#& also my analysis posts are never meant as 'i am smarter than you' i NEED to tear media apart with my teeth or i grow ill and die

[57sfinest]

2, 3, 7 and 24 lol

2. a compelling argument for why your fave would never top or bottom

mmm i'm gonna go a little sideways from the prompt because harry isn't necessarily my fave but i just do want to say i don't think this man is topping. i think the emotional fallout from martinaise has stripped him of his ability to ever top or dom or be in charge in any sexual capacity like ever again. someone tries to get him to top and he gets the thousand yard stare like oh no... i dont top..... not since The Accident..... like already immediately post-amnesia you've got these comments saying sober sex is scary for him, his blood flow is bad from the alcoholism so his dick is operating at a generous 48% capacity, he's got chronic pain + will probably feel that bullet in his thigh forever and ever and this is a perfect storm that equals to This Man Aint Topping. physical and emotional agony if this man even tries. you put this man in a situation where he's expected to top and he says 'i can't... not after everything women have been through...'

that being said i think if you can convince him that there is a shortage of tops for the future communist utopia of revachol & you remind him "from each according to his means" etc he might try. like if you tell him mazov topped then it might actually work. but otherwise call this man a cheese pizza cuz there's no topping here

3. screenshot or description of the worst take you've seen on tumblr

there have been many. but i think one that angers me the most is the idea that dora was somehow wrong for leaving harry. i did see once (many months ago) that she should have stayed because of what the breakup did to him and i know for a FACT that person completely missed the point of the last dream on the seafort. that shit was crazy

7. what character did you begin to hate not because of canon but because how how the fandom acts about them?

i'm very good at maintaining my own separate opinions so there's no character i HATE but [strapping on my bulletproof vest] kim took a back burner in my brain for a while because the sheer volume of genuine sincere unironic 'kim is a good cop and his purpose in life is to be harry's support system' i saw was like. mind numbing. i'm not talking about lighthearted fun with his character i was seeing people genuinely believing that shit and i got so sick of it that kim became a secondary consideration for a while. i do love him his character is super interesting & i'm currently working on an analysis, but i think it was a case of oversaturation for a few months there

24. topic that brings up the most rancid discourse

i am lucky to have not seen much but i think one of the things i see start some conflict is that there are 2 equally good and valuable types of Disco Enjoyment: 1) silly goofy fun and 2) full 10th-grade-english-teacher-mode analysis. and people can do both but i personally have deleted several anons who i think didn't realize this fact and therefore took my character analysis posts as personal attacks on the Silly Goofy Fun activities rather than the braindumps they were. most of the rancid shit i HAVE seen has mostly come down to: we are looking at the same thing through different levels of detail and canon-compliancy and are forgetting that Ignoring That Shit is an option

[mdhwrites]

A Twin Sided Dilemma

TLDR: I think I am healthier doing analytical stuff but I do think that due to how my brain works, it is choking my writing/creative works and has been to varying degrees for an entire year now. I need to find some sort of way to bring the two sides together but right now they just... aren't working and it kind of sucks.

So let's expand and get into a lot of history for me and reviewing. Give you all an idea of why I am the way I am I guess. It's not like I first began to be analytical with TOH after all. I've been that way since I was 17 and found 'reviewer' Youtube. A decade ago that meant people like The Nostalgia Critic and the entire bronalysis community and... Yeah. I was not actually that great at analysis back then but I sure thought I was! I thought I was smarter and better than a lot of those around me when it came to anything about stories.

This included my own works. About a year later, I would be smashed into oblivion for that hubris but until then, I was a complete asshole. Later in life, I would relate my analytical side with my anger but it's easy to also say it was tied into my ego and confidence. When I hit rock bottom, I actually cut ties with most online groups and stopped voicing my opinions because, well... I couldn't be that person anymore.

But it also never died. I am analytical by nature. It's simply a part of who I am and is part of what makes me unique as a creative. It's why I can make ideas as fast as I can and work on them as quickly as I can because my analytical basis forms a foundation for putting things together very quickly. There was no turning it off so for the next five years I watched better reviewers, calmed myself and formed rules. My idea of not claiming I could have made something better? Me trying to avoid personal attacks on creators and just attack their work and how their work makes me perceive their skill at their job? The fact that I try to inform and teach rather than purely critique? All came from this period where I was trying to figure out a way to be analytical without being a complete asshole.

Then I rejoin online communities and two years after that, we get me turning my back on TOH and starting to do analytical blogs fairly regularly again. This would be roughly a year ago. This was the first time I would be doing a lot of blogs that weren't just using something as an example but about a work again. Letting myself open up well and truly to that old part of myself.

And when I felt I was becoming too toxic, I slowed down and let myself breathe. I genuinely have a better head on my shoulders and I've been proud of those blogs. I think I give good insight and still do well to talk about how writing is to hopefully make others better writers. There's a fundamental problem with all of this though.

When I originally reviewed stuff, I considered myself to be doing it from a position of strength. I saw no flaws in my concepts, even if the technical side was still being polished. Now the technical side of my writing is better but my confidence is NOTHING compared to the ego I had before. I know that might sound crazy with how confident I likely sound in my blogs but you don't see me rapidly checking tabs, fidgeting when there's no response to a post, etc. like that. I have always needed validation and that has gotten WORSE with time, not better.

And now we get to the new way it's interacting with my creative side. It used to be that I would say my emotional side needed to get out of the way some for me to work. The pain and depression had to let me breathe. Now the analytical side is in the way with an unreasonable demand: "If you're so good at critiquing, why aren't you even BETTER at creating?"

It's a bullshit claim though. One of my rules is specifically to refute it after all. I don't let myself claim I could do something better without specific criteria being met because it is ALWAYS easier to critique than it is to create. Not only that but critiquing has fundamentally different goals to creation as sometimes it's just nice to do something fun. Something people will find entertainment in and hopefully I manage a couple themes along the way.

