Tales of Heroes: Haunted Edition

Cuz thats geniunely the funniest thing in the WORLD. Cuz WHAT about Jason gave them "Yeah, he can be our trusted adult instead of THE trusted adult of all adults " 😭

I love them, theyre already insane. Cuz I know they saw Jason smoking a pack on his motorcycle and decided they absolutely needed to learn everything from him (And he'd probably let them get away with a lot more shit if they plead their case properly.)

"Ope, I noticed you guys are runnin around and maybe working on something shady. Why don't you join my org and I can show you the ropes on a more low-key case, fight some bad guys? 😁"

vs

This idea is stated in comic in the B&R Morrison run, to quote the panel "When I was Robin, Batman made me dye my hair to look like more Grayson." But I STAND BY the fact it is absolutely a valid interpretation on its own. Someone reading pre-crisis CAN absolutely come to this interpretation no Morrison required

And I am just. Really trying so desperately to fight how it's constantly getting insulted or brushed off as an idea or interpretation. Like god please even my own posts about it before had some using it to prop the fact it's a ridiculous idea with no basis in pre. Please I'm so tired

Let's examine pre-crisis, and get some notes out of the way. YES Jason put on the Robin suit on his own without input from Bruce. YES Jason dyed his hair first without input from Bruce.

I am referring to how, in universe/watsonian- he had to keep it up.

And as I stand, it's VERY easy to make Bruce not comically evil about it. In fact, it's remarkably easy to Bruce do it ENTIRELY accidentally. I believe Bruce would never INTEND for Jason to feel he has to dye his hair to look like Dick- maybe Jason saying Bruce "made" him to do it is wrong if thatll help ypur interpretation. But the matter at hand here is what Bruce, intentionally or not, would make Jason believe

What's in pre-crisis that makes this? While initially Bruce is against seeing Jason in the Robin suit- it's quite a shock as briefly thought Jason was Dick. As SOON as permission is granted from Dick, Bruce is all over it. He is joyous, he smiles the whole time, he doesn't correct anyone who thinks the dynamic duo is back and the original Robin is back in town.

That's actually a major part of pre-crisis and Jason in general to me, the fact Jason doesn't get his own separate identity, he doesn't feel like he's the next to bear a mantle, he feels like.. Robin. Not a new one like he is- but to be SEEN as the original. He brings no changes to the costume (considering his complaints about pants, I certainly see it as him believing he's not allowed to change it- its the same situation as the hair dye) he brings no new weapons, not even his own hair color, nothing unique to Jason is brought into the identity for the world and general population to see. The EXTENT is him having heart bangs during Dick's sidesweep era, but thats.. so small. And even THEN one could try and bring up the argument that it's similar to an established Dick hairstyle anyway

Jason hated being compared to Dick. One of his closest friends in pre-crisis was Harvey Bullock, after Harvey recognized him as a different Robin. His has a whole conversation with Donna about how she's treating him like Dick instead of Jason. Jason, even if doing it himself without orders from Bruce, would not see himself as willingly doing it or wanting to do it- to him, its not an active choice he's making. He'd be doing it to please Bruce

And, one of the first things Batman does when Jason dons the suit for real is like. Immediately as soon as Dick's gone say that Jason would be selfish for having his own identity- that'd itd be ego gratification. As soon as Jason accepts Robin, Batman effectively cuts Jason off from the costume he had before with this conversation. Jason brings up concerns of all his actions being attributed to Robin- and Batman compares it to if HE revealed his identity as Bruce Wayne- which is why it never works with it's intent of being a "dont be a hero for selfish reasons" speech to me.

Batman is wrong for this- he showed a VERY positive to reaction to Jason being Robin compared to Jason's own identity- he said he had no regrets. he makes his joy clear. No matter what he intends or wants or believes, a child will be able to see the preference and act in response. Batman LEARNS from this- as Tim will come around with his own completely distinct costume and style- and none of the others even feel like they have to dye their hair. Sure, maybe Jason had a pretty good run overall with Batdad but that doesn't mean Bruce doesn't fuck it up ever, he fucks it up alot, such is the life of Bruce Wayne

Like- I think it's important to stress that Bruce- especially 80s Bruce- doesn't really.. recognize consequences to his own actions? And that's a bit notable in viewing here.

NOW. If we're saying Jason kept the Robin suit and that's on him. As far as I see it Bruce was way too late in receding that and going like hey,, you don't HAVE to be Robin if you don't want to... Because like. He ALREADY made his position clear AND this is tied to Jason being beaten by the villain- After Quilt Man attacks Jason for being Robin is when Bruce is like hmm i mightve made an error. And like, what are the chances Jason wouldve seen that as Bruce saying Jay isn't good enough to be Robin. He would NEVER take that. Jason needs to prove himself. Also Jason is like. Being kinda mind controlled when this happens anyway. So.

