lune-moon-nuit - Tumblr blog

lune-moon-nuit · 6 days ago

Note

They are truly harming the Palestinian cause—it's incredibly frustrating. This entire situation also starkly highlights how cancel culture has been completely distorted and abused to such an extreme that it has ended up undermining the very causes it was meant to serve in the first place.

This black-and-white, absolutist mindset—where there is no room for nuance, no effort to verify facts or understand context, and where moral condemnation is wielded as a weapon—has directly contributed to the normalization and rise of the far-right across Europe and America. The violent harassment campaigns, disguised as “justice,” have pushed people away from activism and handed them directly into the arms of corrupted media, capitalist elites, and right-wing ideologues who welcomed them with open arms—people who had been shamed, dehumanized, or aggressively attacked for making ignorant but human mistakes, without ever being offered a chance to learn or grow.

Why do so many men and incels multiply, beyond the toxic influence of masculinist influencers? It’s because the far-right strategically weaponizes the most abusive examples of cancel culture—those that chose to destroy rather than educate—to fuel resentment and recruit followers. The original purpose of cancel culture was to seek justice where institutions failed: to hold powerful, protected individuals accountable when the system refused to do so. Think of R. Kelly, Harvey Weinstein, or Diddy—men shielded by wealth, privilege, and connections. Cancel culture was a form of social justice, not mob rule.

If the legal, governmental, and judicial systems functioned as they should, cancel culture wouldn’t need to exist. But what we’ve witnessed instead is its hijacking by people who use it to dehumanize, bully, and publicly destroy others—often teenagers or young adults—under the guise of righteousness. That distortion is exactly what discredits the entire message behind it.

If the term “woke” has been demonized, it's not only because of right-wing propaganda. It's also because of the people who believe it's acceptable to ruthlessly harass a 20-year-old boy over the mistake of having been around the wrong people with questionable stickers, and for liking a few emotional posts on Instagram once or twice. That is precisely why so many now associate “woke” culture with extremism—because of this hypocritical and counterproductive behavior.

This lack of nuance is what helps extremists rise to power. When people chose to abstain from voting or voted blank because Kamala Harris wasn’t perfect, or because her party didn’t fully stop Israel—those decisions would be understandable if the opposing candidate hadn’t been Donald Trump, the spiritual heir of American fascism. But the world doesn’t have the luxury of ideological purity right now.

There is an order of priority when trying to minimize harm, protect lives, and gain more ground to push for actual change. In what way did refusing to vote (which, in effect, granted more power to Trump by default) help the Palestinian people? All it did was plunge more vulnerable communities in the U.S.—and by consequence, across the world—into deeper misery and greater danger.

Maybe if Kamala had become president, Israel wouldn’t have been stopped either, and we would still be protesting in the streets—but at least the trans community wouldn’t be under the direct existential threat that they are today. Do you see what I mean?

Expecting a president or political system to be 100% clean is unrealistic. Refusing to vote doesn't protest the system—it hands it over to the worst actors without resistance.

Why do you think Emmanuel Macron has served two terms, despite being widely despised and responsible for widespread financial suffering? It’s because people chose him in the second round as a lesser evil—to block the far-right from taking power. The tragedy is that Macron’s government has since aligned itself with far-right ideologies while maintaining the façade of centrism, enabling the very extremism it claimed to oppose.

I’m digressing slightly, but the bigger point is this: this entire dynamic reveals the deep-rooted problem with the modern left. As long as people cling to this mentality of absolute moral truth with no room for nuance, we will never be able to stop the regimes that are crushing us. These regimes thrive off this kind of division. They weaponize our extremism and contradictions to justify their own rise.

Until we abandon this performative purity culture and focus instead on educating, organizing, prioritizing, and strategically resisting, we will keep losing—and the most vulnerable among us will continue to pay the price.

Do u supporrt noah scnapp

I support not harassing people when they haven't done anything extreme or are very young and ignorant but still have good intentions behind it, I'm not a fan of any celebrity and I think some of the things he said were problematic and needed to be corrected because they were based on prejudice but I also have been told the whole story behind what people are spreading online and I don't believe he is a "genocidal maniac" like people say, I don't think he wants any children or people to die at all.

He also was subjected to propaganda since birth basically and that's a tough thing to deconstruct, especially when you have around you "friends" that are actual convinced and obtuse Zionists and they tell you that the only meaning of Zionism is "for Jewish people to have a safe place" - obviously ignoring everything that the state and citizens of that place have done to the Palestinians

for now I believe he was sincere when he apologized and said that he was having conversations about it with Palestinian friends he has and learning from it, I also know people that have spoken to him directly and talk to him and know that he has donated money to help Gazans and is not currently supporting the state of Israel, this is private information because he doesn't plan on speaking on the subject again since people have hated on him so much that he had to start therapy for that and other reasons that are also private

I've also been told that he as a celebrity had a contract after he went to visit Israel where he apparently couldn't unfollow the account on ig before a certain amount of time had passed and it's something they do for publicity, this is a diffused thing that they did and it's why he had to wait before unfollowing even if he changed his mind about it a lot of time before he was able to do it

Taking all of this into consideration, plus his age because when he spoke up he was 19 which to me is equal to a child like it or not, in general I don't like the amount of harassment and homophobic hate he has been receiving with people wishing him rape and death continuously when there's people that have said and done wayyyy worse than he ever did and they didn't receive half of the hate he has.

I don't think it's helping any Palestinian person to do that and the amount of time spent on hating celebrities could be used differently... also because it's hypocrisy and virtual signaling mostly, people attack some celebrities while supporting others that have said ZERO words about the whole thing, not even shared a donation link once!

plus if you really want a celebrity to fail you have to ignore them completely, not talk shit about them... so it's even just dumb in general, some celebrities stay in the job market just because of controversy, if you don't like Noah you should just block and ignore him

72 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 7 days ago

Note

That's exactly what I meant on my thread twitter where I reacted to people encouraging and wishing SA on him. And I think it's the good occasion for I share here my point here (I share you exactly how I wrote it and this is the result of months observing silently the dynamic on twitter about it, see it as a sociological commentary very interesting) :

We seriously need to talk about this once and for all, because things have gotten completely out of hand. It's time we address the hypocrisy, and the way some people believe they can be openly homophobic and antisemitic towards him by weaponizing the 2023 incident.

Let me be clear: I’m not here to justify what he did. He messed up — that’s a fact — and I genuinely hope he learned from his mistakes, whether through being held accountable by others, or through witnessing the unfolding events that only further exposed how Zionism and Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right, genocidal policies have become a cruel and tragic extension of the very fascism the Jewish people once suffered under.

