[ SECRET POST #3312 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3312 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12. http://i.imgur.com/v42amcn.png
[link for anime porn ... type stuff? I'm not even sure what's going on here]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #473.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

This actually seems like it denies heroes accountability in times they messed up and is flattening out villainous motives to me. Honestly, I don't think Loki's turn to villainy can be completely pinned on Thor and Odin, there was evidence in the movies (not going into comics rn, I know comics but there's other stuff going on there that doesn't seem fair to use as evidence one way or another in a different continuity) that Loki was getting shit from other areas too. And if you pull in what social expectations were for men vs women or for Asgardians in general based on the original Thor movie with supplementary research into Norse cultural history, you can get other elements that might've contributed to his getting messed up. But to deny anything Thor and Odin did for thousands of years might have shaped Loki's psyche and stability adversely, even if they didn't intend it to, seems really unrealistic to me.

If Loki had been mentally and emotionally stable, would he have attempted genocide? It's hard to say, but my suspicion is probably not. There wouldn't have been so much urgency, the motive would have come into serious question so drastic measures like that might not have even occurred to him as options. Or maybe it might have. Some villains do bad things while being mentally and emotionally stable, same way people do in real life. But Loki wasn't mentally or emotionally stable, so as an audience it makes sense to ask why and examine what his experiences might have been to bring him to the point that the choices he made seemed necessary to him. That doesn't mean Thor and Odin's experiences and intentions are less real. But heroes aren't necessarily perfect and sometimes good people can do really horrible things without meaning to. World's not so simple.

Part of good storytelling is being to understand multiple points of views I think, and to allow for characters to be the heroes of their own stories but also to allow characters to dislike or be hurt by characters who are the heroes of THEIR own stories. Otherwise you end up with flat, caricaturish nonsense.

[(Anonymous)]

I am not familiar with the specifics of this canon, but in general, I would say that heroes like Odin and Thor could have done many things wrong, and it might have played causal role in Loki turning into a villain. And it certainly makes sense to understand the causes and the origins of someone's actions no matter how evil. But understanding those origins does not at all take away from the moral weight of their misdeeds.

And my problem with the way you're framing it here is that it does take away that moral weight - in particular the language about how if it weren't for the heroes, he never would have done the evil things - that's a wholly unsatisfactory analysis, to me. And honestly this kind of thing is pretty much exactly what I mean when I talk about people slipping into making excuses for villains.

[(Anonymous)]

??? I never said that Loki's actions weren't evil though, or that the damage to other people wasn't real. You can have everything. We're just not focusing on the affects his attempted genocide had on jotunheimr, the way his behavior may have ruined lives in NYC, or any of the other issues at work. The suffering he caused was very real. Not every person might have reacted the way Loki did in his situations, and I have zero doubt that Loki could have chosen other ways to address bad situations that wouldn't have involved him killing innumerable people. This isn't about justifying him from a moral standpoint or saying he had zero responsibility for his own choices. But I think it's also fair to allow some room to also understand that this is a damaged individual, that he had reasons for being damaged that were tied to his environment and his upbringing, and his ability to reason was severely compromised as a result. It doesn't mean like, Odin was a child-beater. But shit happened.

And honestly, it sounds to me like you're trying to argue that Loki is inherently evil and does things because he's a villain and villains do evil things no matter what and we know he's a villain because writers said so and there are no circumstances where he would not be a villain. That, to me, is pretty messed up and basically strips the villain of humanity by saying he does things for no understandable reason. I'm arguing that if the motives weren't in place he would not have reason to commit certain actions, and the motives he had were there in part because of actions taken by the heroes. Not completely. But partially. Odin and Thor did fuck up at times. It doesn't make them evil, but they might have done some evil things without meaning to. All people do evil things sometimes I think, but there really seems to be a huge problem in fandom right now with hero fans being completely unwilling to acknowledge that heroes can do really bad things sometimes that they need to own as they try to do good going forward.

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly wondering here, because I'm not super familiar with the canon either, what "evil acts" did Thor and Odin pull that would've contributed to Loki making the choice to start a genocide?

Because I only know of vague specifics, but those specifics I know of are what I would personally classify as the kind of "relatively innocuous mess-ups" that were mentioned in the subthread OP, which apologists then amplify to make it seem like the villain's response was perfectly understandable if not proportionate (i.e., Thor and his friends teasing Loki and making him feel left out, Odin favouring Thor over Loki, Odin keeping Loki's heritage a secret from him -- not out of any desire to hurt him that we're told of. No one's saying these aren't shitty acts, but I certainly wouldn't call them "evil" ones, and many people manage to be on the receiving ends of such acts and get over it fine, rather than using them as excuses to start genocides or go on murder sprees. Of course there are people who do use such treatment as their excuse to shoot up schools and whatnot, but those excuses rarely hold water in comparison to the gravity of the crime committed.)

