Ed’s actions are informed by things like trauma, abuse, and racism. His actions make sense. They’re not spontaneous violence committed because Ed flies into rages and homicidal spirals out of the blue.

“Not saying we shouldn't consider it [that is, are we “assigning more weight to Ed's violent actions than those of other characters or assuming he's worse than he actually is”], but I mean. If a white character on the show had cut off his employee's toes and fed them to him, shot him in the leg, ordered his death, held a gun on his other subordinates, marooned some/tossed one overboard, threatened to drown the ones that remained... because he was pushed into it, with the same combination of abusive childhood/hostile work environment... would he be equally deserving of that consideration? Would it be an overreaction to call him dangerous?”

Probably, but if everything was the same except Ed Is White Now, his baggage and his relationship with Izzy wouldn’t be exactly the same. Ed's race isn’t inconsequential. We can't really remove race from the story and end up with the same character, y'know?

Also: I do think it’s inappropriate to turn this question back on POC. I don’t think that POC are obligated to reconsider biases against a white character.

“Izzy is crew”

Ed’s relationship to Izzy is not comparable to his relationship with the crew. The crew have done nothing wrong and haven’t behaved antagonistically towards Ed. Izzy and Ed have a complicated, toxic, and difficult relationship (regardless of where you stand on whether or not Izzy’s abusive), therefore any harm caused to Izzy has to be considered differently than harm caused to the rest of the crew.

“Even if we say that he doesn't count, Ed still pushed Lucius off the ship.”

Yes, Ed did do that, but I think that Atticus is talking about Ed’s S2 actions in that point, not what happened in S1. Most (I think all?) meta I’ve read does consider Ed pushing Lucius off the ship an act of violence that Lucius himself did nothing to provoke. 

This might be controversial, but I’d put Ed pushing Lucius overboard on par with, like, a particularly unjust firing in a workplace that isn’t a pirate vessel. When we watch OFMD, we have to adjust our physical violence meters to account for the fact that we’re dealing with an environment that’s full of physical violence.

“Also, emotional abuse directed at the rest of the crew is still abuse”

I don't consider Ed emotionally abusive. He works the crew hard. He’s a terrible boss who doesn’t give his employees vacation days or paid time off and then throws them a sad pizza party. That sucks, it’s not okay, and his final death spiral in S2E2 is terrible and he never should have involved the crew in that. 

Abuse is a pattern of behavior that’s meant to control people. Not all harm is abuse. When I say that Ed isn't abusive, I'm not saying that he didn't hurt people.

“So... I was raised by a physically and psychologically abusive parent. I get that Ed's been hurt, is still hurting, and why. The "why" doesn't matter for the question of "did he or didn't he", though. It may or may not be his fault, he may or may not have done it because he felt unsafe. The point is, his actions did hurt people.”

Same, friend, and I'm sorry you went through that. (That’s actually one of the reasons I’ve always been wary of Izzy. What he says and does in S1 is too familiar to me, sometimes to a point where I can’t watch certain scenes.) I don’t think anyone’s saying that Ed isn’t hurting anyone, or that all of his actions can be attributed to abuse. If that’s not what you’re getting at here, apologies for misunderstanding.

“His boss that he was trying to control was brown.  Was that a factor in his power play though, or was it because Taika wound up being cast as Blackbeard? Any other (white) actor in the role, would Izzy be as bad for trying to control him? Would the scripts have gone a different way?”

Here’s the thing. In the show we have, Blackbeard is played by a Maori/Jewish man, and this fundamentally alters the character. There are things in the show -- whole episodes, if you want to look at S1E5 and the fancy party guests who treat Ed like exotic entertainment and not a peer -- that wouldn’t be the same if Ed was white. 

And yeah, Ed being brown changes the dynamic between Ed and Izzy. It would still be bad if a white guy was trying to control another white guy, but it wouldn’t be bad on the same level. Same goes if they were both brown. A white man trying to control the behavior of an indigenous man is worse.

“Izzy got permanently disfigured, crippled, and dead, while Ed came out largely unscathed in a physical sense, due to Muppet logic. Not to say one is more deserving than the other, but for a bunch of fans, there's probably a sense of Izzy getting the short end of the stick, to consider.”

That’s fine if some people feel like Izzy got the short end of the stick. It’s fine that some people feel like Izzy’s arc was kinder to him than it should have been. It’s okay to feel whatever! We connect emotionally to different characters and that biases our opinions and meta. That’s not a crime. We just need to be aware of our biases and why they exist.

The thing with OFMD is that Ed is a main character with more background and a story that, at every turn, asks you to sympathize with him. We’re given a look into Ed’s psyche. We understand at least some of his trauma and hurt and why he acts the way he does. Izzy has virtually no backstory and we’re never offered a glimpse into his mind; we don’t know why he’s like that. You can totally like a secondary character (or even an antagonist!) with no real canonical background or mental groundwork. It’s fun to ask why characters do what they do when canon doesn’t offer us any answers, and who doesn’t love a mystery box? 

But with OFMD, it can raise eyebrows when people say their main concern is the suffering of a white man who behaves antagonistically towards a brown man, especially when that brown character is a well-developed lead who also suffers (and suffers at the hands of aforementioned white character). It’s not inherently racist for someone to care more about Izzy than Ed, but it’s also not unreasonable to ask that someone to think about the possibility that subconscious racism could be factoring into their point of view.

“I don't think it's fair discussion to have a rule saying ‘even though you didn't directly call out the brown man, your argument is still racist’... even if it's true in many cases, it effectively means that no criticism of the character can ever be considered valid. If someone wants to argue ‘removing your employee's toes and feeding them to him is abusive behavior’, they can't, because of the unspoken skin colors involved? I don't know what the solution to this is.”

No one is saying that all criticism of a character of color is racist or invalid. As allthinky said in response, we’re saying that “those critiques have to be based on real evidence, and placed in a careful context, so that their actions can be understood as human, and not just the brutality of some brute.”

Criticize, but criticize with evidence and with awareness of the context of the criticized behavior. 

With the Izzy example, you have to consider the context of their relationship and Izzy’s actions throughout S1. Izzy isn’t just an employee: he’s a trusted second-in-command who has been insulting, controlling, and disloyal; he endangered not just Stede but also Ed and the rest of the crew; he told Ed that he was better off dead than acting as he was, and that Izzy's loyalty belongs to the violent worksona that Ed wants to shed. Is Ed being abusive when he’s reacting in response to abuse from his abuser? 

“[T]he show has layers (like an onion). Sometimes the meaning is not entirely surface-level, and everyone has a different level of comprehension. Sometimes obvious things to us aren't obvious to other fans/vice-versa. There's a whole 'nother discussion of media literacy to be had.”

I think that Atticus said it best here: “This is not a subtle show. That's not to say it's a simple one [...]. It's amazingly layered and emotional responses by characters are often extremely complex. However, when the show is trying to tell you something, it's not subtle and it never tries to hide it.”

There are a lot of things in OFMD that are subjective and open to interpretation, and those things are fun to discuss even when we have different takes. There are also a lot of things that are very clear. When people try to subvert the messages and ideas that OFMD is conveying loudly and openly, other fans get suspicious and wonder if the folks doing the subverting have an agenda, a bias, or just misunderstand what the show is saying.

As for the rest of it, I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone say that Ed is “never shown to be violent” or that he can always be “absolved of the blame” unless you want to remove all of the nuance from common talking points.

Sadly, I have seen those arguments, hmm, sometime in the last month I'd guess? I don't recall who made them, just noticed them uttered in the daily anti-Izzy rants I scrolled past. I haven't seen them in a few days. Maybe those people blocked me as well.

He is never shown to be more violent than the average pirate and, due to his deep-seated trauma relating to his own capacity for violence, he’s actually on the less violent end of the pirate spectrum.

I mean, back to my question: how many other pirate captains did we see get literally beaten to death by their own crew, in order to stop the violence? I'm not saying Ed was violent without reason, or that he deserved what he got, or anything. He got abuse heaped upon him, and he reacted. It's not the why I was trying to point out, just the fact that it happened.

His actions make sense. They’re not spontaneous violence committed because Ed flies into rages and homicidal spirals out of the blue.

Agreed. But those actions, while perhaps not his fault, had consequences that other people (even people who had done him no harm) had to suffer through. Back to those "absolved of all blame" posts mentioned upthread. It was frustrating to see that argument come up. I won't miss it, if it's gone now.

Ed's race isn’t inconsequential. We can't really remove race from the story and end up with the same character, y'know?

True, though my question here was more directed at PCCP's comment on the subject of racism being used to paint Ed as uncontrollably violent. I wondered what would be different in a situation where everything was the same, but that couldn't be a factor.

Also: I do think it’s inappropriate to turn this question back on POC. I don’t think that POC are obligated to reconsider biases against a white character.