But we need to remember some crucial points: being Jewish does not mean being Zionist. There are thousands, even millions, of Jewish people who do not and will never support Zionism or the actions of the Israeli state.

I truly believe that a 19-year-old kid — possibly raised in a Jewish environment shaped by a Zionist narrative, without full awareness of the Islamophobic and anti-Arab hatred embedded in that ideology — could have reacted emotionally after the October 7 attacks, and later come to recognize his errors.

I mean… if people at that age are vulnerable enough to be groomed, then they are certainly vulnerable and impressionable enough to adopt certain beliefs out of ignorance and emotional distress.

Again, I’m not excusing the harm he caused — I’m simply offering the possibility that he has since educated himself and grown for the better (as suggested by screenshots showing him liking posts in support of Palestine and a ceasefire).

The truth is, there are countless people — of all ages — who were unaware of the complexity and gravity of the situation between Israel and Palestine.

To give a personal example: I was always told that the "conflict" was about “Muslims and Jews fighting over Jerusalem because it’s where Jesus is buried, and it’s super taboo, so no one talks about it or people get angry.” That was quite literally the propaganda we were fed in France — and I’m convinced that many others grew up with the same shallow, misleading narrative.

So when October 7 happened, for people who didn’t know any better, of course the attacks were shocking, and of course many instinctively expressed support for the victims. Who wouldn’t feel empathy for victims of terror attacks, seriously?

I still remember how, even now, countless artists simply wanted to show compassion toward the victims — without understanding the full political complexity — and I don’t think anyone could have predicted what would come next.

Let’s be clear: there are hardcore Zionists, completely devoid of empathy, for whom there is no hope — people who have always known exactly what Israel has done, and supported it anyway. But I truly believe that the overwhelming majority are people who simply didn’t understand the reality, reacted emotionally, and later became lost in the chaos.

And we can’t ignore how Zionist propaganda in European and U.S. media has shamelessly weaponized the October 7 attacks to downplay, excuse, or justify Israel’s actions since.

All this to say: there are many of us — myself included — who are now actively pro-Palestinian, who are protesting, raising awareness, and sharing as much information as possible about the Palestinian cause, but who, on October 7, 2023, felt compassion for the victims of the attacks, without understanding the full weight of the historical and political reality between Israel and Palestine since 1948. And many of us were likely labeled Zionists for having posted a single message of support for the victims of the attack.

Because the real problem here is this: We have people who lack the full context, We have widespread media disinformation and propaganda, We have emotional reactions, And we have people on the internet exploiting this tragedy as an excuse for witch hunts — harassing and hating others under the guise of moral righteousness.

Which brings us back to the real issue here. If the actual reason you disliked Noah Schnapp was truly about Zionism, then you would simply ignore his existence. You would boycott the show, stop supporting the cast, and especially stop supporting your favorite actors — the same ones who are still friends with him to this day.

But that’s not what’s happening. Instead, you’re using the incident as an excuse to unload your hatred onto him — flooding him with homophobic and antisemitic insults, and even going as far as wishing for him to be sexually assaulted? Do you even realize the gravity of those words?

Let’s be clear: the obsession with weaponizing sexual violence to punish others is, based on what we’ve seen online over the past two years, much more characteristic of the behavior we've criticized in Zionists, just saying. There is a complete loss of humanity being directed at him that is honestly beyond comprehension.

I mean — there are thousands of public figures who have done far worse than he has, at a much older and supposedly more mature age, and with zero remorse. Yet you’re acting like he’s been chanting “Long live Israel” every day for the past two years — which simply isn’t the case.

Yes, he was wrong. Yes, surrounding himself with people wearing “Zionism is sexy” stickers was incredibly stupid and disappointing. Yes, liking posts in the days following the October 7 attacks that portrayed Hamas as "the villains" — without acknowledging the broader context — only made things worse.

But… he apologized. He faced massive public backlash. He was harassed — and continues to be — in deeply dangerous ways. He disappeared from social media for who knows how long. And most importantly: he hasn’t repeated those mistakes. In fact, he’s even liked posts in support of Palestine since.

So like… what more do you want? Should he kill himself to prove he’s changed and learned his lesson?

I’m sorry, maybe I’m too idealistic in this brutal world where people seem to believe human beings are either purely good or purely evil, with no in-between. But I still want to believe that people can learn, grow, and become better versions of themselves — and that a 20-year-old kid deserves the chance to try, without being threatened with rape or death every time he breathes, or attacked for being gay or Jewish. Just an idea.

Because if you really believe that what happened in 2023 gives you the right to be openly homophobic and antisemitic towards him — with the excuse of, “Who cares, he’s a Zionist, I can say whatever I want lol” — then congratulations. You’ve fallen straight into the trap of hatred, division, and dehumanization that people like Netanyahu, Trump, and far-right ideologues want to spread in all of us.

Once again: If you think it's justified to treat this boy like this because he once associated with people who wore those kinds of stickers… Then what are you even doing still stanning people who love, work with, support, and are still close to that same boy?

So? Are your faves problematic monsters too? What’s the situation here? Are you being hypocritical by condemning only Noah while turning a blind eye to the fact that your favorite is his friend — someone who clearly and genuinely loves him? Or are they all heartless monsters who deserve to be burned at the stake?

Let me offer you a theory — one that’s not only plausible but, frankly, far more realistic and human than anything you’ll find in the absolutist narratives that dominate social media: Maybe they’re all good people, with flaws and mistakes of their own. Maybe they’ve known this boy for over a decade, seen him regularly and in private for more than ten years. Maybe they know far more about who he is — his intentions, his values, his efforts — than any of us ever could through a screen, basing our judgments on four seconds of decontextualized video or a few scattered Instagram likes.

Maybe they’ve seen him genuinely trying to learn and do better — with every conversation, every interaction — and that’s exactly why they believe supporting him is the right thing to do. Because they know the truth, the one so many of you are so eager to claim as your own, preaching it as if it's absolute, when really, it just fits conveniently into a narrative of hate that thrives on bullying at any cost.

I’ve been part of the Stranger Things fandom since December, and every person I’ve seen openly hating Noah Schnapp just for existing at this point — I’ve never once seen any of them speak about what’s happening in Palestine. Not a single time. Not when the ceasefires were violated dozens of times, not when humanitarian aid was being blocked. Not one tweet. Not one image from a protest.

But somehow, when it comes to posting viral tweets insulting Noah’s very existence — while being blatantly homophobic and antisemitic — suddenly there’s no issue. Suddenly, everyone shows up.