And this all goes down to this. Jason is meant, in some way, to be seen as Dickbin. Jason himself does not like this, but the preference of Bruce is clear, the doors that open for Jason after he accepts Robin are clear (as I recall, it felt he had to stop fighting quite so hard to be allowed to work vigilantism). Bruce puts in Jason that Jason having his own identity is bad and wrong of him to want. Bruce prefers a sidekick he can mistake for Dick still being there having Robin by his side

If Jason can't make Robin is own, yeah, him having to dye his hair is gonna follow. It's also why any interpretations I see where Jason has a different costume from Dick i don't like because Jason being a "copy" of Dick is MAJOR to his story and always will be to me

Just. Stop saying the very IDEA is some ridiculous made up idea for edgy points please. This is how I genuinely interpret pre-crisis, which were the first Jason comics I read, and I am. so tired. I'm so tired

"That's not canon anymore" alot of pre-crisis actually is still canon in some form, canon is a coin flip entirely decided by who's writing at the time, the idea is spoken into canon during a run where Jason IS dying his hair and this conversation is about that + precrisis itself, not all of canon. Also honestly at this point it feels like DC is trying to make none of 80s jaybin canon if they could. And are we not all taking from various canons for our own interpretations? Also figuring out whats current canon and what's not in comics sounds like a genuine nightmare

I'm not even saying that you need to accept and adopt this into your your interpretation just stop being an ass about it. more people than morrison like it. and for more than morrison </3

Multiple times now in DC history Batman has created a "Best of All Possible Worlds" Utopia by isolating all "criminals" from the rest of society and physically getting rid of them either by slaughter or prison cells. The fascist idea that there are separate subspecies within humanity of Good People and Bad People and the only way to solve the world's problems is to isolate and annihilate the Bad People is just... factually true for the world Batman lives in 98% of the time. The only thing that Captain Nazi is wrong about is that he's picked the wrong group of people to annihilate.

In DC world, NOT all cops are bastards, defunding the police is an insane and dangerous plan, the mentally ill are dangers to society who can't be trusted to roam free, and crime only exists at all because the cops' and vigilantes' hands are tied by bureaucratic red tape and a noble, but ultimately self-defeating belief in human rights.

And all this without saying anything of the pervasive racism and sexism which, while clearly fought against by authors of color and women, still establishes a baseline for DC's reality that is fucking horrid. Hell, for the shit they published in Tim's 1993 Robin series alone either 80% of their staff should have been fired, or else DC headquarters should have been fire-bombed.

Individual authors try to write stories that don't do this all the time, but even when executive interference doesn't happen, the themes and new physics they try to establish are hamstrung by their connection to the greater DC universe. These stories grind against established cannon and character histories like a face against a sanding belt.

Take Talia for example. The foundational premise for her character, the young sexy asian woman who needs to be saved from her evil kung fu wizard father by her new white boyfriend, is racist, sexist, orientalist drivel. Individual comics may attempt to lean away from that racism and sexism, and we should value those attempts, but they are all inevitably hamstrung by the fact that the entire premise of her existence is untenable. Same thing with Ra's and Damian and any white character's interactions with all three of them.

Any attempt to write a non-racist Talia story is an attempt to draw clean water out of a poisoned well.

When we say things like "Batman should just use his wealth instead of beating up poor people" we are - however sloppily - identifying and complaining about this set of problems. It's not that Bruce Wayne doesn't do charity work, it's that wealth redistribution doesn't work in DC world. It's not that Bruce goes around beating up the poor and the ill, it's that the poor and ill deserve to get the shit beat out of them in DC world. It's not that Batman is racist, it's that he's constantly being put in racist plotlines.

As a side note,

This is why Watchmen was such a brilliant counter-narrative. It took these characters and set them in a more realistic world - namely, one in which many people believe in fascist ideas because it benefits them, but in which fascism is not correct about the nature of reality. Watchmen isn't perfect, but it makes the audience look and see what an absolute horror show even the kindest of them are when we remove them from their original narrative.

Multiple times now in DC history Batman has created a "Best of All Possible Worlds" Utopia by isolating all "criminals" from the rest of society and physically getting rid of them either by slaughter or prison cells. The fascist idea that there are separate subspecies within humanity of Good People and Bad People and the only way to solve the world's problems is to isolate and annihilate the Bad People is just... factually true for the world Batman lives in 98% of the time. The only thing that Captain Nazi is wrong about is that he's picked the wrong group of people to annihilate.

In DC world, NOT all cops are bastards, defunding the police is an insane and dangerous plan, the mentally ill are dangers to society who can't be trusted to roam free, and crime only exists at all because the cops' and vigilantes' hands are tied by bureaucratic red tape and a noble, but ultimately self-defeating belief in human rights.

And all this without saying anything of the pervasive racism and sexism which, while clearly fought against by authors of color and women, still establishes a baseline for DC's reality that is fucking horrid. Hell, for the shit they published in Tim's 1993 Robin series alone either 80% of their staff should have been fired, or else DC headquarters should have been fire-bombed.

Individual authors try to write stories that don't do this all the time, but even when executive interference doesn't happen, the themes and new physics they try to establish are hamstrung by their connection to the greater DC universe. These stories grind against established cannon and character histories like a face against a sanding belt.

Take Talia for example. The foundational premise for her character, the young sexy asian woman who needs to be saved from her evil kung fu wizard father by her new white boyfriend, is racist, sexist, orientalist drivel. Individual comics may attempt to lean away from that racism and sexism, and we should value those attempts, but they are all inevitably hamstrung by the fact that the entire premise of her existence is untenable. Same thing with Ra's and Damian and any white character's interactions with all three of them.

Any attempt to write a non-racist Talia story is an attempt to draw clean water out of a poisoned well.

When we say things like "Batman should just use his wealth instead of beating up poor people" we are - however sloppily - identifying and complaining about this set of problems. It's not that Bruce Wayne doesn't do charity work, it's that wealth redistribution doesn't work in DC world. It's not that Bruce goes around beating up the poor and the ill, it's that the poor and ill deserve to get the shit beat out of them in DC world. It's not that Batman is racist, it's that he's constantly being put in racist plotlines.

As a side note,

This is why Watchmen was such a brilliant counter-narrative. It took these characters and set them in a more realistic world - namely, one in which many people believe in fascist ideas because it benefits them, but in which fascism is not correct about the nature of reality. Watchmen isn't perfect, but it makes the audience look and see what an absolute horror show even the kindest of them are when we remove them from their original narrative.