That isn't doable to my brain anymore. It has started evaluating themes and the like when I make a concept. Can't find them enough? Scrap it, no matter how much the other side wants to do it. Even worse is that when an idea had potential, it then asks if I can do a GREAT job with it. I have considered myself a good writer for a long time but it wants it to be PERFECT.

It's why I have been stalling out so hard this entire past year. Nothing gets to stick because either it doesn't pass mustard or my brain says I can't do it and takes the reigns from me. That I'm simply not good enough.

Which would imply that I should discard this part of me again but I analyze things BY NATURE. My brain quite literally NEVER turns off. I can't just chill and watch things and I do like sharing my thoughts, if not just to have them be validated. It is a part of me just as I will never stop making ideas I want to write (I have been pulled hard by like 4+ novel/novella length ideas in this past WEEK alone). It is better that I find balance with them but...

Just like I haven't found peace with whatever storm causes my anxiety and depression, I don't have an idea right now for how to fix this problem either.

[notahorseindisguise]

hi just finished writing this essay and i came back up to the top to say THIS GOT SO MUCH LONGER THAN I MEANT IT TO. i just like writing media analysis. you really dont need to read all of it thats ok <3

i was gonna write this in tags but then it got too long cause i am NOT a concise man . anyway i get why you feel that way thats such a valid opinion, but to me it definitely has its charm . it has the "...calling all SAVIORS, TONIGHT" which i really like, i love that chorus. saviors is a response to the world today, and its almost a call to action, id say. god i think this short response is about to turn into a full essay. sorry.

savior is a word most commonly associated in the cultural conscience with the one guy, jesus. to a very large number of people, the word exclusively refers to him . so when they use it in the plural sense, referring to multiple saviors implies that jesus being the savior was not enough to save us. thats also further supported by the line in strange days where they say "jesus gonna quit his job/he promised us forever/but we got less". theyre saying jesus promised hed be our savior, but it wasnt enough to save us forever . thats why hes quitting his job (of being the savior) because he wasnt enough

so "calling all saviors", and the whole of saviors to me, obviously reads as green day saying like ..we need more people actively fighting to save us. we need more saviors. and i enjoy that message. and maybe im reading into it but it kind of feels like green day is implying "cause we cant do this forever", yk? they need someone to take over but theres really no bands like green day around right now

another reason i like this album is it does really well in its position. i dont know if anyone else has noticed this trend, but the penultimate song of most green day albums seems to be a "goodbye song", and then the last song is a finale. its hard to explain what theyre doing, but you can definitely sense it.

for example: homecoming is basically the end of the story of american idiot. the album could end at homecoming and itd still be a spectacular album, but even though homecoming is a goodbye from the album, its not a finale. whatsername however, definitely is. it feels like it wraps up the album.

this post is already so long, so i wont go into specifics, but you can also DEFINITELY and obviously see this in nimrod, definitely in revolution radio, in 21cb, in dookie (to some extent, if you count all by myself), hell i would argue its even present in ¡uno! to some extent. i could talk about this for ages because i think its really cool

but the point is, saviors is really good at being the second to last song. it sums up the idea for the album (need for help during this modern age and its overwhelmingness), its a call to action for that savior to appear, and it also feels like the album could have ended there if they wanted it to.

but it didn't, because green day is smarter than that, because they had something else to say, which is fancy sauce, and fancy sauce honestly to me feels a bit like green day finally admitting to themselves that they arent angry teenagers anymore . what with the "we all die young someday" . they arent actually saying that theyre dieing young, like I've said before, more like theyre saying everybody dies, no matter how old, unfinished. youll never be able to finish everything you ever could have.

and to me that sentiment almost feels like theyre saying, we couldve done more, but we grew older too fast? maybe? im not sure.

sorry prev, this stopped being about you about a paragraph in, so you dont need to read all this, in fact nobody really does, i just wanted to get some thoughts out there cause as my followers know i loooove analyzing media.

final thoughts: saviors the song is a really good song. i love how it fits into the album. it brings the album home while still leaving that room for one more song that fancy sauce fills perfectly. however, for the titular track, its not very shareable. like its not a song that i could just send someone and be like "this encapsulates the whole new album" . and i dont know that there is one for this album, i think. i think you just gotta listen to the whole thing.

ok so saviors (album) i really enjoy as a whole. im a little disappointed in saviors (song) honestly. it works great in its place in the album, i think its a great song as the penultimate moment of the album . but its not that great a standalone ?

like in the context of. if you were gonna recommend a song to someone from an album. usually youd recommend the song that the album borrows its name from. saviors (song) kind of misses the mark there. its not enough for it to be the only song that people know from it, if that makes sense.

and like i just saw someone say in a review of the album, it kind of feels like saviors doesnt have just one song to recommend to a casual listener to get a feel of the album. maybe strange days? or tadikm? those would be my only two suggestions. but like. it shouldve been saviors (song) and i think it had potential. but its missing Something. something small. idk what it is it needs a little more. maybe if they made it like. longer. and added more to it, like a faster section. im not sure ok but it needs more

[celialestial]

Okay. Well, if I’m being honest, this episode was not the greatest. This is also the first analysis I’ve made for a show, at least that I’m posting. We’ll see how this goes. Strap in, this is going to be long. 

I think we have all learned by now that Jamie-focused episodes are never the strongest. I find it a bit ironic that in a show called Jamie Johnson, the least interesting character is Jamie himself. 