Let me be clear: I’m not even a fan of the guy. I genuinely don’t care about him. But having witnessed all this hypocrisy, all this so-called “activism” that’s more performative than sincere — and, above all, this violence — I’m sorry, but I couldn’t help feeling empathy, and I couldn’t stay silent.

And before you accuse me of “caring more about this boy’s life than about Palestinians,” let me stop you right there: I speak about Palestine constantly — across all my platforms, in my daily conversations with friends and family. I’ve joined every protest I could in my own country. I’ve been physically assaulted by police for marching in support of Palestine. So you’ve picked the wrong person to accuse of being something I’m not — just because I dare to call out a brainless, hate-fueled herd mentality disguised as moral righteousness, which so many of you blindly follow for the illusion of control or power.

Breaking news: my heart is big enough to hold empathy for everyone, and my mind is nuanced enough to distinguish between people who are truly beyond redemption — like pigs such as Trump — and a 19-year-old kid who has neither killed nor assaulted anyone, who was simply ignorant, or surrounded by the wrong people.

And sure — time may prove me wrong. Maybe one day, he’ll say or do something that truly shows he hasn’t learned anything. But as of today, nothing he has done warrants being treated like the village witch who needs to be burned at the stake.

Let’s be honest: he’s become your scapegoat. A convenient target onto whom you project and channel all your hatred, your anger, and your violence. And that’s not okay.

So here’s what I want to leave you with: Let’s choose compassion. Let’s choose patience. Let’s choose to educate, to guide, to open conversations — not to destroy each other the moment someone stumbles. We gain nothing from hatred. We lose our humanity when we make cruelty a sport and call it justice.

No one learns through fear. No one grows in the face of public shaming and mass condemnation. If what we truly want is change — real, lasting change — then we have to be willing to lead with kindness, not violence. With understanding, not judgment.

This world is already fractured enough. Let’s stop tearing each other apart for the sake of being "right" or feeling powerful. Let’s remember that progress is only possible when people are given the space to reflect, to listen, to evolve — and that no one becomes better through being dehumanized.

We are not meant to be enemies. We are not meant to mirror the hatred we claim to fight against. We are meant to care. To teach. To hold each other accountable with empathy — not with rage.

So maybe next time, before you throw the first stone, ask yourself: “Is this helping build the world I want to live in?”

Let’s choose softness. Let’s choose healing. Let’s choose each other.

Because that’s how we change things. Together.

PS added after hypocrite I called out on this thread do exactly what I call them out :

While English is not my native language, I have devoted considerable time to crafting this message with utmost clarity and nuance. My intention is to prevent misinterpretation or distortion of my words. Regrettably, some individuals on platforms like Twitter have chosen to overlook the multiple instances where I explicitly stated that Noah Schnapp's actions were wrong, that he should not have done what he did, and that I hope he has learned from his mistakes. Instead, they have reduced my message to claims such as "she's defending and justifying this Zionist," or even more egregiously, "she's defending a Nazi."

Let's be clear: asserting that antisemitic insults directed at a Jewish person are unacceptable is not an act of Nazism; it is, in fact, the antithesis of it. If one were to accuse me of being a "Zionist sympathizer," it might at least align more closely with the topic at hand, though it would still be inaccurate given my evident pro-Palestinian activism. Participating in street protests to the point of facing tear gas from law enforcement and sharing firsthand accounts on social media are far more constructive actions than wishing death or sexual violence upon a 19-year-old who made the mistake of liking certain Instagram posts.

If you choose not to forgive him and continue to harbor resentment, that is your prerogative. However, the appropriate course of action would be to ignore his existence. For instance, I detest Chris Brown due to his history of violence against women; I choose to ignore him, boycott his music, and essentially forget he exists. That is how one handles disdain for someone's problematic life choices when believing they are beyond redemption. Even Kanye West, who has made numerous unacceptable and immoral statements over more than a decade, has not faced the level of treatment that is currently being directed at this young man.

It has taken over ten years of consistent problematic behavior for the public to finally cease making excuses for Kanye West. Yet, you find it excessive and wrong that I choose to hope a 19-year-old, who has faced consequences for his actions and has since refrained from any further misconduct, deserves a second chance to change and grow through education? His brain has not even fully developed at this point, and I'm being labeled a "Nazi" for having faith in human potential?

Once again, I acknowledge the possibility that I could be mistaken. If he fails to learn and continues to engage in problematic behavior, then he will face further consequences, and his actions will further damage his career and reputation. However, as of today, I see no reason why he should not be granted the opportunity to become a better person. When conversing with some of you, it feels as though you believe he is the one orchestrating bombings. Perhaps it's time to reassess your perspective?

Furthermore, what compelled me to write this message is my experience as a survivor of sexual violence (on multiple occasions). I am angry, hurt, and exhausted by the trivialization of our traumas. Being sexually assaulted, in my case, is a daily battle for survival. The post-traumatic stress torments me to the extent that the darkest thoughts can haunt me. This nightmare I endure is something I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy. Yet, some of you treat this subject as if it's a casual insult to be thrown around in a schoolyard. Even for that reason alone, if you find it acceptable to wish such harm upon him, regardless of your opinion of him, you are a bad person and potentially dangerous.

Once more, I ask: what must he do to atone for his mistake? Must he take his own life? I will not apologize or feel guilty for not wanting that outcome for him and believing he doesn't deserve it. You may be capable of losing your humanity and morals through anger and a thirst for power, fueled by the hypocrisy of an absolutist mentality devoid of nuance, but that is not the case for me.

Step away from your screens, go outside, and you'll realize that, aside from irredeemable beings like dictators committing genocides or capitalist elites willing to support them out of greed and hatred, and the sheep who follow out of ignorance, there are people full of complexities. Various life factors may have led them down a certain path, one they can deviate from by meeting and conversing with individuals who expose them to different facts, truths, and perspectives, thereby opening their minds and evolving into better individuals.

We return to the same point. We're not discussing someone who has killed or assaulted anyone. We're talking about a teenager who was poorly influenced and liked posts based on false convictions. Do you sincerely expect me to believe that you've never said, done, or liked something that could be considered problematic before the age of 20? At 20, you're less naive than before, but still far from the awareness you'd possess at 28; that's a fact.

In conclusion, I urge everyone to embrace empathy, kindness, and understanding. Let us prioritize education and the sharing of knowledge over mass condemnation and hatred. By doing so, we can unite and work towards creating a better world for all.