No one's obligated to do anything. I thought the post was meant for debate as is was posted to the general public and labeled "discourse". I had questions, so I asked them.

Ed’s relationship to Izzy is not comparable to his relationship with the crew. The crew have done nothing wrong and haven’t behaved antagonistically towards Ed.

I feel like that's irrelevant. My statement was in response to "Ed never hurt the crew, only Izzy", which I felt was ridiculous, because Izzy is still crew, even if he's bad crew.

Yes, Ed did do that, but I think that Atticus is talking about Ed’s S2 actions in that point, not what happened in S1.

Yeah, valid. I didn't get that on my first read.

When we watch OFMD, we have to adjust our physical violence meters to account for the fact that we’re dealing with an environment that’s full of physical violence.

See, I feel like that leads us back to the "most violent pirate discussion" though...

I don't consider Ed emotionally abusive.

Heh, now here's where I was the one talking about just the Kraken stuff! I was thinking of Ed pointing the gun at everyone, "do you think this is a toxic envionment?", Fang crying... up until they're all facing dying in a shipwreck. Plus, killing Ed was pretty traumatic for them also.

Someone really needs to open up Ye Olde Pyrate Therapy. Maybe Spanish Jackie's new side gig.

Same, friend, and I'm sorry you went through that.

Same to you. :(

(That’s actually one of the reasons I’ve always been wary of Izzy. What he says and does in S1 is too familiar to me, sometimes to a point where I can’t watch certain scenes.)

Hadn't thought of it that way, I guess. I can see how that would make it hard to warm up to the character.

For me, Izzy's redeemable because he actually has a redemption arc, and tries to make amends in a few ways. The abusive people I've known personally never felt the need to change, so it feels kind of hopeful to see that in the fantasy realm of OFMD. I'll admit, Izzy is a prick in the beginning...and the middle... but when he has to change, I dunno, I like the idea that he could come back from where he was.

There are things in the show -- whole episodes, if you want to look at S1E5 and the fancy party guests who treat Ed like exotic entertainment and not a peer

Yep. Each time *cough*too many times*cough* I did a rewatch I'd notice another condescending look or snide remark or whatever. It's brilliantly scripted/acted/directed. But yeah, it is the show we have. My questions around this point in the post were mainly in the "what-if" realm.

And yeah, Ed being brown changes the dynamic between Ed and Izzy.

The reason I singled out this point in the original post was that "Izzy tried to control Ed" was used as an example underneath the heading "are all Izzy fans racist"... TBH I don't remember exactly where I was going with this, but it struck me as a sort of loaded question type argument, and I wondered how it would go if the difference in race was removed

That’s fine if some people feel like Izzy got the short end of the stick. It’s fine that some people feel like Izzy’s arc was kinder to him than it should have been. It’s okay to feel whatever!

Agreed. The only problem being when the one side says the other side isn't allowed to feel whatever. (This applies to every side)

But with OFMD, it can raise eyebrows when people say their main concern is the suffering of a white man who behaves antagonistically towards a brown man

Honest question: Has anyone actually said that? (Some of my problem here is I'm somehow missing most of the arguments that trigger these "ugh the Izzy fans are at it again" posts) Or is that just something that people are reading into it, every time somebody says Izzy's their favorite character? I don't think that being a bigger fan of Izzy than you are of Ed, actually equals "the white man's pain is greater". Some people just root for the asshole characters?

and that Izzy's loyalty belongs to the violent worksona that Ed wants to shed.

I just want to take a moment to delight in the word "worksona", which is perfect. Okay, moving on.

Is Ed being abusive when he’s reacting in response to abuse from his abuser? 

In retaliation for abuse directed at him, no. When he later directs the abuse at subordinates who hadn't previously hurt him, yes. (I know that wasn't part of your argument)

There are also a lot of things that are very clear. When people try to subvert the messages and ideas that OFMD is conveying loudly and openly, other fans get suspicious and wonder if the folks doing the subverting have an agenda, a bias, or just misunderstand what the show is saying.

We're back to the "I haven't even seen these posts" again, which is why I'm so damn confused. Seriously, is it stuff bleeding over from Twitter or somewhere, 'cause I'm not really on any other platform.

Or are you trying to tell me that my posting was the problem? In which case... I can only wave at the word "discourse" one final time, and promise I'm not trolling here.

What I was talking about specifically with the whole "there are clear messages in OFMD and people get suspicious when others miss or misinterpret those messages" thing was racism. The show has a strong anti-racist, anti-colonial stance and subverts common racist tropes. There are many characters of color instead of one or two token POC, and all of those characters have actual characterization. They're funny, they're bright, they don't need our white protagonist to save them. And then there's Ed! He's brilliant, he's fastidiously clean, he's complex, he's sympathetic, and he's not an inherently violent man. He's bucking every stereotype I've seen befall indigenous characters, and that's extremely important. 

When people -- especially fans of color, especially indigenous fans -- see others characterize Ed as exceptionally violent or quick to anger or unsympathetic or abusive, they're immediately on the defensive. Ed is shown time and time again in canon to give people chances to back down, to hold his temper, to calculate before taking action, to have massive issues with violence; failure to acknowledge that feels kind of racist, even when there's no ill-intent. The feeling is compounded if they also characterize Izzy as a victim of Ed's abuse or as someone more worthy of sympathy. Does that make any sense? 

So going through your reply, I think it's clear that one issue we've both had is with takes that accuse "our side" of saying something that we've never even seen. It's a big ol' fandom with a bunch of different fandom neighborhoods. I've seen plenty of Ed takes that I'm certain you'd disagree with, and I know there are out-of-pocket ideas that only, like, a couple of people share. For example, I don't think that there's a widespread, genuine belief that Izzy is intended to act as a Christ figure and an AIDS metaphor, but at least one person was super serious about that! We should all try to be aware of what’s a widespread issue and what’s just a few outliers doing whatever. 

Maybe we miss the more egregious things that “our side” says because we’re entrenched enough in our own neighborhoods to already have those people blocked. I probably miss Izzy takes from people I follow that I might disagree with because I tend to scroll past things that’re primarily about Izzy.

There’s also a significant problem with generalization and bad faith interpretations of dissenting ideas, but that’s been an issue everywhere forever.

“I did agree with PCCP, that Ed was not uncontrollably violent, but the fact remains that he was a danger/did harm to his crew (which I've seen other people argue against).”

Valid! I wouldn’t agree with anyone who says that Ed doesn’t endanger or harm the crew. Those are definitely things he does.

“Maybe those people blocked me as well.”

Honestly? I kind of hope they did, just like I hope anyone who thinks my takes are the worst blocks me. I generally limit my blocking to people with takes so bad that they make me mad or, in a few instances, people who might get mad if a post of mine lands on their dash. Some of us are better off as strangers.

“I mean, back to my question: how many other pirate captains did we see get literally beaten to death by their own crew, in order to stop the violence? I'm not saying Ed was violent without reason, or that he deserved what he got, or anything. He got abuse heaped upon him, and he reacted. It's not the why I was trying to point out, just the fact that it happened.”

We don’t see a ton of pirate captains! Stede narrowly escaped mutiny, Jack was mutinied loads of times, and Izzy was tied to an anchor and on his way for a swim in, like, a day. We don’t know what’s up with Hornigold, but the sailcloth he wears in Ed’s subconscious makes me think he was mutinied as well. 

Ed’s situation is different. He has some kind of relationship with the named characters on his crew, and that relationship is broadly positive; they keep on with him long past a point where they would’ve been justified in mutinying. They hope he’s going to get better as late as the day Ed has decided that he’s going to die. Consequently, Ed has to do THE MOST to get them to cannonball him in the head. I’d wager that most pirate captains don’t want to be mutinied, and even fewer would get as far along as Ed did without being murdered.

“[T]hose actions, while perhaps not his fault, had consequences that other people (even people who had done him no harm) had to suffer through. Back to those "absolved of all blame" posts mentioned upthread. It was frustrating to see that argument come up.”

I agree that his actions hurt people who never hurt him. “Ed never physically hurt the crew during his kraken spiral, just Izzy” -- is that the part of Atticus’ post that you’re talking about? I’ve been in a few conversations about Ed and Kraken-era violence and I’m pretty sure we’re all in agreement that Ed caused psychological/emotional harm. 

Since we (me and the people I usually talk to) consider Izzy separately given his very different relationship with Ed, “the crew” is a shorthand for “all of the named characters on the Kraken ship who aren’t Izzy.” Possibly not entirely clear, especially if you’re used to lumping Izzy in with the rest in discussion.

“[...] my question here was more directed at PCCP's comment on the subject of racism being used to paint Ed as uncontrollably violent. I wondered what would be different in a situation where everything was the same, but that couldn't be a factor.”