We finally saw the end of the, dare I say, idiotic Under-13s subplot. The classic “arguing friends are trapped in a room together until they make-up” trope was used to its, not fullest, but decent potential. The greatest part of this episode was the fact that their eighth-grade drama was resolved; that and the ten seconds of screentime Dillon received. Liam continues to prove that he has still not grown. Here’s my analysis of his development:

[I was going to insert a clever chart of his nonexistent growth, but I’m too lazy, sorry. Here’s a paragraph about it instead:]

Liam needs to learn that manipulating people and pretending to have changed is not maturity, it’s being an asshole. He has a terrible father, that’s true, but Dillon managed to change. Nothing has ever truly been at stake for Liam. He’s been able to lie and manipulate others to get out of all the trouble he’s caused. He was given a second chance to play with the Under-13s and has continued to use those around him in order to seem, I don’t know. Big? Powerful? All he has done is made the Three Musketeers dislike him even more. He has done absolutely nothing to earn their trust. I could go on and on about Liam Simmonds, which I suppose proves he’s an interesting character (that’s more than I can say about some people *cough* Jamie *cough*). 

Eric learns that Aisha has feelings for him too. Yay! He also learns that Aisha is much smarter and more mature than him, choosing to step back and give him time to be with his friends. Yay? Freddie has been incredibly weird this season. I can’t tell if he genuinely liked Aisha as more than a friend, or if he thought he was supposed to, given how much Eric liked her. This entire storyline comprised of way too much unnecessary drama. Looking at Instagram comments, however, it seems that it was very popular among younger kids. I suppose I am a bit too old to be criticizing middle school relationship drama in a children’s show. Poor Alba was practically thrown to the dogs in favor of a petty love triangle. All of their problems were wrapped up so neatly, it felt a bit uncomfortable. Like they didn’t deserve this ending. 

I don’t know if it’s just me, but something about this episode seemed off. When comparing it to other episodes with similar premises, the lack of emotion and genuineness becomes obvious. Take episode 10, for example, there were many (and I mean many) subplots. It was a little all over the place. And yet, the end of the episode left me feeling bittersweet, intrigued, and wanting more. This episode didn’t do that. I am sick of Jamie’s bullshit and tired of this dumb love triangle. Thankfully, the latter is complete now. 

Onto Jamie’s storyline:

1) I told y’all Jetpac11 would be Jethro! These are some big brain hours.

2) This boy is supposed to be the TITLE character. His storyline is meant to be the most in depth, the most interesting, and, above all else, the most entertaining. It is none of those things. The stakes are supposed to be high, and they are, but they don’t feel like it? He supposedly lost his place at Hawkstone over a goddamn video game. Why don’t I feel anything except contempt? If not frustration at Jamie, then frustration at Ian, who I suppose I should be used to by now. Everyone says Jamie should know better than to trust him after all he’s done. That he should just listen to Mike. Obviously that’s true, but Ian was on his side, not the other way around. Ian enabled Jamie and allowed him to make a stupid decision, one that has huge consequences. Ian didn’t tell Jamie to keep playing for his own gain, well, kind of. He let Jamie keep playing because he though it would make him happy and regain his trust. It’s the same reason Mike lied to Hawkstone. Both adults displayed extremely poor judgement, Ian just far more so, as always. I must admit that I have zero interest in video games. I also have zero interest in soccer (or, rather, football). Yet this show keeps me interested in the matches and invested in the characters. They have failed at maintaining my interest in this video gaming storyline. Part of this could be because I find Jamie boring and repetitive, or maybe he simply seems that way due to the plethora of vastly more compelling side characters. All I have learned from this is that Jamie is a pretty terrible friend, a poor judge of character, and impulsive. These are all faults he has had since season 1, except he used to be a genuinely decent friend. He has grown more self-involved and one-sighted (and one-sided, as in one-dimensional, or you could take it literally, seeing as one leg is currently out of commission). I get that he was hit by a car and his leg is broken. He doesn’t see a future in soccer for himself anymore. Mike is right, though, he should be focused on getting better and being able to play again. I don’t even like Mike most of the time -- I honestly find him fairly annoying, although this may be due to the acting -- but he is the only sane one in the Johnson family right now. Both of Jamie’s parents are enabling him and Mike has too, though only for around an episode and a half. I am so happy this storyline will be resolved next week. I am sure we will still be left with a cliffhanger at the end, as with every season. 

Dillon also got a bit of screentime in this episode (wow, a whole twenty seconds!). I really do like the way the writers are portraying how conflicted he is. He is torn between living a lie or risking his future as a professional player. I understand why they introduced Elliot. He was Dillon’s first crush and I think he was necessary for Dillon to come to terms with his sexuality. Where they messed up with Elliot, however, is by entirely removing him from the show after he fulfilled his purpose of giving Dillon the strength to come out. Just as @mcustorm said, he was a plot device and it was out of character for him to out Dillon. I could probably write a whole essay about how dirty both Elliot and Kat were done. The only way using exclusively Ruby to further Dillon’s storyline would’ve worked was if they kept the whole “Ruby has a crush on Dillon” thing from season 4. Doing that would likely ruin their entire dynamic as best friends and make things awkward. If they had done that and made, say Harry or Michel his first crush, they wouldn’t need Elliot to be Dillon’s first real crush. Although, Dillon was only around 11 or 12, and most real crushes don’t hit until 13-14, at least in my experience. Also if they had ruined Dillon and Ruby’s dynamic, then Dillon would have no real support system. I can’t really see Ruby abandoning Dillon over this, though, even if she had an unrequited crush. 

Next week should wrap up both Jamie’s and Dillon’s storylines. It will also be the final episode of season 5! A lot to look forward to and a lot to be absolutely terrified of, not to mention the fact that season 6 production has been postponed for obvious reasons. 

TL;DR:

It’s the end of the Under-13s drama! And possibly the end of Aisha, knowing how JJ deals with its newly irrelevant characters.

Jamie is being stupid and probably lost his chances of getting into Hawkstone. Or maybe not, considering he’s the protagonist of a kid’s show. JJ does have a habit of dealing out real consequences, though, so who knows.

Dillon got... something? He’s feeling conflicted, which is entirely natural, especially at this stage in his coming out. 

Next week is the last episode! Stay tuned for more, I guess. Let me know if you guys enjoyed this type of proper analysis. 