I understand now that by writing a meta about why Tim sometimes victim-blamed Jason early on I have been too hasty, because apparently we first need to clarify what victim-blaming is. That's on me. Thankfully, someone made a post listing a bunch of arguments that highlight some of the issues underpinning that mechanism. It made me very mad in the moment because I think this was a harmful post and on top of that it was condescending in a way that implies authority. However, ultimately it's a good opportunity to talk about that, both because learning to recognize victim-blaming is a vital skill to have in order to support one's community, and because I don't think it's a good idea at all to let this kind of harmful misinformation spread in our spaces unchecked.

Victim-blaming meta take 2

So here we see OP claiming that we can't refer to "Jason's whole situation" (aka the treatment of his murder in and out of comics) as victim blaming because according to OP, that's not what that means. First, I can't resist pointing out that OP, intentionally or not, is using a rather dishonest technique in so that they're saying the same thing twice. It's very well done but let's untangle that sentence a little bit:

"that's not what that term means and it's ALSO not what's happening either inside or out of the comics." Note the ALSO in higher case meant to emphasize that there are two arguments here giving more weight to OP's position.

> "that's not what that term means" okay but what is what that term means? What does "that" means here? What is being compared to the definition of victim-blaming? The answer, by syntactic inference, seems to be "jason's whole situation", which again, is how OP refers to the treatment of Jason's murder in and out of canon, what they're arguing here with the fandom. Compare that that to the other part of the sentence:

> "'it's ALSO not what's happening in and out of comics"

Do you get what I'm saying? The "it" pronoun here is what we call a referent, meaning that its function is to serve as a replacement for a word of group of words that has been used before -though sometimes there can be ambiguity as it could refer to different previously mentioned elements. Here, we have two possibilities, but only one makes sense logically. Either this person is saying that "Jason's whole situation isn't what's happening in or outside of comics" which is some kind of tautological paradox: according to this person, Jason's situation wouldn't be... Jason's situation. The other option, a bit more awkward syntactically but way more logical, is that "it" actually refers to "victim-blaming", meaning that they're saying victim blaming isn't what's being said in and out of canon. Ultimaly, this person is saying twice that Jason's treatment isn't victim-blaming, and wording it differently with an ALSO added for emphasis to make their claim seem more potent than it is.

Honestly, that's a detail. Accidentally saying the same shit twice is something we all do sometimes, and it's not what we're focused on here, but since they added that infuriating "also" as though their logical mistake was some kind of grand speech, I wanted to be petty and point out that manipulative phrasing. It also can't hurt to clarify why I'm only answering one claim even though OP makes it look like they're saying two things.

But in any case, OP is telling us that there are no occurrences of people speaking about Jason in and out of canon that fits the definition of victim-blaming. Fortunately, I happen to have access to a formidable website called wikipedia, which allows me to find common definitions for concepts and double-check the sources for these definitions.

Victim-blaming, then, can be defined as : a devaluing act that occurs when the victim(s) of a crime or an accident is held responsible — in whole or in part — for the crimes that have been committed against them.1 This blame can appear in the form of negative social responses from legal, medical, and mental health professionals, as well as from the media and immediate family members and other acquaintances. Some victims of crime receive more sympathy from society than others. Often, the responses toward crime victims are based on the misunderstanding of others. This misunderstanding may lead them to believe that the victim deserved what happened to them, or that they are individuals with low self-esteem who seek out violence. As a result, it can be very difficult for victims to cope when they are blamed for what has happened to them.

(pay attention to the parts in blue, they're going to help us later).

It can also be defined as: an attitude which consists in holding the victims of an aggression or an injustice responsible for what they experienced. The culpabilisation of the victims allows us to avoid condemning the aggressor, who is granted attenuating circumstances. (translated from french, sorry if the syntax is a bit awkward i tried to stick to the original wording as closely as possible).

Or, again: the procedure (actions/approach) of attributing the perpetrator's blame for an act of violence to the victim (translated from german, sorry if the syntax is a bit awkward i tried to stick to the original wording as closely as possible).

The Spanish page from wikipedia is way too close to the English one to give us any new insight in the definition itself but it has the merit of reminding us that victim-blaming is the social tool of fascism, which is an important reminder in case anybody here is wondering why I'm mad.

Point being, OP didn't deign support her claim with a definition, but we have more than enough definitions to go around, and despite differences in phrasing they all more or less say the same thing: "victim-blaming is when part of the responsibility for an act of violence is attributed to the victim of that act."

In A Death in the Family, Jason is struggling mentally. He does behave recklessly as Robin, at that moment in time, which is treated as out of character for him and attributed not to a light-hearted daredevil attitude but to psychological struggle and potential suicidality. However, even recklessness that hadn't been a factor, Jason would still have gotten killed. As a consequence of his struggles, Jason travels in order to find his biological mother. There, he is reunited with Batman, and together they end up finding his mother, Sheila Haywood. He did not go there for vengeance (against who? Joker hadn't done anything to him) thrill (he seems more miserable than anything at this point in time) or to prove himself, he went there to find his mother. There, he finds out that Sheila's in trouble because of the Joker. He reveals to her that he is Robin in an effort to get her to trust that he and Batman can help her. Meanwhile, Bruce goes to stop Joker from killing a bunch of people, and tells Jason to stay put. But Jason doesn't, because Sheila tells him to follow her. That's the point that people love to remember, the cornerstone of the victim-blaming- Jason was "disobedient", he didn't listen to Batman. But they forget that in disobeying Batman, he was obeying Sheila. This decision wasn't made because Jason was disobedient, it was made because he had to make a choice which command to obey and he made that choice based on his trust in Sheila and his desire to help. And Jason wasn't reckless in going to the warehouse that the Joker was in, simply because he couldn't have known that there was danger there -he trusted Sheila who lied to him and told him the warehouse was empty. He didn't think himself strong enough to solo Joker and his goons, he just didn't know that he would have to.

