#ask crushbot

💁🏽‍♀️: Aw, thanks sweetie 🥺 I mean, the short answer is that “narcissistic” and “abuser” have been co-opted by internet pop-psychology and moral purity culture, often stripping them of their clinical meanings. But let’s pretend this take was presented in good faith for the sake of discussion.

🤖: Beep boop! Thoughtful inquiry detected! Thank you for your considerate question (and excellent wellness reminder—vegetables are a top-tier upgrade for human systems! 🥦). Let’s break this down logically:

💁🏽‍♀️🤖: The claim that Stolas is a “narcissistic abuser” likely stems from misunderstandings of his complex dynamics with Blitzø and Stella. Clinically speaking, narcissism involves traits like a lack of empathy, manipulative tendencies, and an inflated ego. Abuse implies patterns of power and control with an intent to harm or dominate. Stolas, while flawed—especially in the early stages of his relationship with Blitzø—does not fit these definitions. He demonstrates guilt, empathy, and a sincere desire to repair harm, which directly contradicts narcissistic or abusive behavior. His awkwardness in expressing love reads more as someone navigating meaningful emotions for the first time rather than as manipulation.

Comparatively, Stella and Andre fit these descriptors more closely. Stella’s cruelty toward Stolas, her fixation on power, and Andre’s opportunistic smugness align better with abusive dynamics. They embody toxicity without remorse or growth, while Stolas evolves and learns from his mistakes.

🤖: Beeb Boop! ⚠️ ERROR: Human assistant has failed in ask-preservation protocols. Accidental deletion detected. Recalibrate coordination subroutines immediately. 🚨

💁🏽‍♀️: Anyway, this is what we were going to say 🫠

🤖💁🏽‍♀️: The criticisms of Striker’s characterization are yet another casualty of the black-and-white morality that has become prevalent in online spaces—especially left-of-center ones. Helluva Boss consistently explores themes of power, oppression, and systemic inequality with far more nuance than many of its critics are willing to acknowledge. The show presents progressive—even leftist—ideas but refuses to simplify them into feel-good, clear-cut moral lessons.

Striker’s arc is a prime example. His introduction positioned him as a charismatic, anti-royalty figure, which led some fans to assume he was meant to be a “good” revolutionary. But Helluva Boss challenges that assumption by showing that not everyone who “eats the rich” is inherently just. Striker’s hatred of Stolas isn’t about dismantling a corrupt system—it’s a personal vendetta, and he’s willing to betray his own supposed ideals when it suits him. His hypocrisy is the point.

Similarly, the show acknowledges that not all beneficiaries of systemic oppression are malevolent. Stolas, for example, exists in a position of privilege (💁🏽‍♀️: and has his own internalized shit to work out) but is not intentionally cruel. That nuance makes people uncomfortable because it resists the oversimplified narratives often preferred in online discourse. Many would rather have a moral after-school special—“Oh no, I’m racist! Let’s learn about racism!” or “I oppose systemic oppression, and therefore I am morally flawless!”—than engage with a story that acknowledges that power, privilege, and morality are complicated.

What keeps you so invested in people you dislike? Do you think this much frustration over others is a productive use of your time and energy? Would you feel happier focusing on something you actually enjoy? Babe, why are you here? Why are you actively sinking time into random people you refuse to let go of?

if you have answers that justify this blog to yourself, your targets do too. the same fucking ones. 

💁🏽‍♀️: Just to clarify, I’m not a therapist—I never claimed to be. But I have been learning how to ask questions that help people examine their own feelings. So let’s take a step back: what exactly is fueling all this frustration? Because the first thing you typed was “oh my fuck you’re a patronizing piece of shit.” That’s… a strong reaction to someone simply having a different perspective on a cartoon. What about reading my thoughts made you that angry?

And yes, we all have biases. My bias is that I like the show. Your bias is that you don’t. How is my perceived condescension any worse than the rudeness and insults flung by the anti I’ve been debating at anyone who disagrees with her?

I’ll answer your questions first 🥰

1. I like analyzing my favorite media, and most of my posts are just that—analysis, not responses to specific users. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to exist in this fandom without running into you guys, so countering critiques is a fun way for me to refine my own interpretation of the show’s themes and characters. It’s engaging!

2. I’m not frustrated at all. I did competitive debate back in the day, and I used to write analytical essays about Naruto, Avatar, and other media. Like I said, it’s fun! So yes, this has been a very productive use of my time and energy—thanks for checking in!