[today-only-happens-once]

Roman’s Arc: It’s Continuation in “Selfishness v. Selflessness”

I’ve seen a few posts over recent months talking about Roman Sanders’ character arc. Many of them discuss the arc as if it is something yet to come, rather than actively in progress, and I’d like to take a moment to present and discuss the idea that Roman’s arc has been unfolding gradually over the course of several videos. I think the newest video, “Selfishness v. Selflessness” is evidence of that.

This post is mostly about analyzing Roman’s development in the newest video with regards to the arc I’ve seen developing for quite some time. It’s probably my my favorite analysis I’ve written, because I felt like I was discovering as I wrote it. Without further ado, let’s begin. 

Roman is the first of the Sides to appear in this video, and for good reason. Thomas announces that he has a movie audition with Alfred Hitchcopalukas movie. In many ways, the beginning of this episode hearkens back to “I’M IN A DISNEY SHOW!!”. Celebratory, excited, and barely able to contain himself. 

Undoubtedly--from the very beginning--we know this opportunity means a great deal to Roman. We see that very clearly in Roman’s reaction to this moment,:

Deceit: Do you want the part in the movie or not?

But what’s telling, I think, is that Roman doesn’t speak for Thomas at first. It’s not until Thomas hesitates--and Deceit presses Thomas again with “Do you want the part or not?”--that Roman jumps in with “Of course he does!” 

He then goes on, after some back and forth with Patton and Deceit, to try to defend his perspective: 

Roman: I mean... things come up, you know? If Thomas’s Aunt Patty were in the hospital, then he would get a free pass to miss the wedding. Why should it be any different when something good comes up?

It’s important to note here that Roman--at this point--isn’t advocating for lying. When Deceit says that he likes Roman’s “Aunt Patty in the hospital excuse”, Roman’s response is “oh, I-I wasn’t--” before he’s cut off, indicating that he probably didn’t mean for that to be an excuse, but rather an example of something that would get Thomas that “free pass”. However... 

Deceit is nothing if not observant, and he certainly is manipulative. In many ways, he’s already begun his attempts to manipulate the Sides but he seems particularly interested in manipulating Roman. We see threads of this begin in the overlapping dialogue:

Roman and Deceit: What about us?

Patton and Virgil: What about us?

Deceit: Wow, guys, it’s so cool how you never listen to Roman.

Virgil: Why is he still here?!

Roman: Why am I still here?

Deceit: Wow. 

Virgil: I meant Deceit.

And, in fact, Virgil’s question comes to be a major one to ask. When Deceit points out that his very presence--and the fact that he is still there--suggests something about Thomas, Roman seems to take particular interest in that:

And then he’s thrust into the role of Judge. Throughout much of the trial, Roman seems to have this thick bravado on. Big gesturing, loud voice, humor delivered at not always appropriate times (”HEYO” for example). He buys into Deceit’s flattery--which once again reminds us of “Can Lying Be Good?”--time and again such as the following example:

Deceit [to Patton]: ‘Roman’? It’s ‘Your Honor’ to you. 

Roman: Hm. Sustained. 

This bravado is something that has been abundantly clear in previous videos, especially as Roman and the Sides have worked to let him release it. To speak to this point, I’d like to briefly turn back to “Learning New Things About Ourselves”, particularly Roman’s second section of “Incomplete”:

Roman: I’ve got an issue that feels new school. I don’t want to say I’m too cool, but I’m just too fab for you fools and I feel like you don’t get me. 

Thomas: You insulted us while venting.

Roman: Sorry--

Thomas: It’s all right, Princey. Honestly, it didn’t hurt me. It’s clear you’re the one that’s hurting.

Virgil: You feel low.

Roman: That’s not true. 

Patton: It’s okay.

Roman: Don’t assume.

Thomas: You don’t need to save face

Virgil: In almost any case

T, V, P: We embrace you.

Roman: That’s rich.

Virgil: No one hates you. 

[emphasis added]

Where we first saw a crack in Roman’s facade during the Crofters video, LNTAO was really the first time we see Roman being allowed to let down those walls. This is the first time he’s specifically called out for his bravado (”you don’t need to save face”). And in both the end of LNTAO and Embarassing Phases, we see Roman relaxing that bravado a bit:

Logan: You’re all better now, right, Roman?

Roman: Maybe not. But I’ll not shy away from it any longer.

-Learning New Things About Ourselves

Roman: That absolutely defeated me. I couldn’t cope with the fact that we weren’t on the same level as all the other incredible cosplayers at the cons you attended.

Patton: Aw, that was big of you to admit, Roman.

-Embarrassing Phases

But Roman pulls the bravado back on in Selfishness v. Selflessness. In many ways, this doesn’t come as a surprise, as painful as it is to see happen. Roman’s intense, deep desire for Thomas to pursue the callback audition over the wedding is held back only by the understanding that Thomas may not make that decision. Roman is aware that he may come out of this conversation devastated. And the first time we see a real crack in that bravado is the second he’s in the witness stand:

Deceit: Your name is Roman, correct?

Roman: The one and lonely.* What? Freudian slip. 

 [*Quick side-tangent that this line, in addition to being a crack in Roman’s bravado, may also foreshadow what Thomas confesses later on the stand himself in regards to why he doesn’t want to go to the wedding.]

 Roman is holding onto this bravado with both hands, even lying through his teeth initially to do it. In his effort--at first--to avoid being perceived as hurt, when Patton asks how he’d feel if Liza Minelli canceled on his wedding, his first response is to say, “wouldn’t bother me. Her not being there doesn’t change the fact that it’s my big day.” It’s only when Patton asks him again that Roman confesses “SO I would be devastated”. 

However, Roman then goes on to assert his own opinion on the issue so as to encourage Thomas to choose the audition over the wedding. I think some of this is because Roman feels conflicted in his own right. He evidently wants Thomas to go to the audition instead of the wedding--he blatantly says so. However, it’s important also to keep in mind that in the first Sides video, Roman’s gut response to identifying fears was “rejection” and he has--historically--expressed a deep concern with how others perceive and regard him; this is especially true with regards to Thomas, as was seen in “Am I Original?”