My general observation and last though about this whole situation that need to be said :

People are so determined to hate Noah Schnapp because he has become a symbolic target onto which they can project their collective rage, frustration, and pain regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—one of the most emotionally and politically charged issues of our time. For many, especially on social media, nuance has no place. There’s a black-and-white worldview where you're either a hero or a villain, with no room in between.

Noah, being a young, visible Jewish celebrity who made a harmful mistake by engaging with pro-Israeli content, has become the perfect scapegoat. For some, his identity as a Jewish person conflates automatically with Zionism, and that conflation then fuels a dangerous and reductive narrative: that he is not just someone who made a mistake, but that he is irredeemably evil. This mindset strips him of all humanity and complexity, which makes it easier to justify the extreme vitriol directed at him.

People’s refusal to grant him a second chance, even after facing consequences and showing no further signs of misconduct, reveals a deeper hypocrisy. They demand accountability and education, but when someone is young enough to still be in a process of learning and has the potential to grow, they reject the very possibility of redemption. It’s not about justice anymore—it’s about punishment, control, and moral superiority.

The moment someone dares to say, “I’m pro-Palestinian, and I still don’t believe this boy is a monster,” it deeply unsettles them. It threatens the absoluteness of their worldview. It introduces complexity and moral responsibility, which means they might have to rethink their own behaviors—their own likes, retweets, and public condemnations. It's much easier to weaponize identity politics than it is to face the uncomfortable truth that even "the enemy" might be human.

It also reveals how performative much of this outrage is. If the true goal were justice, growth, and liberation, then the focus would be on systems, ideologies, and actions—not on a 19-year-old who made a mistake and is no longer repeating it. The disproportionate obsession with him speaks volumes: it’s not about Palestine anymore. It’s about ego, mob mentality, and the illusion of righteousness.

Many of them have likely done or said problematic things in their pasts—but because they weren't in the spotlight, they weren't held accountable in the same public way. Instead of recognizing this and extending the grace they once needed, they project their guilt and shame onto someone else.

Dehumanizing Noah is more comfortable than acknowledging he might be, like most people, a product of his environment, capable of ignorance but also of change. To admit that would mean accepting that people are complex, and that healing—whether personal or political—requires uncomfortable conversations, not just condemnation.

If they truly hated him, they could simply ignore him, boycott him, and move on—just like we do with artists whose values we reject. But they don’t. They keep his name in their mouths, not because they care about justice, but because outrage gives them power, relevance, and the illusion of moral superiority.

To those who continue to justify their hatred and violent obsession with Noah Schnapp:

You often claim that your anger is righteous, that it’s about justice for Palestine, and that Noah deserves the harassment, threats, and slurs because he “supported genocide” or “showed his true colors.” But let’s break that down with clarity, honesty, and integrity—because what’s happening is not justice. It’s cruelty disguised as activism.

1. “He supported genocide.”

Noah liked and engaged with pro-Israel content, which is undeniably harmful and upsetting. That was wrong. But supporting a narrative, especially as a teenager who may not fully understand the global implications, is not the same as actively committing or enabling genocide. Did he hold a weapon? Did he drop bombs? Did he sit in a seat of power and fund military violence? No. He was, at worst, ignorant. And ignorance is not a death sentence. Ignorance is an opportunity to learn. If we scream that people must "educate themselves," then we have to create space for education—not eliminate people the second they show they need it.

2. “He’s a Zionist.”

You’ve labeled him that without a single statement from him explicitly identifying as one. You’ve turned a presumed political identity into a reason to dehumanize someone. Even if he had once internalized Zionist narratives (like many young Jews growing up in the West do), that doesn't mean he is beyond change. Political views are not permanent. They evolve—especially in young people. Demonizing a 19-year-old instead of engaging in dialogue ensures no growth. It only feeds more division and hatred.

3. “He never apologized.”

First, he has faced enormous backlash, public scrutiny, and intense consequences. That in itself has been a form of social accountability. (and actually, he did apologized but you all are convinced they aren't sincere which is my second point here) Second, let’s be honest: if he did apologize (again), many of you wouldn’t believe it. You’ve decided he’s beyond redemption, so nothing he says or does will be enough. That’s not justice. That’s vengeance. Real justice is about restoration—not humiliation.

4. “He deserves to suffer for what he did.”

No. No one deserves rape threats, death wishes, homophobic or antisemitic slurs. If you’re advocating for liberation but simultaneously using tools of violence to push people down, you’ve already betrayed your cause. Wishing suffering on someone doesn’t liberate Palestinians. It doesn’t educate a confused 19-year-old. It only turns you into what you claim to stand against.

5. “If he’s old enough to have a platform, he’s old enough to face the consequences.”

True. But “consequences” are not the same as abuse. They’re not the same as dehumanization. Real consequences involve learning, evolving, losing opportunities, and being held accountable—not being targeted by thousands of people who scream for your death daily. If we don’t differentiate between accountability and harassment, then we’ve lost the meaning of justice altogether.

6. “He’s white, rich, and protected. He’ll be fine.”

Privilege doesn’t erase the harm that sustained mass bullying can cause. Even privileged people deserve to be treated as humans. Being white or rich doesn’t mean someone should endure violent abuse—especially from the very people who are supposedly fighting for a more compassionate and just world. Also, if he “will be fine,” why are you still so obsessed with trying to destroy him? Either he doesn’t matter, or he does. You can’t have it both ways.

Why this is all counterproductive:

You’re not educating him. You’re turning him into a symbol of your anger. And symbols can’t grow, learn, or evolve—only people can. If your goal is justice for Palestine, focus on the systems, the actual perpetrators, and amplifying Palestinian voices. This boy is not the oppressor you think he is. He is not the IDF. He is not Netanyahu. He is not the U.S. government. And every second you spend attacking him is a second you’re not fighting the real forces of oppression.

You’re undermining your own movement. People outside the echo chamber see this hate and chaos and assume that being pro-Palestinian is about cancel culture, not human rights. That is deeply unfair to Palestinians and their suffering. Don’t turn activism into bullying. Don’t confuse a mob with a movement.

You are using real trauma (yours or others') as an excuse to project violence. For some of us who are victims of real violence, weaponizing words like "rape" or "abuse" as throwaway insults is deeply offensive and retraumatizing. You don’t fight pain with more pain. That’s not activism. That’s just hurting people because you’re hurting—and that’s not the way forward.

You are refusing to believe in change. And if you don’t believe in change, what are you fighting for? Justice is about making things better, not making sure someone you hate gets destroyed. What if, instead of pushing people away, we opened the door for them to walk toward truth? What if we said: “You messed up. We need you to do better—but we still see your humanity.” That’s how you change the world. Not through hate. Through education, through dialogue, through belief in people’s ability to grow.