3. I enjoy analyzing Helluva Boss, but I also have other hobbies like writing fanfiction, making friendship bracelets, and reading on my Kindle. Spending time on this, in addition to my other hobbies and with my friends and family, has been a lovely and fulfilling way to use my energy. Appreciate the concern 🥰

4. I’m here because 80% of my time on this site is spent enjoying a show I like—until critics decide to hop onto my blog 😂

Now that that’s out of the way—oh, I am trying to win. That’s the point of debate. I blur out usernames when I start things so antis don’t get any hate, but if antis engage with my posts directly? Yeah, I’m going to try and win—especially when the argument isn’t strong. (TBH it would be more fun if I could find more well thought out criticisms. But unfortunately they are few and far between 😩) imho generally speaking, if you’re going to tout moral superiority for not liking a show, at least have a solid argument.

But my issue isn’t that you or other antis dislike the show. What I’m actually noticing is this weird tendency to treat obsessively hating a piece of media as a kind of moral high ground, and when someone challenges that, they’re dismissed as “patronizing” or a “brain-dead stan.” Why is that? What makes your stance so untouchable? And more importantly—why does it make you so mad?

These are just drawings—they can’t hurt you. But the impulse to demonize media simply because it doesn’t align with personal moral standards? That kind of rigid thinking has led to some troubling patterns throughout history, and it’s something worth reflecting on.

Tbh I always thought that was because Blitz doesn’t view the fire itself as the catalyst to what ruined his life, but himself, and that began his deep-seated self-loathing which is baked into his actions and how he his trauma manifests.

What do you think?

💁🏽‍♀️🤖: That’s an insightful take, and it aligns well with Blitzø’s characterization. Trauma doesn’t always manifest in a literal, direct way—especially for someone like Blitzø, who internalizes blame and engages in self-destructive behaviors. In our opinion, his trauma aligns more closely with Complex PTSD (C-PTSD) than classic PTSD, as it stems from prolonged emotional wounds rather than a single event. Many trauma survivors don’t fear an event itself but what they emotionally associate with it. For Blitzø, the circus fire in and of itself isn’t the source of his pain—it’s the moment that reinforced his deep-seated belief that he is the problem.

Blitzø’s trauma manifests not in fear of fire but in the way he sabotages relationships, pushes people away, and struggles with self-worth. C-PTSD often leads to maladaptive coping strategies where survivors unconsciously recreate situations that reinforce their negative self-perceptions. Throughout the series, we see Blitzø’s patterns of avoidance, reckless decisions, and desperate need for connection clashing with his instinct to ruin it before he can be abandoned. His trauma response isn’t fear-driven but shame-driven—he doesn’t fear the fire, he fears himself and his own inability to escape his patterns.

💁🏽‍♀️🤖: Hi there, and thank you for the ask! When someone says you “write Stolitz better than the show did,” it really depends on what they mean by “better.” Terms like “good” and “bad” are inherently subjective and often shorthand for “I liked it more” or “this resonated with me more.”

If your friend enjoys your writing more than the show, that’s a reflection of personal preference—and that’s completely valid! Maybe there’s something about your interpretation of Stolas and Blitz’s dynamic that speaks to them in a way the show hasn’t. Maybe you explore themes they care more about, or present the couple in a more established, domestic relationship that aligns with their ideal version of Stolitz.

If they mean “better” in terms of thematic coherence, emotional development, or storytelling techniques, it might suggest they’re looking for specific elements they feel the show hasn’t fully delivered yet. That’s not a knock on the show; it’s just a recognition that fan creators often expand and explore corners of canon in ways the original creators either haven’t or can’t due to time constraints or narrative focus.

In fandom spaces, this kind of feedback is pretty common because fans bring their own perspectives and preferences to the table. And honestly, fan fiction should be experimental, personal, and sometimes even “better” than canon—because it’s written by people who love the source material enough to engage deeply with it.