Roman: No! If I can’t come up with an original idea, what will you think of me? I can’t... let you down. 

Roman is held in a tension here between what he wants and the fear that if Thomas chooses otherwise, it will be devastating. I argue that this is why we get the following exchange while Thomas himself is on the stand being questioned by Deceit:

Deceit: Roman wants me to win, so...

Roman: Wha--What? Me? No. [scoffs] Come on.

Deceit: I know you’re lying, Roman. Like I said: everything has a purpose. And you’re denying yours. You want that callback so bad and it will crush you if we miss it.

And here is a shattering of the awkwardly worn bravado that Roman had tried to hard to put forward again. And once Roman’s has been ripped away from him, it doesn’t take long for Thomas to fall apart:

Thomas: Fine! I wanna go to the callback! I was planning on playing WordCrush on my phone during the wedding ceremony to keep my mind off the fact that I’m single. I don’t want to go. I’m afraid to go. And on top of that, a dream come true fell into my lap scheduled on the same day. Anyone would want to go to the callback. So yeah. I tried to force myself to forget about the wedding. And now I wanna lie to my friends so they don’t hate me for not supporting them. I am a liar. I’m a liar.

A lot of that monologue from Thomas speaks back to Roman. Roman’s “slip” that he’s lonely is a direct tie to Thomas’s desire to “keep [his] mind off the fact that [he’s] single”. The identification that the callback is “a dream come true” also connects directly to Roman not only because it’s in alignment with his personal desire for Thomas’s decision, but the specific language used in that phrasing “dream come true” is both fanciful and romantic--linking it directly to Roman. 

And then Roman surprises us: his “punishment” for Thomas is to miss the callback, and instead attend the wedding. When Deceit demands a reason, we see Roman’s bravado has completely evaporated. He’s quiet. Solemn. Understated. 

Roman: It’s my sworn duty to help Thomas achieve his hopes and dreams. But Thomas wouldn’t dream of attaining his hopes through deceitful means.

If I might put that into slightly different wording--as we’ve seen Roman describe himself as Thomas’s “hopes [and] dreams” in “Am I Original?”--Roman has come to understand that Thomas wouldn’t want him to become more like Deceit. Roman doesn’t want Thomas to achieve everything they’ve dreamed of only to arrive at the conclusion that he is, as Thomas claimed himself to be, “a liar”. 

And once that facade has been lowered, Roman keeps it lowered.

Deceit: And you want that stuff makes you happy, right?

Patton: Do I!

Roman: Do I. 

There is no illusion here--Roman’s punishment pains him to do. But he places the needs of everyone else above his own. Roman is beginning to release the mentality and bravado that made him claim “I’m the most important Side here!” in Learning New Things About Ourselves, and ask Thomas to forgo basic human needs in the name of dream-chasing in “Why Do We Get Out of Bed In the Morning?”.

Roman lets that brave face stay lowered through the end of the video (except the moment where he glares at Deceit when he says “there are smarter ways to get people to do what you want”), and it concludes with an extremely important moment between Thomas and Roman:

Thomas: Roman, I just, ah... I wanna thank you for helping to set me straight despite the cost. I... know that that wasn’t easy for you.

Roman: It wasn’t. But you’re welcome. 

And this--this moment of honesty and humility here--is a huge, monumental moment for Roman and his growth. 

Where this arc may yet continue to lead is TBD at the current moment. But Roman is growing and learning, and I think he’ll be moving forward with fewer blinders as it pertains to Deceit. I don’t think Roman will be so easily manipulated in the future--and I’ll be interested in what that may suggest about Roman’s honesty with himself as his character arc continues to develop. 

[sometimesrosy]

1. I know you don’t participate in fandom stuff really, but I just had to tell you that I saw your recent, brilliant post about B/E/C and s7 floating around Twitter and lots of people are LOVING it and saying how smart and insightful it is. It made me excited to see that; I’m a big fan of yours! Some are of course also saying they don’t have faith in Jason like you do/that he’s not smart enough as a writer to pull all of that off (that fandom Jason hate, man. I get it, he’s been a bit

urgh in press/Twitter, but that doesn’t mean his work won’t fulfill what it’s been building up for 6 seasons now... maybe he’s a prick, idk, but he clearly puts a lot of pride in his story/art and I don’t think it’ll be another GoT ending as some in fandom are bracing themselves for. I really don’t. Just Just separate his press from his work and focus on the story, and life will be so much easier, lol). They keep saying all you said was so smart/makes so much sense. You’re being ‘stanned’ there.

I love to see it. You’re being ‘stanned’ on there, lol. I love to see it. I feel like you put so much thought and effort into your posts, and you deserve all the love and positivity in the world. The doubters/antis that contact you are so frustrating (love the sizzling sass you respond to them with, btw). You are not up Jason’s butt. You’re literally all about the STORY, the CANNON, what you SEE on screen. It’s like in their heads, they know you’re making sense. But then you can see how fandom

fears/dialogues can just totally dominate good, sound logic. It’s so interesting. Haha, this was a post purely meant to tell you other people are recognizing your brilliance and how exiting it was, but the psychology of shipper/fandom culture got me ruminating. So sorry. 😆 Just so you know...I ‘stan’ you too, Rosy. 😉❤️ Thanks for all your work!

+++

Oh really? Ok. That’s good to know. I’m glad it was positive instead of negative because that’s mean. And I’m glad that they LIKE a positive bellarke post instead of bellarke hate or jason hate or the 100 hate. It’s not surprising that they “don’t have faith in jason,” or think he’s “not smart enough” to pull off the story that... I am showing is already IN the canon by using evidence FROM the canon to show that Jason is telling us.