I honestly don't see how pointing such things out would be an example of hero fans not being able to handle that heroes do bad things, and not, say, an example of keeping things in perspective.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, I'm gonna try really hard to explain this as clearly as possible. Because it seems like you may be interpreting aspects of the film in a far lighter context than me, and if you go with that interpretation then of course my arguments aren't going to make sense to you. I will make a disclaimer that I've been out of Thor fandom for a while and the evidence I bring to the table is circa 2012 or so, with maybe bits added on after but largely it's all old analysis. It is possible I might mix something up, if that happens I'm sorry and feel free to bring it up.

During the film, we are shown that Odin, knowing he was raising a frost giant who did not know he was in fact a frost giant, told Thor and Loki both stories throughout their childhood and then some about the inherent evil and viciousness of jotnar. Loki was taught from an early age, as was Thor, as were most likely Sif and the Warriors Three (albeit from a societal standpoint versus from Odin directly--for non-heirs this is more speculation on social stigma and racial tensions shown in the film and could be debated) that frost giants are monstrous and do not have lives of any personal value. Loki was essentially taught to hate himself by his own father, who knew precisely what he was. During the film, it is also shown that Asgardians value glory in battle and honest, open combat rather than manipulation. In Norse myth, seidr was the term for magic and while it was respected in women this was not the case for men.

Wikipedia (granted not a proper source, if I was going to really make a project out of this I'd try to locate something more scholarly) states:

"There were also accounts of male practitioners, known as seiðmenn, but in practising magic they brought a social taboo, known as ergi, on to themselves, and were sometimes persecuted as a result."

Given we know Sif being a warrior was treated with some stigma (confirmed by Thor in the movie) and we can see Loki being treated regularly with distaste or disdain by people who are supposed to be his friends, we can infer that the stigma does indeed carry over into MCU Asgard and Loki was, indeed, regarded poorly to put it lightly.

Loki is shown to be someone who relies on his ability to manipulate through speech, magic, and more indirect forms of combat (knife throwing is his preferred means although he can use a spear, for example), which are understood to be considered cowardly and less honorable in Asgard. It is possible his preference for these forms of combat was due to a physical inability to keep up with Asgardians using more traditional means, and Frigga is I believe confirmed to be the one who taught Loki magic. It's possible Loki, being a runt of a jotun, was more physically frail than other Asgardians or indeed other jotnar. So through necessity he turns to another means of combat and is condemned for it, and more than that--is repeatedly stripped of speech through the film with the implication that this is ordinary behavior by being silenced.

Loki, who finds strength in his voice and his ability to reason through situations, is repeatedly silenced and mocked by the Warriors Three, by Heimdall, by Odin, even by Thor at various points and this is treated as extremely normal. If indeed this was being done for thousands of years, in every aspect of life, it translates to Loki understanding his worth is quite low, the thing he is good at is not permissible, his presence in the family and in Thor's friend group is tolerated but will never be sought out, and Loki is in fact viewed with significant distaste. His friends do not like or respect him in any capacity even in maintaining the punishment his own father chose to mete out on Thor for good reason, and indeed his friends plot against him the moment they have the chance even when he is in a position of legitimate authority over them. Loki did test Thor and nudge him toward battle with the frost giants, but Thor's choice to engage and be reckless were still his own. His inability to reason and put the greater good over personal desires does indicate poor leadership qualities (as they do for Loki as well, in other ways) and his punishment to essentially learn how to be a more effective ruler. Sif and the Warriors Three essentially wanted to cheat Thor out of his lesson, and when Loki refused to comply they immediately demonized him. Loki is shown to have been extremely isolated for thousands of years and to be, ultimately, friendless in this way.

Loki is shown to be desperate for approval from Odin and, indeed, from Asgardian society as a whole--this suggests a degree of neglect and ostracization well beyond teasing and favoritism. People can be and are traumatized by things like this, and the way it was carried out casually and for as long as it was says a lot IMO. And driving someone to insanity from continuous psychological abuse lasting millenia does constitute an evil act I think, even if it was done unintentionally. There had to be a level of complete disregard for Loki as a person and anything he had to say for a very, very long time for him to reach that point. And then a bunch of random Earth people taught Thor his lesson in three days when Loki had been trying to reason with him for again, thousands of years.