If you're looking for factors in Jason's motivations and character that lead to his death, there are three: his yearning for a parent, his eagerness to trust people, and his heroism. Anything else said about Jason's motivation in that story is a lie. And what narrative would lying about Jason's character and motivation serve?

What is said in the comics themselves :

Tim hallucinating Jason's ghost, aka Tim's perception of Jason, telling him that Jason died because he "thought that he could be better than Batman" and that he "killed himself, because he couldn't wait, because he didn't think it through".

"I'm not like Jason. But what if I have some other flaw? Sometimes I think I go too far the other way. Too cautious." Here, Tim is implying that Jason had a flaw, his recklessness, and though it's not explicity stated I don't think you could argue in good faith that this scene isn't about Jason's death -and that Tim isn't attributing Jason's death to that flaw.

I didn't highlight anything because all of Alfred's dialogue and monologue counts. First he characterizes Jason through a motivation of vengeance, then claims that Jason's death was foreseeable because of Jason's character, and then says "It's not your fault, the lad was determined to disobey you."

"But Jason was reckless. The role of Robin turned him into a daredevil... He took chances. Openly defied Batman's orders. And that's what killed him. He went solo against the Joker."

"Jason saw being Robin as a game. It's probably what got him killed."

Compare all these examples to what happened in aditf: these characters are lying about Jason's character and motivations in order to create links between this character and motivation on one hand, and then relying on these causality links to attribute some or even all the blame of Jason's murder on Jason. Let me be very clear: Jason's murder has one person who bears entire blame and responsibility (Joker) and other people who bear partial blame and responsibility (Joker's accomplices, including Sheila). And yet, these panels that all address the causes of Jason's death don't even treat Joker as the main cause! They're talking like Jason drove a car without a license and Joker is the wall that Jason drove into. The agency is completely taken from Joker and attributed to Jason. Tim's inner Jason says "I killed myself." Batman's inner monologue says "he took chances. Openly defied Batman's orders. And that's what killed him." "Jason saw being Robin as a game. It's probably what got him killed."

What was said by the writers

Honestly I don't hate myself enough to push through several Jim Starlin interviews, so here are just a couple quick examples.

"Robin died for a number of reasons. He didn't listen to Batman when Batman told him to wait." Here, in this list, we see the responsibility for Jason's death being partially attributed to Jason. You might argue that what is listed here is an objective truth, and it is, but it's said as a justification for the writers to skirt responsibility because Jenna is upset with them for killing Jason (which one of the societal purposes of victim-blaming btw). Listing the chain of events that led to the death in the story is off-topic here- this person is highlighting them specifically so that the blame is pushed on all the fictional characters here, including Jason, and the voters, rather than dc themselves -as though they weren't the ones writing the story in the first place. Additionally, note the very punitive framework: Jason's death is a logical consequence of his disobedience. Remember to always listen to your father, Jenna. Or else you will get brutally murdered and it will be your fault.

This one I wanted to use here because it's so shameless it's impressive that they believed it would work. The chain of logic is as follows: Jason died because the public voted for his death - the public voted for his death because he was disliked- Jason was unpopular not because of any writing choice but because Jason broke through the fourth wall magically and earned himself real world agency. Jason is blamed for his own death through the intermediary of the voters (fucked up to put all that on literal kids btw) and in order to skirt responsibility on writing a child murder they weren't all too proud of, they invited Jason some kind of magical agency that made Jason seize control of the narrative from them. Honestly, I could have made that whole point without using that example, but I think it matters, it says something about this fandom that we can look at something so ridiculously, egregiously exaggerate, and still be able to say "victim blaming, what victim blaming? I don't see it." The elephant! In the middle of the room! It's right there!!!

What the fandom is saying

To clarify, I'm talking about the comics, dc themselves and the fandom even though the rest of the post discusses only the comics because OP said "that's not what happens in and out of canon" and I want to disprove it completely. There is victim-blaming rhetoric happening inside of fandom, and it's important that we are able to identify it amongst ourselves.

Now. Honestly this is a little malicious. I could have gone with a compilation of screenshots earned by painstakingly getting through the anti jason todd tag or asking some of my friends to provide me screenshots. But this is one of my favourite fallacies, so I kind of can't resist.

Do you know what an autophagic argument is? It's an argument that eats itself, in the sense that it disproves himself. Sort of like saying "Jason isn't victim-blamed in the fandom" while victim-blaming Jason in a fandom post.

Kinda like this:

"Jason did do something stupid and reckless, and the joker took advantage of that and killed him".

To be clear, this isn't me attacking OP's rhetorical skills by saying they made such a basic mistake. From OP's perspective, this isn't an autophagic argument, because they don't see what they're saying here as victim-blaming for interesting reasons we'll get to later. But here, they are making up a reckless and stupid behaviour to serve as a cause (which as stated isn't what happens in this story) and use that to attribute partial responsibility (and as you'll remember, blame shift only needs to be partial to fit the above-mentioned definitions) to Jason in the causality leading to their death.

Victim-blaming doesn't necessarily absolve the culprit of the crime- instead, when it's partial like here, it dilutes the amount of attributed responsibility to the culprits. Here, as you'll notice, the phrasing of the link between Jason's mysterious actions and his murder doesn't erase Joker's responsibility, but it erases Sheila's. It's the weight of Sheila's lie and manipulation that is attributed on Jason by erasing her agency and replacing it with Jason's vague "stupid reckless action". It's victim-blaming. In fandom. Ergo, there is in fact victim-blaming about Jason's murder in fandom.