Not trusting JR is one thing. It comes from his TERRIBLE social media presence. Now no one believes what he says and worse, they think everything he says is evil bad and anti bellarke. Which is not true. He messed up and now his reputation is bad, but if you pay attention to what he says outside of what people say about him, you’d see what he says is NOT always bad. But, I still don’t trust what he says and I take everything with a grain of salt and compare it against the canon. Because the canon IS what matters.

And frankly, I think Jason has proved he IS trustworthy where the story is concerned. He doesn’t always give fans what they want, but that’s actually good. It means he stays true to his story. And if that makes him an egotists, then so be it, but it’s also better for the story. Too many cooks spoil the pot. Allowing fans into the writing room and fanservicing them too much spoils the story.  I get also that people don’t trust hollywood because of Star Wars or GOT or whatever disappointing show. Fair enough. But again, following the story that JR is telling, I’m not getting those hints that he’s going to flip on us. His style of storytelling, while it does use plot twists does not betray the story. As long as you’re following canon and have been paying attention to HIS story and not your story in your head. That is the trick though, since fandom says your OTP is the center of the story and your fave character is the main character-- which is a MISinterpretation of the story. If you erase the story to fit your fanon, the error is yours, not his. Killing your favorite character is not a betrayal of the story, it’s part of HIS story. All the characters he’s killed were part of his story, helped develop the themes or main character development or plot or were a result of their own terrible choices. 

When people think he’s to stupid to do what I point out he’s already doing... well, that’s not actually someone you want to listen to about analysis. That’s people who are speaking from PURE ego. They think they’re smarter and more savvy than JR. When you put yourself above the content you supposedly love, that makes you a jackass. If you love it, you have no need to call it trash or tear it apart, or call the writers bad writers.

As far as I can see, this story is generally well written. Is it perfect? Of course it isn’t. No story is. The characters are great. The stories are full of tension and emotion and meaning. We FEEL for the characters. Yes horrible things happen. That’s the story and not a sign that it’s bad. Yes it repeats stories, that’s a STYLE of storytelling, circular, and not a sign that it’s bad, but instead, when done right, offers a feeling of inevitability and completion that is hard to beat. Is the science bad? Oh yes, it is, but that is not uncommon for the tv genre that doesn’t have an audience of hardcore sf geeks.  You’ve got to let that go, suspend your disbelief and just have fun. If you can’t you’ll never like the genre. 

Would you treat a fanfiction writer the way we treat JR? If you did, it would be horrible. If you go in there and tell the writer that their story is wrong because you want your OTP to do this and this character should die and this character should live and omg they are bad writers how dare? That would make YOU the reader, into a big freaking creep. Let people tell the stories they want to tell. If you don’t like their stories, you vote with your freaking feet. Leave. If you like some of the story and not the rest, you can make peace with that. If your dislike outweighs your like then stop watching. It doesn’t matter that this is a professionally written and produced show not a fanfic. You still don’t own it. The writers don’t actually work for you. They aren’t your servants. They create a product which you then consume or do not consume. 

Anyway. Thanks for the warning. I know you weren’t warning me, but in my experience, whenever someone posts something of mine on twitter, I get a fresh influx of hate as the haters remember I exist and they can’t allow me to exist without telling me how evil and delusional I am for doing lit analysis on a show they want to hate. 

[kitten1618x]

Jonsa Battlements Convo Analysis (for the worried shippers)

I actually wrote this when replying to a thread, but figured it would reach more of you if I tagged it appropriately and posted it as a meta (bear with me, I kinda suck at these). I see a lot of asks floating around about what many feel is Jon's ooc behavior while conversing with Sansa, so I'm here to (hopefully) put some of you at ease.

I went back and watched the beginning of this ep. again so everything would be fresh in my mind.

So let’s start from the top at the Stark town hall meeting lol - Jon’s laying down the game plan, and Karstarks and Umbers come up along with the word treason (I feel like this is a good time to mention that this is probably a touchy word for Jon considering what happened on the Wall). So we all know the convo, we all know that Sansa interjects her opinion. She’s not wrong, but I’ve mentioned before that I agree with Jon’s reasoning on this matter. But, let’s break this down a bit more - a war is upon them and the WW are coming and Jon KNOWS they don’t have the numbers (as clearly mentioned when he ordered that girls/women would have to take up arms as well) -he needs everyone united.

Taking this a bit further, we all know that Jon’s KitN status is tenuous at best, and so he needs it to be clear to his “subjects” that he is a STRONG leader and that his say is the final one. At the end of this scene, when Jon talks about living by Ned’s words: “the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword” he lets everyone know that he’s been betrayed and executed men for not following his orders, but he’s also a fair man, and doesn’t believe in bestowing the sins of the fathers onto the children. It’s a moving speech really, and when he beckons the children forward and they bend the knee and swear to house Stark, the camera pans to Sansa’s face TWICE - the first time she’s looking up at Jon and then afterwards, her eyes are lowered and she’s looking down and the scene cuts with LF smirking in his creepy Chester way. Now, I get the impression that Sansa’s expression is ambiguous for a reason- and we are left to interpret it in two ways: she resents Jon for going against her, OR she realizes that what he says rings true and therefore lowers her eyes a bit shamefully (and maybe that’s not exactly the best word to use, but I hope you all pick up what I’m throwing down here -like when someone brings up a better point than you, and you know deep down that they’re right). I’m going with the latter, and I’ll explain in a bit more detail below.

I know I’m not alone here in thinking that Jon, Sansa and their advisors should have probably discussed this prior to the meeting, however, they are new to this “ruling Winterfell together” thing, and are learning as they go. I think the writers wanted to make that painfully obvious.

So moving along, and now they’re walking through Winterfell and Jon seems tense and agitated, walking a bit ahead of Sansa, as they hash out their differences. I reiterate: they are talking about it, NOT burying their disagreement and allowing it to fester and drive a wedge between them. That’s an important distinction, even though I believe the writers are trying very hard to tease a “growing conflict” between the two of them -but not exactly the type of conflict that you would see at face value. Does that make sense?