And this is, without delving into Norse myth in more detail or the Trials of Loki trade where Loki is shown having his mouth sewn shut in public humiliation and being otherwise abused.

Loki's behavior makes a tremendous amount of sense as the culmination of a breakdown that had been a long time in the making, and there are many indications throughout the film that his breakdown is the result of having been treated poorly. It doesn't make the attempted genocide okay. But Loki, wanting to prove that he can be an asset to Asgard, having been raised to think frost giants were nothing but evil threats to Asgard, knowing himself to be a frost giant, having been an outsider his entire life and finally with a physical, unchangeable aspect of himself that would only ostracize him further, was desperate to prove he would do anything to keep Asgard safe and held no allegiance to jotunheimr. He was literally out of his mind at that point.

Avengers, I would argue that there are indications throughout the film that Loki's goal was not actually world domination but to goad the Avengers into taking out the Chitauri/Ultimate Skrulls for him since he was their captive and had been implied to have been tortured with threat of death hanging over him. It was completely selfish and unheroic and threw other people into the line of fire, but it would complicate the scenario and make a great deal of sense in my opinion. This view could be debated, but there were a number of scenes in the movie that make less sense IMO if every element of the plot is straightforward and literal.

I think the gravity of wrongs done and the impacts they have is significant. It doesn't mean it was done maliciously, but there are plenty of villains out there who do things out of apathy or ignorance rather than malice. Heroes are capable of that too. People in general are. It's not something I think should be trivialized to simplify an argument.

[(Anonymous)]

Same anon who has been debating this point with an additional one, it also seems like you're operating under this conception that whatever the villain suffered needs to be equal to their crimes committed, which I've never actually tried to argue. Obviously attempting genocide is worse than being socially ostracized for however long. But that isn't the point. What you are looking for is justification for villainous behavior, which you simply cannot find because the behavior is inexcusable. Understandable is not the same as justifiable. I am arguing that it is understandable that Loki did suffer, that he was mentally and emotionally off as consequence of his suffering, that he had motives for behaving irrationally and lashing out the way he did in direct response to his experiences. That does not mean his choices were right or healthy or okay or any less harmful to others who did not deserve the treatment they received. Making sense does not mean morally okay. The argument is not about excusing behavior or morally agreeing with the character on their course of action, it's about explaining their reasoning and being able to trace how they came to the point that they believed in the frame of their experiences that certain actions were necessary. The audience should have a clearer perspective than the villain does.

[(Anonymous)]

DA I'm not sure if it counts as excusing it, but someone 'creating' a hero or villain is the single most common trope ever.

Is it wrong to discuss that his parents being murdered caused Bruce Wayne to become Batman?

Is it wrong to discuss that Ronan murdering Drax's wife and kids caused him to become a hero?

Is it wrong to discuss that Obadiah having Tony Stark kidnapped and tortured directly resulted in him becoming Iron Man?

I mean you're just making excuses for their actions, it's not really important. I'm sure Tony Stark would have ended up exactly the same way without Obadiah's influence, movie wise. Wouldn't have changed a thing.

[(Anonymous)]

No, it's not wrong, but as noted the line between discussion and apologism in those discussions is like, paper-thin. I mean yeah, it's not wrong to discuss how his parents' murder led to Batman, but making it out to be his parents' fault for dying would imply something else entirely that would understandably get people riled up. (Of course, blame Ronan and Obadiah, they committed deliberate evil acts that led to consequences.)

[(Anonymous)]

Batman's parents dying wasn't a choice by them though. They had no say in their bodies giving out. It would be Joe Chill's choice to murder Bruce's parents that led to Bruce becoming Batman because Joe Chill was the one showing agency, not Bruce's parents. If Bruce's parents committed suicide you could argue whether his parents had responsibility for influencing his choice to become Batman (in the end choice was still Bruce's), but they didn't.

The issue of attributing responsibility for influencing motives and affecting the experiences of other people falls on choices made. If someone chooses to ignore everything their child says, to be unresponsive when the kid cries and tries to get their attention, and the kid gradually goes quiet and gets developmental problems, that is a choice and that has a profound effect on what decisions that kid makes and how that kid is able to function in the world. Beating the kid anytime they asked for something would also be a choice. Being affectionate and attentive and fair to the child would be a choice too. All influence a hypothetical child's capacity to function. To argue that who that kid becomes has nothing to do with the way they were raised and treated is simply psychologically inaccurate. To argue that someone who is psychologically healthy and has no trauma tied to past experiences is the same as someone who is psychologically unhealthy and traumatized is also incorrect.