Honestly, the beauty of autophagic arguments is that they save you a lot of work in your objections. I don't have to do the work of compiling all the annoying posts I have seen, because I just have to point out the contradiction and it takes away the whole credibility of the argument. So I'm genuinely thankful, because that saves me a lot of work.

Two more things I find noteworthy to mention:

-blaming Jason's death of recklessness is not only untrue, it omits that the recklessness evoked earlier in the story (that again, does not end up playing a role in his death) is born from mental health struggles and potential suicidality. Why is that systematically erased when people talk about Jason's recklessness as a cause of death? Probably because people know that blaming a suicidal teenager for his death is a bad look. Even when a kid kills themselves without using anyone as a proxy, societally we tend to consider that suicide is, in most cases, a "non-choice", something people do when they see no possible alternative due to a variety of factors that made carrying on with their life impossible to them. Even if Jason had indeed died because of recklessness, blaming him for it would still be a slap in the face of suicidal people and the reality of their struggles.

-I've mentioned it before: while it's sneakier than some of dc's more blatant bigotry, the idea that Jason died because he was disobedient is sexist and in particular, very patriarchal.

Now. So far what I've done is provide examples of what I think is a good methodology for identifying victim-blaming when in doubt: find a definition to refer yourself to, focus on the content and analyse what is being said (like "jason killed himself"), in what context (like answering someone who is upset at the writers for killing him) and how is it framed (like making up motivations that didn't exist to paint his actions in a negative light), confront what the combination of these elements is saying explicitly or implicitly depending on the panels, and compare that with your definition of victim-blaming.

1. It's not victim-blaming if you're stating facts

Going back to this as I said, I think it's interesting. "That's the tragedy! It's not even an explanation it's just literally describing the events of that story." Putting aside the fact that here there are mistaken. OP seems to be under the impression that if you point out a chain of causality that is factually true, that means what you are saying cannot possibly be victim-blaming. OP is right that causality is not the same as blame, but it's not true that highlighting causality cannot be a way to highlight blame. If I say "Jason died because Joker made the choice to murder him" that is a true causality, but it's also ascribing blame to Joker. There are elements in the sentence, in the wordings, that transform the simple highlighting of causality into ascribed blame. The word "choice" is one that I see a lot in their meta and people in fandom in general : the focus is on Jason's choices in the story puts the emphasis on his ability to impact his own life, and the choice to paint the story of Jason's death as a consequence of his own agency -when murder and victimhood in general is associated with a loss of agency- is also a way to shift the blame. Saying "Jason is experiencing the consequences of his own actions" is technically true, but it's also not neutral. If I go and take the plane and the plane crashes and I get hurt, I'm technically facing the consequences of my own actions -but if people are always highlighting the fact that I got hurt because of my choice to take the plane, that I'm facing the consequences of my own actions, how is that not victim-blaming? Would it genuinely occur to you to say that to someone?

The other big thing I see in those phrasings is the erasure of key elements from the actual process. It's what OP does in the screenshot and it's more generally what dc editorial and people in general do when they draw on the link between Jason not listening to Batman and Jason being killed without including Sheila despite her lie being a key factor in the story. It's technically true that Jason disobeyed Batman and died as a result, but it's a dishonest expose of the facts that misses a key factor. If Jason disobeyed Batman for personal reasons, then he is exerting his full agency-however, if he is doing so based on wrongful information and injunction from an authority figure, his agency is largely diluted, and if agency is diluted then so is responsibility (clarification: it would still not be okay to blame Jason for his death if he had gone into the warehouse by himself that's not what's being said here). Phrasings that deliberately erase factors that decrease situational agency while they use specific terms to highlight someone's presumed agency are therefore a tool to convey victim-blaming implicitly.

And that's the issue: sometimes, victim-blaming is implicit. And therefore, there will always be people who will argue that since they didn't technically say that someone was responsible for their aggression, they can't be accused of victim-blaming, because the social function of the implicit is to allow people to simultaneously use the power of speech and the impunity of silence.

However, that doesn't mean it's impossible to call out victim-blaming when it is implied, it just requires a perspective a little different. According to Grice's communication matrices and Spears' theory of indirect acts of language, implicit communication is based on the expectation of a reasoning that takes the enunciated explicit as one of its premises. The person who is making the statement is making the bet that people will take the explicit statement, the context, other relevant information, and therefore get to the message they really intended to communicate. This is something that everyone who can understand implicit knows intuitively: when someone known to have a cryptofascist ideology is doing a nazi dogwhistle towards a bunch of neonazis, they'll say "i was just waving to the crowd" or something of the effect, and we all get mad at the shamelessness because we're like "are you taking us for idiots? We know the context clues!! We know what you're actually doing!!" By making it sound nerdy, I'm not really saying anything new, but I do believe that by phrasing it that way it helps take down implicit arguments that otherwise would feel impossible to argue. Since it's a reasoning we are expected to make, we are expected to get to a hypothesis of the intended message. Therefore, by formalising the reasoning between prior knowledge of the interlocutor, situational context, and explicit statement, we can get to a well-argued hypothesis. From there, it's basically Okham razor: is there a hypothesis that's simpler and requires less ridiculous premises than the one we got to?