So ask yourself honestly: Do you want a better world, or do you just want to watch someone fall? Because if it's the latter, you’re not a revolutionary—you’re just addicted to the spectacle. Let’s choose education over cancellation. Accountability over cruelty. And healing over hatred.

Honestly, I believe that many people would be indifferent and simply ignore him—just as you claim to wish cancel culture could be handled: with silence and disengagement rather than obsessive public shaming. But the truth is, your violence, your contradictions, and your hypocrisy have created the complete opposite effect. You are inadvertently provoking immense empathy and compassion toward him.

Just today, I came across a tweet with 69,000 likes portraying Kanye West as a victim—this, despite the fact that he has, for over a decade, repeatedly made deeply immoral and harmful statements, including, most recently, a horrifying admission of having sexually assaulted his six-year-old cousin when he was 14. This is someone who has openly aligned himself with Nazism, proudly supported Trump, and expressed admiration for racists and fascists—and yet, he continues to be excused, protected, and endlessly defended by the general public, who justify it all under the banner of his creative genius and bipolar disorder, despite the fact that he is a grown man in his forties.

And yet, Noah Schnapp made one mistake—at 19 years old—by surrounding himself with the wrong people and engaging emotionally with a few posts and one Instagram story. He did not repeat the behavior. He did not double down. And still, three years later, he is treated as though he were the one dropping bombs on Gaza.

This level of disproportion not only distorts the narrative—it alienates people from your cause. It disgusts those who witness the abusive behavior of people who scream that they are "defending Palestine" by viciously attacking Noah. In doing so, you are not protecting Palestine—you are harming the very integrity of that advocacy.

You are turning Noah Schnapp into a martyr of the internet’s abusive witch hunt culture, and in doing so, you are shifting the focus away from the actual harm of the ideologies he may have once naively believed. Your obsession becomes the distraction. Your hatred becomes the spectacle.

Do u supporrt noah scnapp

72 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 8 days ago

Text

Mike and Will are two sides of the same coin. But Mike's curse is invisibility

I really love how @aemiron-main brought to light the idea that Will is a representation of LGBTQ people who are actively targeted because of their sexuality, and hated by their parents—parents who clearly perceive them and hate them for it (or at least one of them does, like in the case of Lonnie).

Meanwhile, Mike is a representation of LGBTQ people who slip through the cracks, the invisible ones, the ones their parents can’t see even though they desperately want to be seen and understood by them.

And I think it’s such a brilliant idea to have written them this way, to portray these different realities within the LGBTQ community—because yes, the 80s setting fits, but it’s not just about that. It breaks down stereotypes by showing us the overlooked representations, the so-called invisible community, the one Mike represents—so invisible that even the general audience of Stranger Things (aside from film students who know how to read cinematic language, and LGBTQ people who understand because we’re way less affected by the lens of heteronormativity) can miss it.

The fact that Mike and Will are both gay but in completely different situations is so fascinating. Whether it’s Lonnie or the bullies, or the people in town filled with judgment and prejudice, or even the ones who mean well—like his mom, his brother, and his friends—everyone sees Will.

Lonnie and the bullies take his sensitivity as an insult and attack him for it. Joyce and Jonathan cherish it and accept him for who he is. But either way, he’s seen.

And that’s the double-edged sword: being visible means he’s an easy target for hatred and violence. That’s why no one—not even Hopper or Ted Wheeler—was surprised at the idea that Will might be a victim of a hate crime.

But on the other hand, the people who love him and accept him can see him. They notice immediately when something’s wrong. They know when he’s not okay. They realize right away when he goes missing.

Who ever noticed that Mike was suffering? How long would it have taken for the Wheeler parents to realize Mike hadn’t come home if El hadn’t saved him from falling off that cliff?

Like the post said so perfectly—people don’t recognize Mike’s difference.

Sure, he’s spared from the bullying—kind of. He still gets bullied for his frog face, for being a nerd. But before Will disappeared, he didn’t seem to be targeted by the homophobic slurs that were directed at Will.

It’s not that they hate him. It’s that they don’t see him.

And that would explain his obsession with superheroes and people with powers, but also his desire to be normal. Deep down, Mike wants to be different. He wants to be seen. He wants to be himself—but he also knows how dangerous that is. He’s seen what happened to Will. And to El.

And one really important thing that aemiron-main said (which I think would explain the cliff scene so well, and which I really hope Season 5 will explore):

Will represents gay men who die from hate crimes. Mike represents gay men who die by suicide.

Will represents gay men who are too visible (through no fault of their own), whose families and the people around them sensed their queerness from a very young age. Mike represents gay men who are invisible—not hated, but never supported either.

Will represents gay men who are tormented, or taken away by force. Mike represents gay men who run away from home—or disappear by taking their own lives.

Will is a gay boy who gets picked on and called “queer” because of how he dresses. Mike is a gay boy whose clothes go unnoticed.

Will is good at hiding because he’s visible. He has to hide because people seem to see right through him.

Mike isn’t good at hiding. He’s not good at pretending to be “normal” because he never had to. He’s invisible. No one ever saw him before.

He never had to hide the way Will did.

Will had to learn how to hide and how to act “normal.” That’s exactly why he hates when people treat him differently, like he’s a “freak.” Will doesn’t want to be treated differently—because he’s always been treated differently.

Because he’s too visible. So he had to learn how to act “normal.”

Meanwhile, Mike wants to be treated differently—because he’s been invisible his entire life.

He never had to learn how to hide, or how to behave “normally,” not really. Even though now he tries, he doesn’t know how, because he never had to before.

Where Lonnie noticed every trace of queerness in Will, Ted just… ignored everything. Too busy being passive and watching TV.

Will was so visible that he couldn’t even breathe without Lonnie noticing and forcing him to play baseball, because “that’s what boys do.” Mike is so invisible he could’ve screamed “I have a girl with magical powers in my basement who’s wanted by the government” and Ted wouldn’t have noticed a thing.

Mike and Will are two sides of the same coin.

And now that I think about it… poor Mike is just lost. He doesn’t know where he fits.

Because he’s an invisible gay kid, he doesn’t feel normal—so he thinks he has to protect himself by hiding his difference and pretending to be normal. He performs heteronormativity for the whole world to see (aka the cis-het “normals”).

But at the same time, he’s not seen or accepted by the “different” ones either—because they don’t perceive his difference.

(Like when El says “no you don’t” after Mike tells her he knows what it’s like to be bullied—because she meant being different, and she didn’t see that in him.)

Mike doesn’t feel at home with the “normal” people, because deep down he knows he’s different. But he doesn’t feel different enough to be embraced by those who are different.