Sansa is more bold here in her home, she doesn’t have to keep her mouth shut like she did in KL -she feels safe in Winterfell, and safe enough around Jon to express how she really feels about things. That’s really fucking important you guys!!! And so, she DOES.

J: you are my sister, but I am king now.

S: will you start wearing a crown?

This is blatant sarcasm. Don’t let the power go to your head, Jon. He may be the KitN but she is also the true born heir to Winterfell, and NOT ONCE has she made mention of that or tried to wield her power over him. She just wants to be heard. She brings up Joffrey as a warning -he was a cruel little selfish shit who did what he wanted, when he wanted, with no thought to consequences or how it would affect others. He let no one question his authority. He wasn’t a good king.

J: do you think I am Joffrey?

Jon says this with utter disgust -in both inflection and his facial expression. He’s insulted, visibly upset, and it stops him dead in his tracks. Sansa comes around to stand before him, she looks away and sighs, her features soften. Of course Jon is NOTHING like Joffrey. She tells him so in a very sincere and heartfelt way.

S: you are as far from Joffrey as anyone I’ve ever met.

Jon thanks her sincerely for the obvious compliment and quickly looks away and down at the landscape. Why is he having such a hard time looking at her lately? Especially when he couldn’t keep his eyes OFF OF HER last season?? What’s with all this Starkbowl tension of an unusual kind?

Now earlier I said I’d explain why I felt Sansa's expressions (and looking down) in the last scene meant I felt the latter -that she believed Jon was right in what he did even if she didn’t fully agree with it - what she says next pretty much seals the deal for me.

S: you’re good at this, you know?

J: at what?

S: at ruling.

J: no. (He sighs and looks away again).

S: you are. YOU ARE (I’m on mobile, so pretend my caps are italics for inflection instead).

Sansa is persistent. She really does believe he is a good King. A good man. Our sweet Emo Jon really has the lowest of low self esteem. He wants to be worthy of the name Stark. Worthy of Sansa. His expression here is so fucking important, guys! His eyes are downcast, and he drags them up to look her in the eyes. Sansa believes in him -the approval he always sought from Lady Catelyn (who Sansa is portrayed so much as very similar to her mother), who never let him forget that he was an (unworthy) bastard. And here’s where it gets sticky -

S: they believe in you, they really do (a sort of eye-roll) but you have to ….

Jon gives a sardonic shake of his head and a laugh to accompany it. He almost believed her and he feels like the joke is on him. Sansa asks why he’s laughing, because she TRULY is being sincere, but Jon feels like she’s just placating him. He brushes past her and starts walking again. Their gait is a bit slower now, but he still walks in front of her, explaining what Ned said/meant about “anything that comes before ‘but’ is horse shit”.

S: the world is dirty -father couldn’t protect me, and neither can you, so stop trying. (I can handle the truth, remember the chat we had about being honest with each other -heed your own advice Jon).

J: right. I’ll stop trying to protect you when you stop trying to undermine me.

S: I’m not trying to undermine you. 
(Dammit Jon, listen to me. I’m on your side.)

She grabs his arm and forces him to stop and face her. He sighs again, looks down at where she’s holding onto him, and again drags his eyes up her body before meeting her gaze (FYI: this in itself is a romance trope and it’s funny that the cameras pan in on her grabbing his arm -like “hey! See what we’re doing here in plain sight?”). She tells him he has to be smarter than Robb and Father -they were good men, honorable men, she loves and misses them, but they made stupid mistakes which cost them their lives (and she doesn’t want the same fate to befall you Jon, duh!).

Jon: and how should I be smarter? By listening to you?

Sigh. This is an asinine statement, and I agree, quite OOC for Jon, but okay, bear with me here, Jon needed to say something to keep this “tension” bubbling -and I think this was tossed in here simply for her reply.

S: (voice so very soft and imploring, her pretty blue eyes boring into him) Would that really be so terrible?

Jon sighs again -like a full-on, heavy body sigh. His own expression softens (note how closely and intimately they are standing now?) and he looks like he’s about to say something, and then they’re interrupted. (Ned/Cat parallel from S01xE01).

[cryptist-blog1]

The Cryptist

Hm. Where do I begin? I guess I'll start with this one sole fact: I don't fully know what this blog will be about, but I think I know. Perhaps it is just a place to log my thoughts in real time, perhaps I actually have semi-decent cryptocurrency investment insights? Who knows? One thing I know, however, is that despite how much I love cryptocurrency, I'm tired of the things surrounding it. I'm the most tired: I'm tired of poorly-wrought articles on international crypto news sites, I'm tired of YouTubers shilling Ponzi schemes as investment advice, I'm tired of companies spiking in valuation because of dabbling in the Blockchain, but not actually bringing anything to it. I'm tired of the tokenization of bullshit, the blockchainificafion of nothing, and innovations that aren't actually innovative, but just innovations for innovation's sake. I'm as tired of traditional finance heads saying that all cryptocurrency is a scam, as much as I'm tired of the actual scams themselves: I'm tired of PM fanatics like Peter Schiff and Nobel winning economists such as Robert Schiller, Paul Krugman, or Boston University's Mark T. Williams, who have all at some point or another compared cryptocurrency to beanie babies, baseball cards, or tulips. You all deserve a slow clap. I'm tired of projects like Lara With Me, Coince and BitConnect that are actually designed to do nothing more than steal vulnerable people's money, destabilize the marketplace, and give cryptocurrency a bad name. I'm tired of marketwatch's fundamental misunderstanding of what cryptocurrency is, as much as I'm tired of trying to explain the shit to them in the comments sections… and finally, I'm tired of the "Bitcoin at 100k/1m/10m" clickbait-as-shit articles that always magically surface every other month or week on REPUTABLE Bitcoin news sites, and are usually based on a proverbial nut hair of information. Oh yeah, and fuck Jamie Dimon.