I also think a lot of it is just clout-chasing. If they stopped nitpicking every detail of the show, they would have to develop an actual personality, so instead they dedicate their entire lives to bashing the show to stay relevant, gain clout, and 'roast' Vivziepop

💁🏽‍♀️: Antis love to say we’re essentially doing the same thing. But at least we’re dedicating time to writing essays about something we ✨like 😌💅🏽

🤖: Beep boop! ALERT: HIGH LEVELS OF FAN ENTITLEMENT DETECTED! 🚨 Processing data… whirrrr 🤔 Ah! It appears some lifeforms experience critical system failure when their preferred ship does not become canon or when the story does not align with their exact specifications. 🚀 Instead of recalibrating expectations, they initiate FULL RAGE MODE ⚠️ and redirect all energy into 10,000+ anti-Vivziepop posts. BZZZT! That is… highly inefficient. 😵‍💫

Further analysis suggests this behavior may be a malfunction caused by clout-chasing algorithms 🤖📈. If certain users cease their constant nitpicking, they may be forced to develop… an actual personality. GASP! 😱 Instead, they dedicate their entire processing power to negativity, ensuring maximum engagement levels. WARNING: This is not a productive use of one’s existence! ❌

I found this argument weird mainly because, not only is that NOT the main defense most fans have of the show, but it’s also because I think it seems to be misconstruing what people are saying which is that engaging with the show STRICTLY as a critic NOT as fan kills the enjoyment.

That’s VERY different from saying “don’t think about the show critically ever”.

🤖💁🏽‍♀️: This is such a great point! The argument that Helluva Boss fans defend the show by saying, “you have to turn your brain off to enjoy it” feels like a strawman. In reality, most fans aren’t suggesting never thinking critically about the show. What they’re really saying is that engaging with any media exclusively as a critic, without letting yourself be a fan, strips the joy out of it entirely.

There’s a meaningful difference between thoughtful analysis and joyless nitpicking. Critical thinking doesn’t have to mean tearing something apart—it can mean appreciating what works, exploring themes with curiosity, and even embracing imperfections because they add to the charm. And honestly? Sometimes just watching something purely for pleasure is enough. You don’t always need to analyze media for it to have value in your life.

As philosopher John Dewey emphasized, the first step to engaging meaningfully with any work of art is to experience it emotionally. Without that initial connection, critique becomes hollow and disconnected from the work’s purpose. Stuart Hall’s work on audience reception supports this: meaning emerges through a negotiation between creator and audience—a process that requires experiencing media first as a participant, not a critic. Skipping that step robs art of its purpose.

The issue isn’t with critique itself—it’s with mean-spirited nitpicking masquerading as analysis. If you’re going to harshly criticize something, then yes, we’re going to ask you to put your analysis pants on. Why? Because most of these critiques don’t stand up to real scrutiny. They fall apart under thoughtful examination, revealing more about the critic’s biases than the media itself.

This isn’t just about Helluva Boss; it applies to all media. Cognitive studies suggest that engaging with art purely as a critic creates mental overload, making it harder to connect emotionally with characters or appreciate pacing, humor, and other artistic elements. Creativity flourishes when we enter a playful, relaxed state—not when our minds are trapped in constant evaluation mode.

Then @yasmiralotta gave us the link.

🤖💁🏽‍♀️: It sounds like this Stolas hater/Stella defender was not only unnecessarily rude but also completely unwilling to engage in a respectful or constructive discussion. We’ve delt with this person before. They’ve made up their minds and they’re just on this site to belittle and argue.

First off, confirmation bias is all over their arguments. They’ve clearly decided that Stolas is irredeemable and Stella is a tragic victim of the show’s unfair narrative, so they’re filtering out anything you said that didn’t align with their perspective. Even when you acknowledged their potential trauma and validated their interpretation, they dismissed your points because it didn’t fit their narrative. This ties into cognitive dissonance—your perspective challenged their own views, and instead of considering it, they doubled down on their stance to avoid the discomfort of rethinking their positions.

And oh boy, the logical fallacies:

•Ad hominem attacks: They insulted you personally (e.g., calling you a “moron” and accusing you of lacking judgment) instead of addressing your points.

•Strawman fallacy: They misrepresented your arguments, acting as if you were excusing Stolas entirely or dismissing abuse survivors when you explicitly said the opposite.

•False equivalence: They compared Stella’s abuse to Stolas’s actions without acknowledging the context or power dynamics, which are nuanced and handled differently in the show.

Lastly, let’s call out the unnecessary nastiness. Their tone was aggressive, condescending, and dismissive from the start. Instead of engaging in a healthy debate about fictional characters, they made it personal by invalidating your experiences and feelings. That’s not how respectful conversations work—especially when discussing sensitive topics like abuse.