I’m not sure I completely understand what you’re saying. Ed being portrayed as uncontrollably violent is bad because it (1) isn’t what canon conveys and (2) falls into a racist stereotype (the angry brown man). If Ed was white -- ignoring everything I said about how that’d change the story, whatever -- then saying he’s uncontrollably violent would still be contrary to canon. That would be annoying, but it wouldn’t be as bad because no racist stereotypes would be in play.

Let me know if I totally missed the mark there!

“Someone really needs to open up Ye Olde Pyrate Therapy. Maybe Spanish Jackie's new side gig.”

Lol, the show would be so short if we could just get these guys to a therapist (and maybe a pharmacy). Tbh, Jackie would make bank if she went in on psychological services.

As for issues of emotional abuse, I don’t think we’ll see eye-to-eye on that one and, since we’ve both experienced abuse, I’m not keen on going into what does and doesn’t “count.” 

Like… I avoid conversations about whether or not Izzy is abusive because I know that, because of my background, I’m always going to say that yes, he is. I’m not in a position to approach the issue with any kind of objectivity. I’m also not going to be at my best if I feel like someone is, in trying to defend Izzy, invalidating my own lived experiences. It sucks! I really, really don’t want to hurt you by defending Ed here if there’s a chance that I’d be dismissing something you’ve gone through.

“For me, Izzy's redeemable because he actually has a redemption arc, and tries to make amends in a few ways. The abusive people I've known personally never felt the need to change, so it feels kind of hopeful to see that in the fantasy realm of OFMD. I'll admit, Izzy is a prick in the beginning...and the middle... but when he has to change, I dunno, I like the idea that he could come back from where he was.”

You know what? I like that. I’m glad that you got something out of his arc, even if we don’t have the same feelings about the character. Someone on here once said that Izzy’s S2 arc is an abuse victim’s fantasy: an abuser is motivated to change for the better and ultimately admits to being in the wrong. That’s awesome. It is hopeful. I’ve also never encountered an abusive person who wanted to change (or who could be convinced that they should change, for that matter), so it’s nice to see, even in fiction. 

“The only problem being when the one side says the other side isn't allowed to feel whatever. (This applies to every side)”

I don’t know what to do about that one. I’m firmly in camp “feel what you feel,” but I also think we should interrogate our feelings if there’s a chance that we’re being motivated by some kind of internalized force (racism, etc). Feelings are a tough subject!

“Has anyone actually said that?”

Sorry to take that in isolation, but I think it’s so funny because I find myself asking that all the time. Like, “Yeah, that would be a bad opinion to have, but do people actually have it?” 

But I have seen several instances of people saying that Izzy is a pitiable, sympathetic victim of abuse and characterizing Ed as a violent, abusive monster all in the same post -- enough to consider this a thing that people do say. It’s not just liking Izzy more (totally fine) or not liking Ed (also fine); it’s an unwillingness to view Ed as a complex character with trauma and motives and emotional complexity. It’s removing Izzy and Ed from their canonical context -- their complicated relationship, their toxicity, their previous actions. It’s placing all of the blame on the big, scary, violent indigenous man.

(I’m not trying to insinuate that you’re saying any of that or would agree with it, btw!)

“I just want to take a moment to delight in the word "worksona", which is perfect.”

I wish I could take credit for it, but I’m 98% sure I picked that up from someone else. Come get your laurels, inventor of the word worksona!

I promise I wouldn't take time to type at you if I thought you were trolling. 

Appreciated! I didn't really think you were pointing fingers at me. Your wording was polite and nonspecific enough, I just wanted to check if you were trying to gently tell me what an asshole I am. I'm a tad sensitive to passive aggression (not that you were! it's totally a me-side issue).

I'm a big fan of earnest discussion, and I think that it's worthwhile even if we're ultimately going to disagree.

I agree (even if we disagree, lol).

When people -- especially fans of color, especially indigenous fans -- see others characterize Ed as exceptionally violent or quick to anger or unsympathetic or abusive, they're immediately on the defensive.

I don't, and never did, think that Ed was uncontrollably violent, quick to violence, inherently dangerous, or any of that. I acknowledge that he was pushed to his limit until he couldn't take it anymore. I simply can't accept that he was never violent or never hurt the crew, because we saw it happen in the show. That's the whole of the argument I was making in the beginning.

I get where fans of color don't want to wade through racist shit once more, but all I can do is repeat, that's not what I was saying... I do, however, see where I made a terrible decision, responding where I did. It was a combination of poor timing (I'd just been irritated by someone else's post) and I've always admired PCCP's argument/writing style, so I thought I'd try talking it through there, since he was writing on the subject/potentially in response to the bitchy post I'd just made.

So here we are... I keep making the same argument, explanation, and apology, and I don't believe it's getting us anywhere. Someone just literally asked me if I understood the definition of "uncontrollable", which... yeah, I do, that's why I said Ed wasn't uncontrollable, way back in one of the first post.

Can't help but begin to wonder if people are really reading what I wrote, or just went: hey, the latest racist idiot said something, better go prove them wrong.

For example, I don't think that there's a widespread, genuine belief that Izzy is intended to act as a Christ figure and an AIDS metaphor,

I got nothing. I can't even imagine where to begin the mental process that would lead someone to that conclusion.

bad faith interpretations of dissenting ideas, but that’s been an issue everywhere forever.

I do feel the bad faith thing is a large part of my particular situation here. The thing that set me off down this discourse journey was a post by someone who just screamed troll in the way they constantly posted about how tired they were of having to correct people on how much Izzy sucks all the time, intermingled with unsolicited "PSA: Izzy is shit." I made a bitchy post about that person, PCCP came along with his post, and...

I know, I shouldn't have taken the bait in the first place.

Valid! I wouldn’t agree with anyone who says that Ed doesn’t endanger or harm the crew. Those are definitely things he does.

Thank you. That's all I wanted to get across.

I generally limit my blocking to people with takes so bad that they make me mad or, in a few instances, people who might get mad if a post of mine lands on their dash. Some of us are better off as strangers.

Very true. I've advocated for blocking people in the past, in the name of peace, but I recently went through and unblocked a bunch that I couldn't recall being particularly annoyed with. Shouldn't have tempted fate.

We don’t know what’s up with Hornigold, but the sailcloth he wears in Ed’s subconscious makes me think he was mutinied as well. 

Interesting! Can I ask why? I've always thought it was a neat character detail, but I didn't catch the mutiny angle. Like, he got stranded with only the bit of sail to wear?

Since we (me and the people I usually talk to) consider Izzy separately given his very different relationship with Ed, “the crew” is a shorthand for “all of the named characters on the Kraken ship who aren’t Izzy.”

I guess we've reached the point where we have to agree to disagree, because I just can't accept the exclusion of the ship's first mate from the rest of the crew. He might be on a different level from "just the crew", but he's still crew. *shrug*

I’m also not going to be at my best if I feel like someone is, in trying to defend Izzy, invalidating my own lived experiences. It sucks!

It really does, and I'm sorry if I contributed to that.. I feel like that's a little part of what made me so crazy (also I'm just pedantic) about the posts I'd see claiming Ed never hurt anyone, even though we all watched it happen. After a certain point, it felt like fandom gaslighting, for lack of a better term. There was this underlying threat of "if you don't accept my version, you're the problem". I've lived through that IRL, it wasn't even that big a deal overall, that person is no longer in my life now... but I'm still pissed about it, lol.

I really, really don’t want to hurt you by defending Ed here if there’s a chance that I’d be dismissing something you’ve gone through.

I appreciate that, and I also don't want to do that. So then, how do we do this fandom thing? Do the sides just never interact, or can we find a common ground that isn't riddled with landmines? I don't know how to proceed...

Someone on here once said that Izzy’s S2 arc is an abuse victim’s fantasy: an abuser is motivated to change for the better and ultimately admits to being in the wrong.

I recall seeing the term referenced, but I got the impression that it went the other way: the abuser got what what coming to him, and the victim lived happily ever after. I prefer the interpretation you gave!

But I have seen several instances of people saying that Izzy is a pitiable, sympathetic victim of abuse and characterizing Ed as a violent, abusive monster all in the same post -- enough to consider this a thing that people do say.

Too much to hope that's some of that bad actor posting at work? No... no, I've been in fandom spaces for ...officially decades now (god I'm old). I know there are just as many people who really have the blind spots, as there are trolls wanting to stir up shit. Hell, maybe more.

It’s not just liking Izzy more (totally fine) or not liking Ed (also fine); it’s an unwillingness to view Ed as a complex character with trauma and motives and emotional complexity.

And, as many have pointed out, it's not even hard to see Ed's motivation and trauma. It's not subtext, it's something explicitly shown in canon.

It’s placing all of the blame on the big, scary, violent indigenous man.