So he’s stuck. He’s floating in between. He doesn’t know where his place is.

Which also explains why it’s so hard for him to develop a sense of self-worth outside of being needed. Outside of being useful.

He suppresses and denies his own trauma because he thinks it doesn’t “count.” Because he didn’t go through what Will went through. Or what El went through. So he tells himself it’s nothing.

His curse is invisibility.

Even we, the audience, don’t get access to his point of view. He’s ignored, overlooked, minimized—and especially misunderstood.

And all of this gives him that aching feeling of belonging nowhere. Not normal enough, not different enough. Not this, not that.

Mike Wheeler is Vecna’s playground, honestly. If he isn’t one of his targets in Season 5, then what was the point of writing such a painfully complex character?

Here is the post who inspired me this post.

#stranger things #byler #mike wheeler #will byers #byler endgame #stranger things analysis #stranger things theory #mike wheeler analysis #byler tumblr #mike wheeler is gay #will byers analysis #mike wheeler mental health #byler analysis

61 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 8 days ago

Text

Louder for people in the back

everyone wants complex characters til

- they have more than one thing they care about

- have a mental illness thats not romanticized

- the character does something wrong

- not everyone can perfectly relate to the character

- the character has visible flaws

- the character is queer

- they have issues that aren't considered a "big deal" or worth the struggle the character experiences bc of them

- the character has human depth

#Mike Wheeler #Stranger Things

37 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 10 days ago

Text

OMG DUFFERS BROTHERS

watch where you’re going, frogface

“watch where you’re going, frogface”

“he was probably killed by some other queer”

I just think it’s interesting that in a scene about homophobic bullying, not only is Mike the one physically targeted the most & has insults about will directed at him, but he’s also the only party member there who gets called an insulting name that starts with “f,” (dustin and lucas’ nicknames are ’toothless,’ and ‘midnight’).

But what about Will? What was his insulting nickname?

We know ‘zombie boy’ wouldn’t have started until s2/after will got back from the ud. so what were they calling will before that? I think they were either a.) outright calling him a fag or b.) calling him a freak c.) calling him a fairy or d.) all of the above.

Mike and Will likely being the only two in the party whose’ insulting names started with ‘f’. fairy/freak/outright using ‘fag’ for will, and ‘frogface’ for Mike. because they’re the two gay members. because as absurd as it sounds, relative to what the other nicknames are ‘frogface’ isn’t that far off from ‘faggot’. like cmon. “freak” is often used as a stand-in for fag, especially with the hellfire stuff & hellfire acting as an allegory for queerness, and so for there to already be a precedent of other words starting with ‘F,’ (freak) being used as a standing for ‘fag,’ I don’t think it’s farfetched for ‘frogface,’ to operate in a similar way and to be a subtle nod to Mike’s gayness.

#stranger things #byler #mike wheeler #will byers #st analysis #gay mike wheeler #gay will byers #st and queerness #st bullies

219 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 10 days ago

Text

LOUDER

btw I don’t just think it’s about “Mike realizing suddenly that he’s in love with Will” persay- rather I think it’s about Mike figuring out what romantic love and attraction actually IS, what it actually feels like throughout the seasons (especially with him being gay and realizing he doesn’t like girls), and then realizing that what he’s felt for Will even since s1? that feeling, THAT’s what romantic love is.

Mike and his internalized homophobia and heteronormativity and thinking that the way he feels about El is what romantic love is supposed to be like, because that’s how his parents are (miserable and fighting all the time, Karen-Ted vis El-Mike parallels), he thinks that’s just what romance is supposed to be like, just like how El has a romanticized, idealized view of romance/relationships, Mike has the opposite, he has a more pessimistic/“putting up with it” attitude towards how these things are supposed to feel for him because shitty, opposite of movie ideal relationships are what’s been modelled for him. and don’t even get me started on how Mike ms relationship with Karen has put him into a position of feeling like he has to cater to others’ emotions all the time and not even consider his own so then during his relationship with El, it’s about what SHE wants, what SHE feels, with little consideration for how Mike’s feeling, and it’s not even El’s fault, it’s the fault of how Mike’s been raised.

Mike realizing that all those things he’s felt for Will? That he’s felt over the years? THATS LOVE THATS WHAT LOVE IS AND THATS HOW WILL FEELS ABOUT HIM AND MIKE WONT EVEN BE ABLE TO BELIEVE IT!!! BECAUSE HOW COULD SOMEONE AS WONDERFUL AS WILL FEEL THAT WAY ABOUT HIM?? just. Mike realizing that THAT’s what love is. It’s perfect. It’s not just Mike realizing WHO he loves but instead it’s about realizing what love IS which is also how gay Mike ties into byler.

Mike getting together with Will realizing that love isn’t just something you have to put up with and try and cope with and push down your upset feelings, realizing that it’s something wonderful and enjoyable and happy.

#stranger things #byler #mike wheeler #will byers #st analysis #mike wheeler analysis #byler analysis

265 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 10 days ago

Text

This

A THOUGHT: if Mike was ever in love with El/romantically interested in her, then why did he claim that he fell in love with her at first sight when that’s 100% factually untrue. Why didn’t he just use the actual moment that he realized he had feelings for her? Even if it was just a crush, why not use that moment and claim it was love?

Because that moment doesn’t exist. He was never in love with her or romantically interested in her. And by the time s4 rolls around, he KNOWS that, he’s learned what romantic love and attraction feels like and has begun to realize that he’s gay and never loved her romantically.

He definitely didn’t even have a crush on her at first sight (see: wanting to send her to an asylum), so if he DID ever have a crush on her, why not use that moment that he realized he did? Because again, that moment doesn’t exist.

He HAD to lie about it in the monologue because it literally doesn’t exist!! It doesn’t make it okay that he lied about it but it does explain part of WHY.

#stranger things #st analysis #mike’s monologue #byler #milkvan #gay mike wheeler #mike's lack of attraction to girls #mike wheeler analysis #mike wheeler #will byers #el hopper #eleven stranger things

1K notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 10 days ago

Text

Excellent analysis that make obvious how Will and Mike are two different representatives of gay men on this period, this is so interesting I love it !

analysis: imo ted wont be by the end of the show + also mike’s sexuality is tied into the meta/overarching narrative and metaphors in st.

this is not a full ted wheeler analysis nor a full gay mike analysis nor a full st narrative analysis (all of which im going to do at some point), however, it is an analysis as to why s4 made up my mind about whether or not ted would be homophobic in the end + why gay mike specifically is intertwined into the ST narrative as a matter of analysis rather than headcanon. SO! Again, this isn’t a full analysis, but here’s part of why I believe that Mike was written as a gay man + it’s tied into the overall narrative of ST. Mike saying “that’s just bullshit media propaganda,” in early s4, and then in the last episode, Ted is watching the news when it’s talking about hellfire club being a cult and opening a gate to hell, and goes

“are you hearing this?”

and then Karen says “just what we need, more hysteria,” and Ted goes “that’s the news for you. Indistinguishable from the tabloids.”