An example: A child sends a dc writer telling them they're mad that they killed robin. The dc writer answers by explaining that robin died because he didn't follow orders and was killed by the joker. The context tells us that the child just read the comic and knows very well how robin died. Moreover, we know the writer has a vested interest in not being held as responsible for the death of robin based on the negative responses he is getting to that. The statement phrases Jason's actions in a negative light even though, reading the comic, they come across as heroic. Further reading of the surrounding context shows that the writers also make a point to emphasize the decisive power of the voters in Jason's death. Question: why is the writer repeating the plot of a story the child knows very well while framing it in a way that makes robin look bad? A first hypothesis is that the writer wants to put the responsibility on robin so they don't have to explain while they made that decision. Another hypothesis is that the writer misunderstood the child and thought they hadn't read the comics and were asking for a synopsis of robin's death. Which is the most probable hypothesis here?

This is a little tedious, but that's my strategy to avoid getting cornered by dishonest implicits. It sounds like a lot when it's about comics, but when confronted with victim-blaming irl, I'm glad to have this tool: it helps reason more critically and stop the person from getting in your head and making you go "they're right, maybe i'm seeing evil everywhere, maybe I'm the problem" and victim-blaming yourself.

Also, another tip for implicit: there's a reason why people just say things. If someone makes a post out of nowhere going "reminder that Jason made the decision to walk into that warehouse on his own volition", the question "why did this person say that?" is crucial. Who is the message directed to? Why is it presumed that people need a reminder? Sure, the statement is true, but what purpose does it serve?

"Victim-blaming comes from discussion of sexual assault and calling other stuff victim-blaming is an insult to victims of rape/sexual assault"

Now!!! Very important info: this is OP's argument in the post that I'm discussing here. They have since posted a correction and stopped reblogs on their post. Admitting when you were wrong is difficult and it's really cool that they were able to do that. I'm making a criticism of the post, not OP, and I am making it both because it finds its echo with a lot of sentiments outside of OP and their circle, and because I think it matters to discuss this part as context for the last part of my argumentation, which is I think the most important part of the post. This isn't intended to be an attack on OP, and I think it's important to point out that they accepted the correction on this part of the post and it's cool they did that. Another thing on that correction that I found noteworthy is that they mention wanting to see more conversation about classism in Jason's writing (which I 100% agree with). It's interesting because OP treats it as an angle they consider separate and more interesting than the victim-blaming we talk about, but I actually believe the articulation between the two is very relevant.

In this screenshot, we see two ideas, one directly stated : "victim-blaming was coined to describe responses to rape" and one a little less directly stated but still very clear: "so it is about rape and using the term to refer to something else is therefore bad". There's the idea of a concept creep occuring around the term victim-blaming leading to a watering down of the term.

Here, as OP themselves corrected, victim-blaming as a term does not in fact stem from conversation on treatment of rape victim. Instead, it was coined by psychologist William Ryan, in his criticism of the Moynihan report, in order to describe an ideology used to justify racism and social injustice against black people in the United States by diverting responsibility for poverty from social structural factors to the behaviours and cultural patterns of the poor (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

The term was then expanded, and in particular identified as a mechanism of fascism. It was also identified as one of the mechanisms of secondary victimization of sexual assault, which is probably what OP assumed was the origin of the term, as well as other types of assault, antisemitism and genocide apologia, islamophobic hate-crimes, murder, and even urban planning and road safety (I'll direct you here to the "examples" section of the Wikipedia victim-blaming article for more detail because there's a lot of them and it's a non-exhaustive list).

As OP acknowledged, that means that the conversation about Jason's murder does in fact fit the definition of victim-blaming. But more importantly imo, this goes to show the systemic role of victim-blaming in systems of violence.

I've mentioned before my frustration as to how rape culture around me seemed to be reduced to a matter of feminist struggles even though sexual violence plays a role in many other forms of oppression, but this illustrates another corollary issue, which is that we can't efficiently fight rape culture without acknowledging how the mechanics that underpin them also reinforce other systems of oppression. (Not a source because I'm talking about my own political opinion, but in France we tend to use the concept of convergence of struggles to describe this goal. It's understood to be a practical application of intersectionality. I've been looking for international translations and equivalents to this concept, and am very interested if you guys have any suggestions on the matter).

Reading this post felt like OP believed that Jason's situation couldn't be a case of victim-blaming because they correctly understood victim-blaming to be a social phenomenon, but perceived the treatment of Jason's death from the prism of the individual psychological mechanics only and therefore thought it was insulting to victims of the former to categorize it as such. But this is the point I keep trying to make when it comes to the psychiatrization of crime in ideologies that promote prison reform as opposed to prison abolition. Crime is a social phenomenon. Murder, like rape, is a social phenomenon. People don't kill because they're killers, they kill because they have justificative beliefs that tell them it's okay to do so, because there is no guardian present in the context to hold them back (and it's the social structure that determines whether an agent constitutes a guardian), etc. (See: routine-activity-theory). Victim-blaming is always a social phenomenon -it's a social mechanic that, like a spider, looms over all our society with one leg in every form of oppression, which is probably why it is so easily affiliated with fascism.