I wonder... I want to think that we're all equally drawn to a show for good reasons, I want to give people the benefit of the doubt. I've known enough blatantly racist/homophobic twats that wouldn't even give this show the time of day. I guess I'm unaccustomed to the more subtle variety.

(I’m not trying to insinuate that you’re saying any of that or would agree with it, btw!)

In response to this

“Why is it racist to depict Ed as uncontrollably violent?  Because he's not actually depicted that way in the show.”

you talk about Ed baiting the crew to murder him and committing other violent acts. The original point is stating that Ed is not depicted as uncontrollably violent in the show, not claiming that he perpetrated no violence full stop. Yes, Ed does violence. No, he is not uncontrollably violent.

What Ed does is purposeful, not uncontrollable. He doesn’t push Lucius off the ship after he gives up all hope because he’s a violent guy who just does stuff like that, and the mutiny situation in S2E2… as allthinky said in a response, “that’s Ed at the end of his rope,” not him being uncontrollably violent. He’d been working towards suicide ever since he started baiting Low. As a backup plan, he’s been working the crew hard, disregarding their well-being, and being an overall awful boss in an attempt to incite a mutiny. 

Yes, he was “a serious, immediate threat to his crew” by the time he was out of other ideas to make someone take him out. Ed commits acts of violence -- I don’t think I’ve seen anyone claim he doesn’t -- but he always does so with some amount of reason (not necessarily good reasons) and control. 

“Upon reflection, my biggest issue may be with the people who argue that Ed's never been shown to be violent, or that any time he has resorted to violence, he's absolved of blame by the fact that someone was mean to him first. Which... I don't think I've seen you make either of those arguments at any point in the past.”

I’m really glad that you mentioned that OP hadn’t made either of those arguments (that you know of), that was genuinely very cool. As for the rest of it, I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone say that Ed is “never shown to be violent” or that he can always be “absolved of the blame” unless you want to remove all of the nuance from common talking points. 

He is never shown to be more violent than the average pirate and, due to his deep-seated trauma relating to his own capacity for violence, he’s actually on the less violent end of the pirate spectrum. He can’t be absolved of all blame for his actions because he’s a grown man who makes his own choices (and saying otherwise robs him of his agency). What I’ve seen said is that Ed’s actions are informed by things like trauma, abuse, and racism. His actions make sense. They’re not spontaneous violence committed because Ed flies into rages and homicidal spirals out of the blue.

“Not saying we shouldn't consider it [that is, are we “assigning more weight to Ed's violent actions than those of other characters or assuming he's worse than he actually is”], but I mean. If a white character on the show had cut off his employee's toes and fed them to him, shot him in the leg, ordered his death, held a gun on his other subordinates, marooned some/tossed one overboard, threatened to drown the ones that remained... because he was pushed into it, with the same combination of abusive childhood/hostile work environment... would he be equally deserving of that consideration? Would it be an overreaction to call him dangerous?”

Probably, but if everything was the same except Ed Is White Now, his baggage and his relationship with Izzy wouldn’t be exactly the same. Ed's race isn’t inconsequential. We can't really remove race from the story and end up with the same character, y'know?

Also: I do think it’s inappropriate to turn this question back on POC. I don’t think that POC are obligated to reconsider biases against a white character.

“Izzy is crew”

Ed’s relationship to Izzy is not comparable to his relationship with the crew. The crew have done nothing wrong and haven’t behaved antagonistically towards Ed. Izzy and Ed have a complicated, toxic, and difficult relationship (regardless of where you stand on whether or not Izzy’s abusive), therefore any harm caused to Izzy has to be considered differently than harm caused to the rest of the crew.

“Even if we say that he doesn't count, Ed still pushed Lucius off the ship.”

Yes, Ed did do that, but I think that Atticus is talking about Ed’s S2 actions in that point, not what happened in S1. Most (I think all?) meta I’ve read does consider Ed pushing Lucius off the ship an act of violence that Lucius himself did nothing to provoke. 

This might be controversial, but I’d put Ed pushing Lucius overboard on par with, like, a particularly unjust firing in a workplace that isn’t a pirate vessel. When we watch OFMD, we have to adjust our physical violence meters to account for the fact that we’re dealing with an environment that’s full of physical violence.

“Also, emotional abuse directed at the rest of the crew is still abuse”

I don't consider Ed emotionally abusive. He works the crew hard. He’s a terrible boss who doesn’t give his employees vacation days or paid time off and then throws them a sad pizza party. That sucks, it’s not okay, and his final death spiral in S2E2 is terrible and he never should have involved the crew in that. 

Abuse is a pattern of behavior that’s meant to control people. Not all harm is abuse. When I say that Ed isn't abusive, I'm not saying that he didn't hurt people.

“So... I was raised by a physically and psychologically abusive parent. I get that Ed's been hurt, is still hurting, and why. The "why" doesn't matter for the question of "did he or didn't he", though. It may or may not be his fault, he may or may not have done it because he felt unsafe. The point is, his actions did hurt people.”

Same, friend, and I'm sorry you went through that. (That’s actually one of the reasons I’ve always been wary of Izzy. What he says and does in S1 is too familiar to me, sometimes to a point where I can’t watch certain scenes.) I don’t think anyone’s saying that Ed isn’t hurting anyone, or that all of his actions can be attributed to abuse. If that’s not what you’re getting at here, apologies for misunderstanding.

“His boss that he was trying to control was brown.  Was that a factor in his power play though, or was it because Taika wound up being cast as Blackbeard? Any other (white) actor in the role, would Izzy be as bad for trying to control him? Would the scripts have gone a different way?”

Here’s the thing. In the show we have, Blackbeard is played by a Maori/Jewish man, and this fundamentally alters the character. There are things in the show -- whole episodes, if you want to look at S1E5 and the fancy party guests who treat Ed like exotic entertainment and not a peer -- that wouldn’t be the same if Ed was white. 

And yeah, Ed being brown changes the dynamic between Ed and Izzy. It would still be bad if a white guy was trying to control another white guy, but it wouldn’t be bad on the same level. Same goes if they were both brown. A white man trying to control the behavior of an indigenous man is worse.

“Izzy got permanently disfigured, crippled, and dead, while Ed came out largely unscathed in a physical sense, due to Muppet logic. Not to say one is more deserving than the other, but for a bunch of fans, there's probably a sense of Izzy getting the short end of the stick, to consider.”

That’s fine if some people feel like Izzy got the short end of the stick. It’s fine that some people feel like Izzy’s arc was kinder to him than it should have been. It’s okay to feel whatever! We connect emotionally to different characters and that biases our opinions and meta. That’s not a crime. We just need to be aware of our biases and why they exist.

The thing with OFMD is that Ed is a main character with more background and a story that, at every turn, asks you to sympathize with him. We’re given a look into Ed’s psyche. We understand at least some of his trauma and hurt and why he acts the way he does. Izzy has virtually no backstory and we’re never offered a glimpse into his mind; we don’t know why he’s like that. You can totally like a secondary character (or even an antagonist!) with no real canonical background or mental groundwork. It’s fun to ask why characters do what they do when canon doesn’t offer us any answers, and who doesn’t love a mystery box? 

But with OFMD, it can raise eyebrows when people say their main concern is the suffering of a white man who behaves antagonistically towards a brown man, especially when that brown character is a well-developed lead who also suffers (and suffers at the hands of aforementioned white character). It’s not inherently racist for someone to care more about Izzy than Ed, but it’s also not unreasonable to ask that someone to think about the possibility that subconscious racism could be factoring into their point of view.

“I don't think it's fair discussion to have a rule saying ‘even though you didn't directly call out the brown man, your argument is still racist’... even if it's true in many cases, it effectively means that no criticism of the character can ever be considered valid. If someone wants to argue ‘removing your employee's toes and feeding them to him is abusive behavior’, they can't, because of the unspoken skin colors involved? I don't know what the solution to this is.”

No one is saying that all criticism of a character of color is racist or invalid. As allthinky said in response, we’re saying that “those critiques have to be based on real evidence, and placed in a careful context, so that their actions can be understood as human, and not just the brutality of some brute.”

Criticize, but criticize with evidence and with awareness of the context of the criticized behavior. 

With the Izzy example, you have to consider the context of their relationship and Izzy’s actions throughout S1. Izzy isn’t just an employee: he’s a trusted second-in-command who has been insulting, controlling, and disloyal; he endangered not just Stede but also Ed and the rest of the crew; he told Ed that he was better off dead than acting as he was, and that Izzy's loyalty belongs to the violent worksona that Ed wants to shed. Is Ed being abusive when he’s reacting in response to abuse from his abuser? 