We know that in Mike’s scene, the guy he was talking to said that dnd/hellfire club was satanic or whatever, just like how in ted’s scene, the news is talking about how hellfire club is a satanic cult. And we know that in Mike’s scene, in addition to the other obvious gayness when he’s running around looking for people (the wrestling team?? REALLY, Michael??), there’s a very obviously placed cutout of the word “women,” beside Mike’s head when he looks disgruntled/starts talking about “bullshit media propaganda,” which to me, shows that there’s a double meaning (ie the bullshit homophobic media propaganda that was going around at the time esp w the aids crisis). So, “women” and “bullshit media propaganda” being put together in the same scene alongside Mike’s upset/disgruntled reaction seems to demonstrate that to Mike, women and bullshit media propaganda are connected (ie not that Mike hates women, but that it’s literally bullshit propaganda (and need I remind you of the word bullshit and its use in ST specifically towards failing relationships where one person is not in love with the other?), that people are telling him he’s supposed to like women romantically, that the news is saying it, etc) Just like Jonathan’s convo with Will about “you shouldn’t like things because people tell you to.”

And so, with the whole “aids is god’s will,” rhetoric that was going around in the 80s + how that scene is subtly not just Mike speaking out against the media propaganda regarding hellfire, but also narratively it’s regarding being gay + aids, vs the “hellfire club is satanic/against god” and how the two are linked and how hellfire club works as a metaphor for queerness + being outcast + the satanic panic vs the aids panic, then it also stands to reason that if Ted’s reaction towards the media propaganda about hellfire is the same as Mike’s then ted’s reaction to the propaganda about lgbtq people and the aids crisis will also be the same as Mike’s because the two topics are meant to parallel eachother and be linked.

Long story short: Ted might not be the best dad. He should’ve been there for Mike and Nancy more, should’ve been more emotionally open. But he’s not homophobic. He doesn’t hate his kids.

Ted’s arc isn’t about being hateful- it’s about being ignorant. It’s about ignorance and how that can also play a huge role in the rise of hate and misinformation. Ted is not the one putting out the media propaganda, giving speeches like Jason- Ted is the one listening quietly, or simply following along, the one not challenging people like Jason. Ted is a living representation of the bystander effect. Ted throughout the seasons, is blinded by the media propaganda.

But over time, in s4, we see that start to change. He’s no longer blinded by the propaganda. He’s starting to question it. Starting to question the government (asking why nobody from the government’s intervening about the murders), whereas previously, we see him blindly following the government when Brenner and co show up at the Wheeler house. He makes his comment about the news being like the tabloids. He’s no longer following along, no longer just staring at the tv silently like he has every other season, but instead, he’s watching. He’s listening, now. He’s responding. He’s questioning.

I’m always open to discussion, but imo, Ted Wheeler is not homophobic, not in the end, at least. And his arc is not about hate, it’s not about active loathing and aggression the way that Lonnie’s is and his dynamic with Will- it’s about ignorance. Ted Wheeler is ignorant, he ignores Mike. For better or for worse, he is the epitome of ignorance. But he’s getting over that ignorance, and beginning to see through the media propaganda that’s been put out about hellfire/about queer people/the aids crisis. And Ted is a reagan supporter- of course he’s aware of the media propaganda going around about the aids crisis, and likely believed much of it, believed a lot of that homophobia, not out of active hatred, but out of a lack of questioning- homophobic not out of direct action, but out of inaction, out of complacency.

If Will is a representation of lgbtq people who are actively targeted for their sexuality and hated by their parents (Lonnie in this case), whose parents see right through them and hate them for it, then Mike is a representation of lgbtq people who fall through the cracks, who are invisible, whose parents can’t see them no matter how much they want their parents to see and understand. Mike, like when he fell off the cliff and disappeared (which is PARALLELED to hopper saying that Will fell off of a cliff and implied that it was a hate crime/that his disappearance was a hate crime), is gone, he disappears, he’s not actively targeted, he’s invisible. Which isn’t any better than being viable in the way that Will is, because it means that people can’t help him. At least Will has people in his life who recognize that he’s different and love him for it (joyce and Jonathan), despite the hatred that this openness/outward queerness brings, it also brings love. But with Mike, people don’t recognize that he’s different. They don’t love him or hate him for it- they don’t seem him at all. And that would explain Mike’s fixation with superheroes, and special people with powers, but also his desire to send normal. Deep down, Mike wants to be different. Wants to be seen. Wants to be able to be himself, wants to enjoy dnd (which is a representation of his relationship with Will). But he also knows how dangerous it is. He knows now, that being associated with Hellfire/dnd is dangerous. He knows that being different is dangerous, because look at everything that’s happened to Will for being different, and look at everything that’s happened to El for being different/being a superhero.

DND was also literally used as a metaphor for mike and will’s relationship, and also for mike being himself (ie, mike not being himself in s3 + his and will’s relationship starting to falter. DND is representative of queer relationships in that regard. It was never just about the hellfire club or satanic panic related to DND. Past that level, it’s about queerness and otherness and being different, and the hateful panic of the aids crisis.