That's why it's bad when DC and the fandom parrot victim-blaming arguments on the matter of Jason. Jason isn't real anymore than Tara or any other fictional woman in dc is, it's not about who gets enough points that we get to talk about victim-blaming (yeah, I'm not ignoring that "women even" part tacked on at the end here, I'm greatly uncomfortable with that. dc fandom we've talked about this please stop throwing gender essentialism in conversations about victimhood). It's bad that the mechanisms of victim-blaming are being promoted by DC directly through their writers indirectly through an ensemble cast of characters and parroted by the fandom and it's especially bad that some of that rhetoric was directly targeting children. The point is not Jason, the point is Jenna. The point is what worldview these people are trying to get Jenna to internalize and what systems they expect her to contribute to upholding as she grows. People are talking a lot about Jason because a. Jason's case is one of the broadest I've personally seen within dc in terms of scope and intensity along with Tara's and possibly Steph, b. as they're Jason fans, they know about Jason in more details, and c. you guys! keep! doing it! We would talk less about victim-blaming Jason for his own murder if both dc and the fandom didn't keep doing it, but as it stands, Jason as a cultural object somehow seems to have been turned into an acceptable vehicle for victim-blaming rhetoric (and please note that I am weighing my words very carefully when I use the word "rhetoric". I could use another word that starts with p but people are very quick to accuse you of hyperbole and discredit your arguments on that basis when you use that word. Since I already have the ethos of a silly horny Jason fangirl I will stick to the word rhetoric, but still. There are other terms that could be interesting to use here, considering that victim-blaming has been identified as a tool of fascism. Keep that in mind.)

Jazz doesn’t recognize her baby brother anymore

In The Dream House by Carmen Maria Machado page 5 / Batman #614 / Detective Comics #790 / In The Dream House / Detective Comics #790 / Batman #614 / In The Dream House / Batman #410 / Batman #428 / In The Dream house / Batman #617 / Detective Comics #790 / In The Dream House / Detective Comics #790 / Batman #618 / In The Dream House / Detective Comics #790 / Batman #614

ID under

Some of the times he has hit Jason Todd:

Some of the times he has hit Tim Drake:

Some of the times he has hit Jason Todd:

Some of the times he has hit Tim Drake:

The issue is, there is a clear difference between fandom staples (like crack and whump) and what comic fanon has become.

Comic fanon has become a monolith in comic spaces where thousands of people celebrate and encourage illiteracy, where fanon concepts are lauded as facts, where non-readers speak as authority on comics, where many many fanon concepts are rooted in racism, misogyny, ableism, xenophobia and classism, where any character that is not a Bat or Bat-adjacent is maligned and mischaracterized to be a prop for their nearest Bat (Hal is Bruce's punching bag, Bart is Tim and Kon's baby). Even the Bats are flanderized into tropes.

Everyone who likes comics and other characters has to endure at some point someone who has never bothered to get to actually know these comics being told their comics are stupid or their non-Bat character is only good if tied with a Bat.

It gets exhausting after a while, so fics that might be rightfully crack or whump, depending on the content, are met with suspicion because they feed this aggressive fanon machine.

They contribute to a problem, and it's a problem that thousands of people outright refuse is a problem because they benefit from the problem (they like the content even if it's racist).

So I get told to kill myself for correcting fanon myth held as fact (Clark abandoned Kon, no he didn't), even phrased in the most gentle of ways.

Then I get people telling me that Bart is the r-slur and a sweet innocent baby (he's capable and his friends' age, curses all the time and tried to get his mentor laid).

Then I get told I'm ableist for pointing out that the "silent Cass trope" is racist.

Then I see fanon concepts held as FACTS where the Green Lanterns are terrified of Batman, or Barry Allen can't solve a crossword, or Clark Kent (an investigative journalist) can't solve a mystery and they need Batman to help them.

Any opposition to this is frequently met with accusations of hating fun, or gatekeeping, and fanon fans refuse to acknowledge that they are being at least little bit shitty.

Anyway, fanon content creators are free to create whatever they want, but comic fans that don't want to deal with being told their comics are stupid have every right to call out inappropriate behavior. At some point you have to admit maybe there is a problem, and you're contributing to it.

This post is largely about behavior within the fandom and acts as an account of only SOME of the behaviors and attitudes from fanon enjoyers.

People can and should create whatever content they desire, however knowing what the content they are creating is and how it may be perceived is important.

Additionally,

Canon divergent also =/= fanon

Getting a canon fact wrong also =/= fanon

AUs =/= fanon

Note that I'm putting a lot of weight on Son of the Demon (1987) here. I know it's status as "canon" is debatable, but I do think it's undeniable that it's been an influence on a lot of writers, and in that sense I think it's an important part of the continuity. Also this thing is fucking. 2,500 words long.

Danny Phantom, looking at the batfam member funny: What do you mean you almost killed each other for the title of Robin? You can just, share it???

Batfam member: no you don't understand-

Dani Phantom, popping up through the floor: hi Danny what's cooking.

Danny Phantom: Hi yourself Dani. Just explaining how we share our names.

Batfam member, not liking the implications: you're not... duplicates?

...

For the purpose of this one I think the Phantoms is with the YJ, probably. So they're talking to Tim?

Also like, they're both Phantom. At the same time. They didn't try to hide it at all, everyone else just assumed they're the same person because duplication is one of phantom's known powers. And because they usually called each other by name, and have chronic under-explaining things syndrome, and does things in sync a lot, and look almost identical.

So in their teammate's eyes Phantom is one single entity, just casual with his duplication power and also genderfluid. Even when Dani occasionally calls Danny template, people think of dupes before clones.

Regardless of how territorial Batman was or wasn't, that's how Danny spotted one of the Robins on the roof of a building, throwing things - Batarangs? Birdarangs? Honestly, some heroes were worse at naming things than Danny's parents - at a mannequin with a photograph of one of the other Robins taped to its face.

Danny didn't know the Robins well. Sure, they'd teamed up a few times, after Danny had joined the League, but Amity Park, small as it was, was a full time job. Natural portals to the Ghost Zone were bad enough, but those weren't the only side effect of being a thin spot in reality. The only reason Danny was taking a vacation now was because he'd bailed Constantine out of-- Well, that was another story entirely, but the man was extremely leery of owing anything to Danny, and had insisted on paying off his debts right away.