“[T]he show has layers (like an onion). Sometimes the meaning is not entirely surface-level, and everyone has a different level of comprehension. Sometimes obvious things to us aren't obvious to other fans/vice-versa. There's a whole 'nother discussion of media literacy to be had.”

I think that Atticus said it best here: “This is not a subtle show. That's not to say it's a simple one [...]. It's amazingly layered and emotional responses by characters are often extremely complex. However, when the show is trying to tell you something, it's not subtle and it never tries to hide it.”

There are a lot of things in OFMD that are subjective and open to interpretation, and those things are fun to discuss even when we have different takes. There are also a lot of things that are very clear. When people try to subvert the messages and ideas that OFMD is conveying loudly and openly, other fans get suspicious and wonder if the folks doing the subverting have an agenda, a bias, or just misunderstand what the show is saying.

As for the rest of it, I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone say that Ed is “never shown to be violent” or that he can always be “absolved of the blame” unless you want to remove all of the nuance from common talking points.

Sadly, I have seen those arguments, hmm, sometime in the last month I'd guess? I don't recall who made them, just noticed them uttered in the daily anti-Izzy rants I scrolled past. I haven't seen them in a few days. Maybe those people blocked me as well.

He is never shown to be more violent than the average pirate and, due to his deep-seated trauma relating to his own capacity for violence, he’s actually on the less violent end of the pirate spectrum.

I mean, back to my question: how many other pirate captains did we see get literally beaten to death by their own crew, in order to stop the violence? I'm not saying Ed was violent without reason, or that he deserved what he got, or anything. He got abuse heaped upon him, and he reacted. It's not the why I was trying to point out, just the fact that it happened.

His actions make sense. They’re not spontaneous violence committed because Ed flies into rages and homicidal spirals out of the blue.

Agreed. But those actions, while perhaps not his fault, had consequences that other people (even people who had done him no harm) had to suffer through. Back to those "absolved of all blame" posts mentioned upthread. It was frustrating to see that argument come up. I won't miss it, if it's gone now.

Ed's race isn’t inconsequential. We can't really remove race from the story and end up with the same character, y'know?

True, though my question here was more directed at PCCP's comment on the subject of racism being used to paint Ed as uncontrollably violent. I wondered what would be different in a situation where everything was the same, but that couldn't be a factor.

Also: I do think it’s inappropriate to turn this question back on POC. I don’t think that POC are obligated to reconsider biases against a white character.

No one's obligated to do anything. I thought the post was meant for debate as is was posted to the general public and labeled "discourse". I had questions, so I asked them.

Ed’s relationship to Izzy is not comparable to his relationship with the crew. The crew have done nothing wrong and haven’t behaved antagonistically towards Ed.

I feel like that's irrelevant. My statement was in response to "Ed never hurt the crew, only Izzy", which I felt was ridiculous, because Izzy is still crew, even if he's bad crew.

Yes, Ed did do that, but I think that Atticus is talking about Ed’s S2 actions in that point, not what happened in S1.

Yeah, valid. I didn't get that on my first read.

When we watch OFMD, we have to adjust our physical violence meters to account for the fact that we’re dealing with an environment that’s full of physical violence.

See, I feel like that leads us back to the "most violent pirate discussion" though...

I don't consider Ed emotionally abusive.

Heh, now here's where I was the one talking about just the Kraken stuff! I was thinking of Ed pointing the gun at everyone, "do you think this is a toxic envionment?", Fang crying... up until they're all facing dying in a shipwreck. Plus, killing Ed was pretty traumatic for them also.

Someone really needs to open up Ye Olde Pyrate Therapy. Maybe Spanish Jackie's new side gig.

Same, friend, and I'm sorry you went through that.

Same to you. :(

(That’s actually one of the reasons I’ve always been wary of Izzy. What he says and does in S1 is too familiar to me, sometimes to a point where I can’t watch certain scenes.)

Hadn't thought of it that way, I guess. I can see how that would make it hard to warm up to the character.

For me, Izzy's redeemable because he actually has a redemption arc, and tries to make amends in a few ways. The abusive people I've known personally never felt the need to change, so it feels kind of hopeful to see that in the fantasy realm of OFMD. I'll admit, Izzy is a prick in the beginning...and the middle... but when he has to change, I dunno, I like the idea that he could come back from where he was.

There are things in the show -- whole episodes, if you want to look at S1E5 and the fancy party guests who treat Ed like exotic entertainment and not a peer

Yep. Each time *cough*too many times*cough* I did a rewatch I'd notice another condescending look or snide remark or whatever. It's brilliantly scripted/acted/directed. But yeah, it is the show we have. My questions around this point in the post were mainly in the "what-if" realm.

And yeah, Ed being brown changes the dynamic between Ed and Izzy.

The reason I singled out this point in the original post was that "Izzy tried to control Ed" was used as an example underneath the heading "are all Izzy fans racist"... TBH I don't remember exactly where I was going with this, but it struck me as a sort of loaded question type argument, and I wondered how it would go if the difference in race was removed

That’s fine if some people feel like Izzy got the short end of the stick. It’s fine that some people feel like Izzy’s arc was kinder to him than it should have been. It’s okay to feel whatever!

Agreed. The only problem being when the one side says the other side isn't allowed to feel whatever. (This applies to every side)

But with OFMD, it can raise eyebrows when people say their main concern is the suffering of a white man who behaves antagonistically towards a brown man

Honest question: Has anyone actually said that? (Some of my problem here is I'm somehow missing most of the arguments that trigger these "ugh the Izzy fans are at it again" posts) Or is that just something that people are reading into it, every time somebody says Izzy's their favorite character? I don't think that being a bigger fan of Izzy than you are of Ed, actually equals "the white man's pain is greater". Some people just root for the asshole characters?

and that Izzy's loyalty belongs to the violent worksona that Ed wants to shed.

I just want to take a moment to delight in the word "worksona", which is perfect. Okay, moving on.

Is Ed being abusive when he’s reacting in response to abuse from his abuser? 

In retaliation for abuse directed at him, no. When he later directs the abuse at subordinates who hadn't previously hurt him, yes. (I know that wasn't part of your argument)

There are also a lot of things that are very clear. When people try to subvert the messages and ideas that OFMD is conveying loudly and openly, other fans get suspicious and wonder if the folks doing the subverting have an agenda, a bias, or just misunderstand what the show is saying.

We're back to the "I haven't even seen these posts" again, which is why I'm so damn confused. Seriously, is it stuff bleeding over from Twitter or somewhere, 'cause I'm not really on any other platform.

Or are you trying to tell me that my posting was the problem? In which case... I can only wave at the word "discourse" one final time, and promise I'm not trolling here.

What I was talking about specifically with the whole "there are clear messages in OFMD and people get suspicious when others miss or misinterpret those messages" thing was racism. The show has a strong anti-racist, anti-colonial stance and subverts common racist tropes. There are many characters of color instead of one or two token POC, and all of those characters have actual characterization. They're funny, they're bright, they don't need our white protagonist to save them. And then there's Ed! He's brilliant, he's fastidiously clean, he's complex, he's sympathetic, and he's not an inherently violent man. He's bucking every stereotype I've seen befall indigenous characters, and that's extremely important. 

When people -- especially fans of color, especially indigenous fans -- see others characterize Ed as exceptionally violent or quick to anger or unsympathetic or abusive, they're immediately on the defensive. Ed is shown time and time again in canon to give people chances to back down, to hold his temper, to calculate before taking action, to have massive issues with violence; failure to acknowledge that feels kind of racist, even when there's no ill-intent. The feeling is compounded if they also characterize Izzy as a victim of Ed's abuse or as someone more worthy of sympathy. Does that make any sense? 

So going through your reply, I think it's clear that one issue we've both had is with takes that accuse "our side" of saying something that we've never even seen. It's a big ol' fandom with a bunch of different fandom neighborhoods. I've seen plenty of Ed takes that I'm certain you'd disagree with, and I know there are out-of-pocket ideas that only, like, a couple of people share. For example, I don't think that there's a widespread, genuine belief that Izzy is intended to act as a Christ figure and an AIDS metaphor, but at least one person was super serious about that! We should all try to be aware of what’s a widespread issue and what’s just a few outliers doing whatever. 

Maybe we miss the more egregious things that “our side” says because we’re entrenched enough in our own neighborhoods to already have those people blocked. I probably miss Izzy takes from people I follow that I might disagree with because I tend to scroll past things that’re primarily about Izzy.

There’s also a significant problem with generalization and bad faith interpretations of dissenting ideas, but that’s been an issue everywhere forever.

“I did agree with PCCP, that Ed was not uncontrollably violent, but the fact remains that he was a danger/did harm to his crew (which I've seen other people argue against).”

Valid! I wouldn’t agree with anyone who says that Ed doesn’t endanger or harm the crew. Those are definitely things he does.

“Maybe those people blocked me as well.”