If Will is gay men who die by hate crimes, then Mike is gay men who die by suicide. If Will is gay men who are almost too visible (not by any fault of their own), whose families/the people around them have sensed their queerness from a young age, then Mike is gay men who are invisible, who receive no hate from their families, but also no support. If Will is gay men who are tormented in their own home, or forcibly taken from their own home (his vanishing/kidnapping), then Mike is gay men who run away from home, or who disappear via suicide. (see: smalltown boy, finn talking about who’s going to leave hawkins and then also quarry scene). If Will is a gay man who, as joyce said, gets picked and called queer for his clothes, then Mike is a gay man whose clothing choices are never noticed at all, even if theyre ‘as gay’ as will’s. (not that clothes are gay LMAO but that there’s specific things mentioned in the script that the bullies would pick out about will’s clothes, things like them being colourful, but imo, mike’s character, even if dressed the same way, or even MORE colourful, esp since will really isn’t that colourful, would go unnoticed by the bullies, but also generally unnoticed by everyone, because he’s about invisibility and the harm that it can cause). It’s like how sometimes in ST, the characters need to run, need to hide, need to be invisible- like how Will standing his ground against the mindflayer ended up getting him posssesed. Will is good at hiding because he IS so visible, he has to hide because people seem to see right through him. Mike is not good at hiding. He’s not good at acting ‘normal.’ He fails at it in s4 (see: airport scene). Because Mike is invisible. He’s never learned how to hide because people have never really seen him before. He’s never had to hide in the same way that Will has, he’s never had to run in the same way that Will has (see: will running from the demogorgon but being able to use a gun in s1 vs mike standing his ground but grabbing the ineffective candlestick), he’s never been visible, so he’s never needed to hide, so, he’s not very good at it. He’s not good at acting normal. Will is. Will is good at acting normal (not that he IS normal, just better at ACTING normal, like the airport scene?? mike was way more gay and awkward and obviously in love tm). This is also part of why Will gets so upset about people treating him differently/as if he’s a freak, whereas mike seems to WANT to be different deep down, seems to IDOLIZE people like superheroes, who are different. Will doesn’t want people to treat him differently because he HAS been treated differently his whole life, because he’s too visible, so he’s had to learn to hide and act ‘normal.’ Mike, on the other hand, wants to be treated differently because he’s been invisible his whole life, and so he never had to learn to hide or act normal, even though he eventually has to TRY and do so, he never learned how, because he never had to. Because whereas Lonnie would pick up on any hint of oddity about Will, Ted would simply ignore things as strange as mike keeping a girl with telekinetic powers in the basement. Will was so visible that he couldn’t even breathe the wrong way lest lonnie notice, and was always actively pursued by things like the mindflayer and demogorgon and henry. Mike was so invisible that he could be screaming “i have a girl in the basement!!!” and ted would barely notice. Mike and Will are two sides of the same coin. IMO, Mike was written as a gay man, and it is intertwined into the overarching narrative + meta of stranger things, and this is just one example among many. (like how ‘it’s not my fault that you don’t like girls’ only makes sense if mike is projecting and therefore doesn’t like girls, which means that there’s yet another reference not JUST to mike being attracted to men, which could indicate him being bi, but SPECIFICALLY to his lack of attraction to girls.) Again- ZERO hate to anyone with other thoughts, and this isn’t meant to spark an argument. But imo, there’s elements of the narratives and metaphors in ST that only click into place if Mike is gay. It’s not that bi or unlabelled people are less queer, or less targeted, or that they would have been less at risk at the time. Not at all. But rather, it’s the fact that ST has have chosen to intertwine gay mike as a part of demonstrating the link between hellfire club/satanic panic vs sexuality and the aids crisis. This metaphor could still totally work if Mike was bi- but the evidence for it, things like the word “women” being behind him while he’s talking about “bullshit media propaganda,” using the phrase “bullshit” specifically, one that’s been used for heteronormative relationships/relationships where one part isn’t attracted to the other anymoree (see: stancy), and therefore tying that word to the word “women,” demonstrates that Mike being a gay man/not attracted to women is part of what builds that connection between hellfire satanic panic vs queerness and the aids crisis/homophobia. That scene with mike is not the RESULT of the existing metaphorical link between the hellfire club and satanic panic vs queerness and the aids crisis- it is part of what BUILDS that link, and they chose to build that link in a way that demonstrates Mike not having attraction to women (and again, this is just one scene, not a full gay mike analysis by any stretch). They could have built it other ways! They totally could have built that link in ways that demonstrate bi mike, and the narrative and metaphor would totally still work- they could’ve had mike looking happy with the word ‘men,’ behind him. But they didn’t do that. Instead, they specifically chose to specify that Mike lacks attraction towards women, and that his relationships with women (el) are the result of heternormativity and propaganda. Rather than just reinforcing that Mike also likes men, instead of having the word ‘men,’ back there and showing mike looking happy, or looking happy in front of the words women and men, or looking equally UPSET in front of both, they chose, instead, to demonstrate a lack of attraction towards women, and directly parallel the word ‘women’ to a phrase (bullshit) that indicates a lack of attraction + also indicates a relationship that was informed by heternormative standards and stereotypes (early stancy). So it’s not that bi people aren’t valid, or weren’t affected by the aids crisis, because that’s not what i’m saying- it’s that the show chose to build a link between mike’s lack of attraction to women, heteronormative standards/propaganda AND the overarching narrative about the aids crisis vs the satanic panic/hellfire vs queerness. Barb is also tied to the aids crisis/homophobic panic, like i discussed in my yellow ribbon post. IMO Barb’s death, metaphorically, rather than being the result of aids, is the result of the sort of bigotry and rejection and self-loathing that came as a result of the media propaganda and homophobia during the aids crisis. And if we disregard the use of the word ‘bullshit’ and its connotations in the show, if we disregard the word ‘women’ behind mike in that scene, and dismiss it as “just a writing choice/random word choice/coincidence,” or “just a set design choice/random/coincidence,” then there is a LOT of other things that we have to disregard on the show as well (ie, the word ‘crazy’ and it being a stand-in for love), or things like all of the intricate yellow blue set design colour coding. A lot of the byler evidence disappears if we ignore things like this + dismiss them, so why should we dismiss them when it comes to sexuality and the ST narrative? The word “women” didn’t just leap onto the set wall. Finn didn’t just choose to stand right in front of it and say “bullshit” and talk about media propaganda in relation to a topic (hellfire club and the satanic panic) that is very clearly a stand-in for the aids crisis and homophobia because he was in a silly goofy mood. The sets don’t come pre-decorated randomly. The actors dont just close their eyes and choose where to stand, the directors don’t just let them do whatever, the editors don’t just trim a few clips and call it a day, cinematographers don’t just decide to set up a shot for shits and giggles, ESPECIALLY not in a show like stranger things where time and time again, the intricacy of the set design, the direction, the writing, the cinematography, of EVERYTHING, has been demonstrated time and time again. If we ignore things like this and write them off as coincidence, then we ignore the panda drawing on el’s desk in s3 that foreshadowed Robin using the chinese restuarant “international panda” to crack the code. We ignore things like the fact that there’s always SOME representation of Will between mike and el every single time that they kiss, like i mentioned in this post (link), then we ignore tons and tons of other, clearly relevant details in the show, details that prove things like byler endgame.

#stranger things #byler #mike wheeler #gay Mike wheeler #mike wheeler analysis #st analysis #ted wheeler #wheeler family #st4 #will byers #will byers analysis #lonnie byers #hopper byers family #gay will byers

505 notes · View notes