Criticizing the Attorney, RE: The Imaginary Divide
Original essay: https://xcatxgirlx.tumblr.com/post/181209788421/the-imaginary-divide-between-uaf-and-ov-ben
This is a bit of a Russian nesting doll. This essay is a response to an essay Cat had written on Tumblr, which in itself is an essay response to a DeviantART post by Kapaychan. These two essays are essentially opposite ends of the extreme. I can’t say the position I’m going to try to lay out is going to be somewhere in between, just… different. I’ll be focusing more on Cat’s essay than Kapaychan’s for simplicity’s sake. If anyone wants me to fully respond to Kapaychan’s post, I will, but for now we’re mostly sticking with Cat.
Of course, I need to start this with a disclaimer: This is NOT a personal attack on Cat. This is intended to be a criticism of her tactics.
I’ll start off by saying that Kapaychan’s post is blatantly ableist. People who do not feel empathy are not irredeemable monsters. The terms “psychopathy” and “sociopathy” aren't even medically recognized anymore. I’m almost certain that what she’s contributing to “sociopathy” are actually symptoms of ADHD and autism, but more on that in the future.
Kapaychan talks about how much she hates the “collateral damage” gag in Omniverse, and how Ben not showing more remorse for Bauman and Pakmar is a sign of Sociopathy.
Cat’s defense of Ben here… is not good.
“He allegedly endangers civilian lives without any regard for the damage he causes, as if he intends to do it.”
…No, intent is irrelevant here. Kapaychan specifically uses an example of rear-ending someone:
“Have you ever encountered a person who, say someone you had a car collision with and they're in the other car and they see you obviously injured/in pain and your car massacred by the crash then just simply be dismissive about you, go off on his merry way because it's just an accident anyway?”
The issue isn’t if you meant to do it, it’s what you do about it afterwards—i.e. apologize and pay for damages, or downplay the incident and leave. In Omniverse, Ben has a tendency to just leave. While that is irresponsible, he’s a child who’s rarely experienced consequences in situations like these.
He should do better, but he shouldn’t be treated like a monster for not doing the best possible thing every time.
So here’s an example Cat gives: Bauman’s house is destroyed and Ben is blamed for it. Instead of offering to help or to fix the house, he runs inside his own house. That, in and of itself, is not an unreasonable thing for a child who had a long day to do. Was it right? No. Did it make sense? Yes. Is it the right thing for him to fix Bauman’s house? Yes. Should he be expected to? Absolutely not.
Cat continues her defense with:
“If this episode was continued, Ben very likely could have told someone about it, called someone, or even had a breakdown considering this is a lot for him to be blamed for in entirely.”
The fact is, the episode didn’t continue, and we have no idea what happened next. She is literally just speculating what might’ve happened, which is about as useful as saying that he actually went home to laugh maniacally and kick puppies. It’s not an argument, it’s a headcanon, and it serves no purpose.
Cat goes on to address Kapaychan’s issues with the episode “Vilgax Must Croak.”
“This episode shows Ben and the Plumbers transporting Vilgax (A HIGHLY DANGEROUS OFFENDER) to Incarcecon and they must make sure he does not escape. The argument made against Ben is that he physically “assaulted” Vilgax during this task and that this is allegedly equal to “police brutality.””
“Allegedly equal to” is a very interesting way of saying “literally is.” Ben committed police brutality and assaulted someone who was already down.
“But it’s Vilgax—!” Doesn’t matter.
I’m not saying the rules are fair, but those are the rules.
Would I feel justified in beating up space Hitler? Yeah. Is it police brutality if I’m in charge of detaining him and I beat him up while he’s already down? Yes. Is committing police brutality against space Hitler a good thing or a bad thing? That’s an entirely different discussion that I’d rather not get into.
Cat continues:
“...Ben is not in fact showing police brutality because he had more than reasonable suspicion to act the way he did. I would even go so far as to say that the rest of Ben’s team were not careful enough with the offender they were transporting since in the end, he did escape.”
That is not how this works! We are specifically referring to the instance where Ben is on top of Vilgax, who is already incapacitated (he’s on his back, he’s down), and Ben continues to hurt him for no reason besides his own emotional benifit. This doesn’t help keep Vilgax detained, nor does it make the mission safer. I don’t feel bad for Vilgax, but that doesn’t mean that what Ben did was good or necessary.
To be very, very clear:
This was not the assault. This was Ben incapacitating Vilgax.
This was the assault. Vilgax was down, and all Ben was doing was taking his anger out on Vilgax.
Cat continues by addressing Kapaychan’s issue with Will Harangue being turned into an alien. Cat’s points, summarized, are:
Harangue had previous crimes he had not paid for.
She compares this to the season 2 finale of Alien Force, and the idea that walking a mile in another lifeform’s shoes will make him more empathetic.
Both points are irrelevant.
Ben is not judge, jury, or executioner. A police officer’s job is to detain people and bring them in for processing, not to deliver justice themselves.
Harangue’s fate was never his to decide.
All things considered, I think these faults could’ve made for a great story. No hero is perfect, and I really wish that was explored more. Instead, the narrative justified Ben’s actions rather than recognizing them as issues he needs to overcome.
I love Ben. I just wish the show properly explored him.