Honestly? I kind of hope they did, just like I hope anyone who thinks my takes are the worst blocks me. I generally limit my blocking to people with takes so bad that they make me mad or, in a few instances, people who might get mad if a post of mine lands on their dash. Some of us are better off as strangers.

“I mean, back to my question: how many other pirate captains did we see get literally beaten to death by their own crew, in order to stop the violence? I'm not saying Ed was violent without reason, or that he deserved what he got, or anything. He got abuse heaped upon him, and he reacted. It's not the why I was trying to point out, just the fact that it happened.”

We don’t see a ton of pirate captains! Stede narrowly escaped mutiny, Jack was mutinied loads of times, and Izzy was tied to an anchor and on his way for a swim in, like, a day. We don’t know what’s up with Hornigold, but the sailcloth he wears in Ed’s subconscious makes me think he was mutinied as well. 

Ed’s situation is different. He has some kind of relationship with the named characters on his crew, and that relationship is broadly positive; they keep on with him long past a point where they would’ve been justified in mutinying. They hope he’s going to get better as late as the day Ed has decided that he’s going to die. Consequently, Ed has to do THE MOST to get them to cannonball him in the head. I’d wager that most pirate captains don’t want to be mutinied, and even fewer would get as far along as Ed did without being murdered.

“[T]hose actions, while perhaps not his fault, had consequences that other people (even people who had done him no harm) had to suffer through. Back to those "absolved of all blame" posts mentioned upthread. It was frustrating to see that argument come up.”

I agree that his actions hurt people who never hurt him. “Ed never physically hurt the crew during his kraken spiral, just Izzy” -- is that the part of Atticus’ post that you’re talking about? I’ve been in a few conversations about Ed and Kraken-era violence and I’m pretty sure we’re all in agreement that Ed caused psychological/emotional harm. 

Since we (me and the people I usually talk to) consider Izzy separately given his very different relationship with Ed, “the crew” is a shorthand for “all of the named characters on the Kraken ship who aren’t Izzy.” Possibly not entirely clear, especially if you’re used to lumping Izzy in with the rest in discussion.

“[...] my question here was more directed at PCCP's comment on the subject of racism being used to paint Ed as uncontrollably violent. I wondered what would be different in a situation where everything was the same, but that couldn't be a factor.”

I’m not sure I completely understand what you’re saying. Ed being portrayed as uncontrollably violent is bad because it (1) isn’t what canon conveys and (2) falls into a racist stereotype (the angry brown man). If Ed was white -- ignoring everything I said about how that’d change the story, whatever -- then saying he’s uncontrollably violent would still be contrary to canon. That would be annoying, but it wouldn’t be as bad because no racist stereotypes would be in play.

Let me know if I totally missed the mark there!

“Someone really needs to open up Ye Olde Pyrate Therapy. Maybe Spanish Jackie's new side gig.”

Lol, the show would be so short if we could just get these guys to a therapist (and maybe a pharmacy). Tbh, Jackie would make bank if she went in on psychological services.

As for issues of emotional abuse, I don’t think we’ll see eye-to-eye on that one and, since we’ve both experienced abuse, I’m not keen on going into what does and doesn’t “count.” 

Like… I avoid conversations about whether or not Izzy is abusive because I know that, because of my background, I’m always going to say that yes, he is. I’m not in a position to approach the issue with any kind of objectivity. I’m also not going to be at my best if I feel like someone is, in trying to defend Izzy, invalidating my own lived experiences. It sucks! I really, really don’t want to hurt you by defending Ed here if there’s a chance that I’d be dismissing something you’ve gone through.

“For me, Izzy's redeemable because he actually has a redemption arc, and tries to make amends in a few ways. The abusive people I've known personally never felt the need to change, so it feels kind of hopeful to see that in the fantasy realm of OFMD. I'll admit, Izzy is a prick in the beginning...and the middle... but when he has to change, I dunno, I like the idea that he could come back from where he was.”

You know what? I like that. I’m glad that you got something out of his arc, even if we don’t have the same feelings about the character. Someone on here once said that Izzy’s S2 arc is an abuse victim’s fantasy: an abuser is motivated to change for the better and ultimately admits to being in the wrong. That’s awesome. It is hopeful. I’ve also never encountered an abusive person who wanted to change (or who could be convinced that they should change, for that matter), so it’s nice to see, even in fiction. 

“The only problem being when the one side says the other side isn't allowed to feel whatever. (This applies to every side)”

I don’t know what to do about that one. I’m firmly in camp “feel what you feel,” but I also think we should interrogate our feelings if there’s a chance that we’re being motivated by some kind of internalized force (racism, etc). Feelings are a tough subject!

“Has anyone actually said that?”

Sorry to take that in isolation, but I think it’s so funny because I find myself asking that all the time. Like, “Yeah, that would be a bad opinion to have, but do people actually have it?” 

But I have seen several instances of people saying that Izzy is a pitiable, sympathetic victim of abuse and characterizing Ed as a violent, abusive monster all in the same post -- enough to consider this a thing that people do say. It’s not just liking Izzy more (totally fine) or not liking Ed (also fine); it’s an unwillingness to view Ed as a complex character with trauma and motives and emotional complexity. It’s removing Izzy and Ed from their canonical context -- their complicated relationship, their toxicity, their previous actions. It’s placing all of the blame on the big, scary, violent indigenous man.

(I’m not trying to insinuate that you’re saying any of that or would agree with it, btw!)

“I just want to take a moment to delight in the word "worksona", which is perfect.”

I wish I could take credit for it, but I’m 98% sure I picked that up from someone else. Come get your laurels, inventor of the word worksona!

I promise I wouldn't take time to type at you if I thought you were trolling. 

Appreciated! I didn't really think you were pointing fingers at me. Your wording was polite and nonspecific enough, I just wanted to check if you were trying to gently tell me what an asshole I am. I'm a tad sensitive to passive aggression (not that you were! it's totally a me-side issue).

I'm a big fan of earnest discussion, and I think that it's worthwhile even if we're ultimately going to disagree.

I agree (even if we disagree, lol).

When people -- especially fans of color, especially indigenous fans -- see others characterize Ed as exceptionally violent or quick to anger or unsympathetic or abusive, they're immediately on the defensive.

I don't, and never did, think that Ed was uncontrollably violent, quick to violence, inherently dangerous, or any of that. I acknowledge that he was pushed to his limit until he couldn't take it anymore. I simply can't accept that he was never violent or never hurt the crew, because we saw it happen in the show. That's the whole of the argument I was making in the beginning.

I get where fans of color don't want to wade through racist shit once more, but all I can do is repeat, that's not what I was saying... I do, however, see where I made a terrible decision, responding where I did. It was a combination of poor timing (I'd just been irritated by someone else's post) and I've always admired PCCP's argument/writing style, so I thought I'd try talking it through there, since he was writing on the subject/potentially in response to the bitchy post I'd just made.

So here we are... I keep making the same argument, explanation, and apology, and I don't believe it's getting us anywhere. Someone just literally asked me if I understood the definition of "uncontrollable", which... yeah, I do, that's why I said Ed wasn't uncontrollable, way back in one of the first post.

Can't help but begin to wonder if people are really reading what I wrote, or just went: hey, the latest racist idiot said something, better go prove them wrong.

For example, I don't think that there's a widespread, genuine belief that Izzy is intended to act as a Christ figure and an AIDS metaphor,

I got nothing. I can't even imagine where to begin the mental process that would lead someone to that conclusion.

bad faith interpretations of dissenting ideas, but that’s been an issue everywhere forever.

I do feel the bad faith thing is a large part of my particular situation here. The thing that set me off down this discourse journey was a post by someone who just screamed troll in the way they constantly posted about how tired they were of having to correct people on how much Izzy sucks all the time, intermingled with unsolicited "PSA: Izzy is shit." I made a bitchy post about that person, PCCP came along with his post, and...

I know, I shouldn't have taken the bait in the first place.

Valid! I wouldn’t agree with anyone who says that Ed doesn’t endanger or harm the crew. Those are definitely things he does.

Thank you. That's all I wanted to get across.

I generally limit my blocking to people with takes so bad that they make me mad or, in a few instances, people who might get mad if a post of mine lands on their dash. Some of us are better off as strangers.

Very true. I've advocated for blocking people in the past, in the name of peace, but I recently went through and unblocked a bunch that I couldn't recall being particularly annoyed with. Shouldn't have tempted fate.

We don’t know what’s up with Hornigold, but the sailcloth he wears in Ed’s subconscious makes me think he was mutinied as well. 

Interesting! Can I ask why? I've always thought it was a neat character detail, but I didn't catch the mutiny angle. Like, he got stranded with only the bit of sail to wear?

