kingloptr:

philosopherking1887 replied to your post “Why tf do people think he’s abusive? All he ever tries to do is help…”

I never considered Thor’s behavior abusive before “Ragnarok,” but his character changed so radically – and not for the better – that I’m rethinking that opinion.

Just–here’s the thing, perhaps it’s technically a semantics issue that has me wanna physically fight when I hear the words ‘Thor’ and ‘abusive’ in the same sentence? I notice the word ‘abusive’ getting thrown around a lot in fandom lately, so much so that it almost annoys me nearly as much as the word ‘problematic’, or the incorrect use of the word ‘romanticize’. And I wouldn’t mind seeing people state some of the less than savory characteristics of Thor in relation to Loki so much IF they were also using it to describe Loki’s more vicious tricks and manipulations and mind-games, and if it weren’t used to ultimately demonize Thor as if he’s unreasonable to do the things he’s done in reaction to Loki’s most recent theatrics (literal theatrics too lol). I mean. ‘left Loki to die’???? Please, like Thor would ever do that holy shit I couldn’t believe I saw that phrase earlier today. Plus where is the respect for Loki’s power and abilities there omg like that little buzzer was actually capable of torturing or harming Loki seriously??

Anyways. if I didn’t see people calling regular ‘rival’ and flat out ‘enemy’ relationships in fiction ‘abusive’ every time I turn around, when that word has a very specific connotation and social meaning to it, and implies all sorts of (different kinds than seen here!) broken trust, power imbalances, specific patterns, cultural settings, stigmas and whatnot….then maybe me seeing someone say “Thor’s behavior is abusive” wouldn’t set off such a ‘do not want’ reflex on my end. 

But I absolutely cannot stand behind using that term to describe any way Thor treats Loki other than maybe any IMPLIED (not even shown in story!) ways he may have treated Loki unwittingly, before Thor 1.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. I reblog all those anti-anti posts decrying the misuse and overuse of moralistic social justice buzzwords. I think it’s absurd to call villain/protagonist ships inherently abusive. Enmity and rivalry are not to be conflated with abuse. I wrote a fairly blistering post pre-Ragnarok insisting that Thor throwing something at chained-up Loki was just standard sibling crap, not abuse, and it’s OK (indeed, desirable) for heroes to be less than perfect. I even lost a longtime mutual for my trouble.

Having seen Ragnarok, talked to people whose opinions and insight I respect, and thought through the implications of the characters’ actions, I now find that the language of psychological and emotional abuse (forget the fucking buzzer for now) is not inappropriate for the way Thor behaves toward Loki (only in Ragnarok !) – especially because he’s presenting himself not as an adversary, but as acting in Loki’s own best interests. I could probably make all the same points without ever using the words “abuse” or “abusive.” I might instead say that he sees no need to try to take his brother’s perspective, manipulates him, gives him an ultimatum, deals with his behavior by training him with punishment rather than making any effort to understand the reasons behind his actions.

This is, of course, a reflex of the way the movie regards Loki: as a motivationally opaque “naughty piece of fate” (in a Nietzschean phrase) who betrays people for shits and giggles and has no real reason to complain of his treatment by his family. If he has no reasons for anything he does, it is entirely appropriate to deal with him as a causal cog to be manipulated (in the non-moral sense of the word, as one manipulates a tool) rather than an agent. But the previous movies did not present him that way, to my mind; they took his motivations seriously, making his actions comprehensible, intelligible, though (emphatically!) not excusable, much less defensible or justifiable. When Thor, along with the last movie, starts taking the “objective stance” rather than a “participant stance” toward Loki (to use more contemporary philosophical language) – i.e., treating him as something less than a rational agent – it is no longer much of a relationship.

But I realize that it’s probably pointless to try to set myself apart from the people who have been inappropriately applying the language of abuse since the beginning and try to defend my credentials as a reasonable interpreter of the films. There is a distinct class of people (not just me) who take this view only of the Thor of Ragnarok, who is a very different character from the Thor of the previous films. But I suspect that once we have departed from the respectable interpretation, we will continue to be lumped in with a group whose views are presumed to be irrational and easily dismissed.