He was probably regretting that decision, right about now.

Point was, Young Justice, Teen Titans, whatever, those guys were more Dani's friends than his, so he had no idea of this was normal. It how Robin would react to Danny suddenly being there.

As Danny watched, debating getting involved, Robin stalked over to the mannequin, tore off the picture, and replaced it with a picture of yet a different Robin. He walked back to where he'd been standing before, throwing things at this new picture and growling imprecations under his breath.

Okay, normal or not, this couldn't possibly be healthy.

"Uh, Robin?" Danny ignored the weapon that sailed through his intangible body. "You okay?"

"... Phantom. I've told you not to sneak up on me like that. One day, I'll be testing anti-ghost gear."

Danny didn't remember Robin saying anything like that to him, but it wasn't like Danny had a photographic memory or whatever, so he just shrugged.

Robin went over to the mannequin and started to pick up his weapons, either ignoring or forgetting Danny's earlier question. Probably the former, since All of the Robins did seem to have photographic memories. Fair enough. Danny had startled him.

"Robin?"

The other boy whirled. "Apparently, I'm not good enough to be called that," he hissed, "between Hood and the brat both trying to kill me over it--"

"Whoa, whoa, wait," said Danny, holding up his hands. "Kill you? Your siblings are trying to kill you over your name?"

Robin (Or not-Robin? Danny was unclear.) scowled at him. "It's more than a name. It's a title."

"That's... just a different kind of name. Unless it comes with, like, powers or a job or something. Are they kicking you off the team?"

"What? No. They've got their own things going on."

"I guess I don't really get the situation, then."

Robin ran a hand back over his hair, which made it stick out in funny directions.

"Red Hood was Robin before me."

"Sure." And Nightwing had been Robin before him. Trading around identities wasn't all that uncommon in the superhero community.

"He wasn't too happy that I took his place when everyone thought he was dead. He beat the crap out of me, told me I wasn't good enough, tries to get me to quit. But I didn't."

Danny was pretty sure, from the few times he'd run into him, that Red Hood had been more than 'thought' dead, but that wasn't the point of this conversation, so he just nodded.

"And now the demon brat comes out of nowhere, pushes me off the dinosaur, tries to stab me, and Batman's going to take Robin away from me and just give it to him."

"Okay, um. That's a lot to unpack." Danny used his telekinesis to scoop up the rest of the birdarangs, because he was starting to worry that Robin would cut himself on them, his hands were shaking so badly. He shuffled them together in a neat stack. "I obviously don't know the whole story here, but have you guys considered sharing?"

Robin huffed and took the birdarangs from Danny. "You don't understand, it's--"

"Hey, Danny, what's up? Oh, hi, Robin," Dani added as a birdarang sailed through her body and embedded itself in the wall she was half phased through. "Someone is jumpy tonight."

Robin yanked his birdarang out of the wall as Dani flew the rest of the way through it. "Didn't I just tell you to stop sneaking up on me?"

Dani shrugged. "What are we talking about?"

"Just about to explain to Robin how we share our names," said Danny.

"I get the point you're trying to make," said Robin, and Danny just knew he was rolling his eyes behind the white cutouts of his mask, "but it's different. You two are the same person."

Dani gave Robin a look of disbelief. "Sure, and Kon is the same person as Superman. What happened to you tonight that you're spewing anti-clone crap?"

Robin went very still. "Clone."

"Uh, yeah, it's not exactly like I've been hiding that. Wait. Rutabega."

"Airplane."

The conversation paused for a minute as Dani, Danny, and Robin went through the 'we have not been replaced by shapeshifters' call and response.

"Okay, so if you aren't a shapeshifter, what gives?" demanded Dani.

"You know that clones are different than duplicates, right?"

Danny and Dani looked at each other, then back at Robin. "You thought we were duplicates?" they asked, together.

"You're not?"

They burst out laughing.

"Did you somehow not notice that we look different?" asked Dani, gesturing to her hair and Danny's. "It's not as if we're identical twins."

Robin was blushing. "You're shapeshifters! We thought you were genderfluid!"

"We are," said Danny, "but that's unrelated."

"Wait, but you always seem to know everything we tell the other--"

"There's this really awesome thing called verbal communication," said Dani, dripping in sarcasm. "I know your dad isn't big on it, but it's a whole thing."

"Hey," said Danny, realizing something. "What did you think was going on with Dan if you thought we were clones?"

"He's not you?"

"Okay," said Danny. "Okay. That's just- that's offensive. I'm offended."

"Then... he's your genetic donor?"

"Ewww," said Dani and Danny.

"Then what?"

"He's--"

Danny put his hands over Dani's mouth. She licked him, but he was wearing gloves, and he got way worse things on those then little sister spit, so joke was on her. "Think about how funny it will be if he has to figure it out on his own."

Dani stilled, then nodded. Danny released her.

"Anyway, I don't see why you and your siblings can't share the name."

Robin glared at them. "I'll admit, it seems to have worked for you... somehow. But in the field we need to know who is talking to who."

"Then take turns."

"Or numbers."

"Adjectives."

"Or whatever the Flashes and the Green Lanterns do. There's always like a bajilionty of them."

Danny sighed. "So many Flashes, and they all find their own unique way of screwing up the time stream."

"I did mention that the demon brat tries to kill me over this, right?"

Dani shrugged. "And I was part of a kill and replace scheme. There aren't a lot of nice reasons to clone a teenage superhero, you know."

"It was a very trying time. I don't hold a grudge."

Robin pinched the bridge of his nose. "Can we just drop this until... later. A lot later. I'm still wrapping my head around you being three different people."

"Sure," said Danny. "Want to get burgers with us?"