Since we (me and the people I usually talk to) consider Izzy separately given his very different relationship with Ed, “the crew” is a shorthand for “all of the named characters on the Kraken ship who aren’t Izzy.”

I guess we've reached the point where we have to agree to disagree, because I just can't accept the exclusion of the ship's first mate from the rest of the crew. He might be on a different level from "just the crew", but he's still crew. *shrug*

I’m also not going to be at my best if I feel like someone is, in trying to defend Izzy, invalidating my own lived experiences. It sucks!

It really does, and I'm sorry if I contributed to that.. I feel like that's a little part of what made me so crazy (also I'm just pedantic) about the posts I'd see claiming Ed never hurt anyone, even though we all watched it happen. After a certain point, it felt like fandom gaslighting, for lack of a better term. There was this underlying threat of "if you don't accept my version, you're the problem". I've lived through that IRL, it wasn't even that big a deal overall, that person is no longer in my life now... but I'm still pissed about it, lol.

I really, really don’t want to hurt you by defending Ed here if there’s a chance that I’d be dismissing something you’ve gone through.

I appreciate that, and I also don't want to do that. So then, how do we do this fandom thing? Do the sides just never interact, or can we find a common ground that isn't riddled with landmines? I don't know how to proceed...

Someone on here once said that Izzy’s S2 arc is an abuse victim’s fantasy: an abuser is motivated to change for the better and ultimately admits to being in the wrong.

I recall seeing the term referenced, but I got the impression that it went the other way: the abuser got what what coming to him, and the victim lived happily ever after. I prefer the interpretation you gave!

But I have seen several instances of people saying that Izzy is a pitiable, sympathetic victim of abuse and characterizing Ed as a violent, abusive monster all in the same post -- enough to consider this a thing that people do say.

Too much to hope that's some of that bad actor posting at work? No... no, I've been in fandom spaces for ...officially decades now (god I'm old). I know there are just as many people who really have the blind spots, as there are trolls wanting to stir up shit. Hell, maybe more.

It’s not just liking Izzy more (totally fine) or not liking Ed (also fine); it’s an unwillingness to view Ed as a complex character with trauma and motives and emotional complexity.

And, as many have pointed out, it's not even hard to see Ed's motivation and trauma. It's not subtext, it's something explicitly shown in canon.

It’s placing all of the blame on the big, scary, violent indigenous man.

I wonder... I want to think that we're all equally drawn to a show for good reasons, I want to give people the benefit of the doubt. I've known enough blatantly racist/homophobic twats that wouldn't even give this show the time of day. I guess I'm unaccustomed to the more subtle variety.

(I’m not trying to insinuate that you’re saying any of that or would agree with it, btw!)

In response to this

“Why is it racist to depict Ed as uncontrollably violent?  Because he's not actually depicted that way in the show.”

you talk about Ed baiting the crew to murder him and committing other violent acts. The original point is stating that Ed is not depicted as uncontrollably violent in the show, not claiming that he perpetrated no violence full stop. Yes, Ed does violence. No, he is not uncontrollably violent.

What Ed does is purposeful, not uncontrollable. He doesn’t push Lucius off the ship after he gives up all hope because he’s a violent guy who just does stuff like that, and the mutiny situation in S2E2… as allthinky said in a response, “that’s Ed at the end of his rope,” not him being uncontrollably violent. He’d been working towards suicide ever since he started baiting Low. As a backup plan, he’s been working the crew hard, disregarding their well-being, and being an overall awful boss in an attempt to incite a mutiny. 

Yes, he was “a serious, immediate threat to his crew” by the time he was out of other ideas to make someone take him out. Ed commits acts of violence -- I don’t think I’ve seen anyone claim he doesn’t -- but he always does so with some amount of reason (not necessarily good reasons) and control. 

“Upon reflection, my biggest issue may be with the people who argue that Ed's never been shown to be violent, or that any time he has resorted to violence, he's absolved of blame by the fact that someone was mean to him first. Which... I don't think I've seen you make either of those arguments at any point in the past.”

I’m really glad that you mentioned that OP hadn’t made either of those arguments (that you know of), that was genuinely very cool. As for the rest of it, I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone say that Ed is “never shown to be violent” or that he can always be “absolved of the blame” unless you want to remove all of the nuance from common talking points. 

He is never shown to be more violent than the average pirate and, due to his deep-seated trauma relating to his own capacity for violence, he’s actually on the less violent end of the pirate spectrum. He can’t be absolved of all blame for his actions because he’s a grown man who makes his own choices (and saying otherwise robs him of his agency). What I’ve seen said is that Ed’s actions are informed by things like trauma, abuse, and racism. His actions make sense. They’re not spontaneous violence committed because Ed flies into rages and homicidal spirals out of the blue.

“Not saying we shouldn't consider it [that is, are we “assigning more weight to Ed's violent actions than those of other characters or assuming he's worse than he actually is”], but I mean. If a white character on the show had cut off his employee's toes and fed them to him, shot him in the leg, ordered his death, held a gun on his other subordinates, marooned some/tossed one overboard, threatened to drown the ones that remained... because he was pushed into it, with the same combination of abusive childhood/hostile work environment... would he be equally deserving of that consideration? Would it be an overreaction to call him dangerous?”

Probably, but if everything was the same except Ed Is White Now, his baggage and his relationship with Izzy wouldn’t be exactly the same. Ed's race isn’t inconsequential. We can't really remove race from the story and end up with the same character, y'know?

Also: I do think it’s inappropriate to turn this question back on POC. I don’t think that POC are obligated to reconsider biases against a white character.

“Izzy is crew”

Ed’s relationship to Izzy is not comparable to his relationship with the crew. The crew have done nothing wrong and haven’t behaved antagonistically towards Ed. Izzy and Ed have a complicated, toxic, and difficult relationship (regardless of where you stand on whether or not Izzy’s abusive), therefore any harm caused to Izzy has to be considered differently than harm caused to the rest of the crew.

“Even if we say that he doesn't count, Ed still pushed Lucius off the ship.”

Yes, Ed did do that, but I think that Atticus is talking about Ed’s S2 actions in that point, not what happened in S1. Most (I think all?) meta I’ve read does consider Ed pushing Lucius off the ship an act of violence that Lucius himself did nothing to provoke. 

This might be controversial, but I’d put Ed pushing Lucius overboard on par with, like, a particularly unjust firing in a workplace that isn’t a pirate vessel. When we watch OFMD, we have to adjust our physical violence meters to account for the fact that we’re dealing with an environment that’s full of physical violence.

“Also, emotional abuse directed at the rest of the crew is still abuse”

I don't consider Ed emotionally abusive. He works the crew hard. He’s a terrible boss who doesn’t give his employees vacation days or paid time off and then throws them a sad pizza party. That sucks, it’s not okay, and his final death spiral in S2E2 is terrible and he never should have involved the crew in that. 

Abuse is a pattern of behavior that’s meant to control people. Not all harm is abuse. When I say that Ed isn't abusive, I'm not saying that he didn't hurt people.

“So... I was raised by a physically and psychologically abusive parent. I get that Ed's been hurt, is still hurting, and why. The "why" doesn't matter for the question of "did he or didn't he", though. It may or may not be his fault, he may or may not have done it because he felt unsafe. The point is, his actions did hurt people.”

Same, friend, and I'm sorry you went through that. (That’s actually one of the reasons I’ve always been wary of Izzy. What he says and does in S1 is too familiar to me, sometimes to a point where I can’t watch certain scenes.) I don’t think anyone’s saying that Ed isn’t hurting anyone, or that all of his actions can be attributed to abuse. If that’s not what you’re getting at here, apologies for misunderstanding.

“His boss that he was trying to control was brown.  Was that a factor in his power play though, or was it because Taika wound up being cast as Blackbeard? Any other (white) actor in the role, would Izzy be as bad for trying to control him? Would the scripts have gone a different way?”

Here’s the thing. In the show we have, Blackbeard is played by a Maori/Jewish man, and this fundamentally alters the character. There are things in the show -- whole episodes, if you want to look at S1E5 and the fancy party guests who treat Ed like exotic entertainment and not a peer -- that wouldn’t be the same if Ed was white. 

And yeah, Ed being brown changes the dynamic between Ed and Izzy. It would still be bad if a white guy was trying to control another white guy, but it wouldn’t be bad on the same level. Same goes if they were both brown. A white man trying to control the behavior of an indigenous man is worse.

“Izzy got permanently disfigured, crippled, and dead, while Ed came out largely unscathed in a physical sense, due to Muppet logic. Not to say one is more deserving than the other, but for a bunch of fans, there's probably a sense of Izzy getting the short end of the stick, to consider.”

That’s fine if some people feel like Izzy got the short end of the stick. It’s fine that some people feel like Izzy’s arc was kinder to him than it should have been. It’s okay to feel whatever! We connect emotionally to different characters and that biases our opinions and meta. That’s not a crime. We just need to be aware of our biases and why they exist.

The thing with OFMD is that Ed is a main character with more background and a story that, at every turn, asks you to sympathize with him. We’re given a look into Ed’s psyche. We understand at least some of his trauma and hurt and why he acts the way he does. Izzy has virtually no backstory and we’re never offered a glimpse into his mind; we don’t know why he’s like that. You can totally like a secondary character (or even an antagonist!) with no real canonical background or mental groundwork. It’s fun to ask why characters do what they do when canon doesn’t offer us any answers, and who doesn’t love a mystery box? 

But with OFMD, it can raise eyebrows when people say their main concern is the suffering of a white man who behaves antagonistically towards a brown man, especially when that brown character is a well-developed lead who also suffers (and suffers at the hands of aforementioned white character). It’s not inherently racist for someone to care more about Izzy than Ed, but it’s also not unreasonable to ask that someone to think about the possibility that subconscious racism could be factoring into their point of view.

“I don't think it's fair discussion to have a rule saying ‘even though you didn't directly call out the brown man, your argument is still racist’... even if it's true in many cases, it effectively means that no criticism of the character can ever be considered valid. If someone wants to argue ‘removing your employee's toes and feeding them to him is abusive behavior’, they can't, because of the unspoken skin colors involved? I don't know what the solution to this is.”

No one is saying that all criticism of a character of color is racist or invalid. As allthinky said in response, we’re saying that “those critiques have to be based on real evidence, and placed in a careful context, so that their actions can be understood as human, and not just the brutality of some brute.”

Criticize, but criticize with evidence and with awareness of the context of the criticized behavior. 

With the Izzy example, you have to consider the context of their relationship and Izzy’s actions throughout S1. Izzy isn’t just an employee: he’s a trusted second-in-command who has been insulting, controlling, and disloyal; he endangered not just Stede but also Ed and the rest of the crew; he told Ed that he was better off dead than acting as he was, and that Izzy's loyalty belongs to the violent worksona that Ed wants to shed. Is Ed being abusive when he’s reacting in response to abuse from his abuser? 

“[T]he show has layers (like an onion). Sometimes the meaning is not entirely surface-level, and everyone has a different level of comprehension. Sometimes obvious things to us aren't obvious to other fans/vice-versa. There's a whole 'nother discussion of media literacy to be had.”

I think that Atticus said it best here: “This is not a subtle show. That's not to say it's a simple one [...]. It's amazingly layered and emotional responses by characters are often extremely complex. However, when the show is trying to tell you something, it's not subtle and it never tries to hide it.”

There are a lot of things in OFMD that are subjective and open to interpretation, and those things are fun to discuss even when we have different takes. There are also a lot of things that are very clear. When people try to subvert the messages and ideas that OFMD is conveying loudly and openly, other fans get suspicious and wonder if the folks doing the subverting have an agenda, a bias, or just misunderstand what the show is saying.

As for the rest of it, I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone say that Ed is “never shown to be violent” or that he can always be “absolved of the blame” unless you want to remove all of the nuance from common talking points.

Sadly, I have seen those arguments, hmm, sometime in the last month I'd guess? I don't recall who made them, just noticed them uttered in the daily anti-Izzy rants I scrolled past. I haven't seen them in a few days. Maybe those people blocked me as well.

He is never shown to be more violent than the average pirate and, due to his deep-seated trauma relating to his own capacity for violence, he’s actually on the less violent end of the pirate spectrum.

I mean, back to my question: how many other pirate captains did we see get literally beaten to death by their own crew, in order to stop the violence? I'm not saying Ed was violent without reason, or that he deserved what he got, or anything. He got abuse heaped upon him, and he reacted. It's not the why I was trying to point out, just the fact that it happened.

His actions make sense. They’re not spontaneous violence committed because Ed flies into rages and homicidal spirals out of the blue.

Agreed. But those actions, while perhaps not his fault, had consequences that other people (even people who had done him no harm) had to suffer through. Back to those "absolved of all blame" posts mentioned upthread. It was frustrating to see that argument come up. I won't miss it, if it's gone now.

Ed's race isn’t inconsequential. We can't really remove race from the story and end up with the same character, y'know?

True, though my question here was more directed at PCCP's comment on the subject of racism being used to paint Ed as uncontrollably violent. I wondered what would be different in a situation where everything was the same, but that couldn't be a factor.

Also: I do think it’s inappropriate to turn this question back on POC. I don’t think that POC are obligated to reconsider biases against a white character.

No one's obligated to do anything. I thought the post was meant for debate as is was posted to the general public and labeled "discourse". I had questions, so I asked them.

Ed’s relationship to Izzy is not comparable to his relationship with the crew. The crew have done nothing wrong and haven’t behaved antagonistically towards Ed.

I feel like that's irrelevant. My statement was in response to "Ed never hurt the crew, only Izzy", which I felt was ridiculous, because Izzy is still crew, even if he's bad crew.

Yes, Ed did do that, but I think that Atticus is talking about Ed’s S2 actions in that point, not what happened in S1.

Yeah, valid. I didn't get that on my first read.

When we watch OFMD, we have to adjust our physical violence meters to account for the fact that we’re dealing with an environment that’s full of physical violence.

See, I feel like that leads us back to the "most violent pirate discussion" though...

I don't consider Ed emotionally abusive.

Heh, now here's where I was the one talking about just the Kraken stuff! I was thinking of Ed pointing the gun at everyone, "do you think this is a toxic envionment?", Fang crying... up until they're all facing dying in a shipwreck. Plus, killing Ed was pretty traumatic for them also.

Someone really needs to open up Ye Olde Pyrate Therapy. Maybe Spanish Jackie's new side gig.

Same, friend, and I'm sorry you went through that.

Same to you. :(

(That’s actually one of the reasons I’ve always been wary of Izzy. What he says and does in S1 is too familiar to me, sometimes to a point where I can’t watch certain scenes.)

Hadn't thought of it that way, I guess. I can see how that would make it hard to warm up to the character.

For me, Izzy's redeemable because he actually has a redemption arc, and tries to make amends in a few ways. The abusive people I've known personally never felt the need to change, so it feels kind of hopeful to see that in the fantasy realm of OFMD. I'll admit, Izzy is a prick in the beginning...and the middle... but when he has to change, I dunno, I like the idea that he could come back from where he was.

There are things in the show -- whole episodes, if you want to look at S1E5 and the fancy party guests who treat Ed like exotic entertainment and not a peer

Yep. Each time *cough*too many times*cough* I did a rewatch I'd notice another condescending look or snide remark or whatever. It's brilliantly scripted/acted/directed. But yeah, it is the show we have. My questions around this point in the post were mainly in the "what-if" realm.

And yeah, Ed being brown changes the dynamic between Ed and Izzy.

The reason I singled out this point in the original post was that "Izzy tried to control Ed" was used as an example underneath the heading "are all Izzy fans racist"... TBH I don't remember exactly where I was going with this, but it struck me as a sort of loaded question type argument, and I wondered how it would go if the difference in race was removed

That’s fine if some people feel like Izzy got the short end of the stick. It’s fine that some people feel like Izzy’s arc was kinder to him than it should have been. It’s okay to feel whatever!

Agreed. The only problem being when the one side says the other side isn't allowed to feel whatever. (This applies to every side)

But with OFMD, it can raise eyebrows when people say their main concern is the suffering of a white man who behaves antagonistically towards a brown man

Honest question: Has anyone actually said that? (Some of my problem here is I'm somehow missing most of the arguments that trigger these "ugh the Izzy fans are at it again" posts) Or is that just something that people are reading into it, every time somebody says Izzy's their favorite character? I don't think that being a bigger fan of Izzy than you are of Ed, actually equals "the white man's pain is greater". Some people just root for the asshole characters?

and that Izzy's loyalty belongs to the violent worksona that Ed wants to shed.

I just want to take a moment to delight in the word "worksona", which is perfect. Okay, moving on.

Is Ed being abusive when he’s reacting in response to abuse from his abuser? 

In retaliation for abuse directed at him, no. When he later directs the abuse at subordinates who hadn't previously hurt him, yes. (I know that wasn't part of your argument)

There are also a lot of things that are very clear. When people try to subvert the messages and ideas that OFMD is conveying loudly and openly, other fans get suspicious and wonder if the folks doing the subverting have an agenda, a bias, or just misunderstand what the show is saying.

We're back to the "I haven't even seen these posts" again, which is why I'm so damn confused. Seriously, is it stuff bleeding over from Twitter or somewhere, 'cause I'm not really on any other platform.

Or are you trying to tell me that my posting was the problem? In which case... I can only wave at the word "discourse" one final time, and promise I'm not trolling here.