I guess I should introduce myself. I'm The Cryptist. That's all you need to know. If you are reading this webpage, perhaps you are a cryptist too. If you've never heard the word before, it's simple: it's because I made it up.

The pathology of the word I have made up is relatively simple, the first part, "Crypt" is a play on the word encryption. For about 10 years I have been an entrepreneur, and a self-proclaimed cryptoanarchist and futurist. If you don't know what this means, it means that I believe data should be allowed to be distributed in it's most frictionless, and democratic form, and that the the transmission of this data should, at it's core, be protected by deep encryption. Yes, according to this philosophy, I believe that information should be free for exchange, or that the exchange of value for information should be automated, and at the most minimal impact to the consumer. Furthermore, I believe that the arc of humanity, through technology and innovation, can eventually progress to a society where money becomes inconsequential.

The second half, or the "ist" in Cryptist, is a play on the word enthusiast, but I suppose I should be more specific with respect to what. While I love encryption, I'm ecstatic about cryptocurrency. I'm ecstatic about what it can do for not only markets, but meaningful innovations and the greater world. This time we are in is truly the advent of internet 3.0.

To be a Cryptist, however, you need not be a cryptoanarchist or a futurist, and you cannot merely like cryptocurrency. One must posess pragmatism. It's more than reading feel good articles about what things will be worth, or assessing a hundred technical analysis charts that will tell you a hundred different indicators. Much of cryptocurrency investing, thus, is about internal game. It is about how one identifies value, even when the charts won't say it. It is about how one manages their money and the trading frequency of their portfolios. It's about how aware one is of their emotions during intense price swings. It's about shirking away from a speculative mindset… and it's about loving cryptocurrency. A Cryptist, thus, is a wise cryptocurrency investor. This site, hence, isn't about charts or speculative price structures, but instead, how to evolve into this individual, and the insights that he or she may have about the marketplace.

LET ME BE CLEAR: This isn't meant to be treated as "financial journalism." Choosing to take the information written in this website as financial advice in any form means that you accept the risks associated with investing in general, and are operating entirely of your own volition.

As far as the tone of the site, yes, I'm colloquial, I swear, and I don't care. This blog isn't here to be nice, objective or "professional" despite the fact that day traders are notoriously profane. It's here to weed through the heaps of bullshit that currently occupy what is otherwise an exciting and rapidly developing industry… in turn, I simply hope that I can aid in producing more intelligent investors who know not to be sold by any bubble bursting madness.

So let's talk about the promises I'm willing to make as an author of this kind of information, the expectations that I have, and where do we go from here.

1. I promise that every post will be thoughtful. I feel like this should almost go without saying, but there's a whole lot of filler out there in the wilds these days. I've had a tiny part to do with it on the myriad other blogs I've started in my lifetime. The reality is that when running a blog, the author can feel obligated or forced to constantly keep things updated to appeal to their reader base, or in an attempt to "compete" with larger staffs. While I understand why blogs do that, the purpose of this blog is not for daily info. I can point you to amazing sources if you want any. But what I am saying is I'll put up my thoughts as they come as frequently as they come, but I won't masquerade as a full time journalist. In exchange, I promise that everything I say will be articles of length, and have information and insights that I feel are thoughtful enough to be presented.

2. I promise to NEVER shill a scam.

There are a lot of scams out there in the marketplace, and some of them look very convincing whether they come in the form of ICOs, Ponzi schemes, or joke coins. One thing I will never do is knowingly promote a token or service that I believe could potentially hurt my readers or the general public... Furthermore, I will never knowing promote anything that I think is useless, because that is just as bad too.

3. For every ICO that I do bring to the table, I promise to read the white paper, and provide a comprehensive outlook on potential value proposition. Furthermore, Ill keep my cool about it. Part of the reason why people can't seem to take cryptocurrency seriously is because every headline is concluded with a holy-shit-sized number of exclamation points. I promise to speak my piece, and let you decide on whether or not to get hyped about it. I will try my best to not present anything as get rich quick, and if there are numbers, I'll give you the numbers… from there, you can extrapolate dollars and cents growth potential.

4. I promise to be forthright about any investments that I may be holding with respect to what I'm writing or promoting. While this piece may be legally obligated, there is also just sort of an ethical aspect to all of this. If I'm holding litecoin (and I am), and I write a post that casts a subjectively favorable light on litecoin, keeping that information away from my readers is a very clear conflict of interest.

5. I promise to have fun with it. To be honest, this shit is supposed to be fun. You are supposed to get some good advice out of this potentially, and who knows, maybe even a laugh or two. If you're not having fun, leave. If you want "real financial journalism" pay twelve fucking dollars and read the Wall Street Journal, Subscribe to Bloomberg, or read CoinTelegraph, News BTC, The Merkle, or a bunch of other great blogs for tried and true Bitcoin news... But if you want a smart opinion from a general smart ass, read the cryptist.

What I expect from you is simple: In exchange for my efforts, I ask you for passive compensation. Gordon Gecko, said in the film Wall St., that "the most valuable commodity in the world is information." While this philosophy may fly in the face of cryptoanarchism, the reality is that anarchism is not tenable so long as life exists within the powerful vacuum of a dollars and cents culture. Hence, I believe my method is relatively fair and mutualistic: While I will not run ads on my site, nor will I ask for a subscription, I will use the time that you spend reading opinions pieces from me to mine Monero for as long as you are on my site. I believe that this is the best of both worlds as you do not incur a major upfront cost based on prospective use (and neither do advertisers), and I obtain a tiny exchange of value for the utility I provided by writing the pieces you are currently reading. Feel free to learn about it at Coinhive.

So where do we go from here? Well, you can feel free to look around a bit, or if you are disgusted by my monetization plan, you can leave. However, I'd like for you to stay. Cryptocurrency could benefit from smarter investors with more resolve and a stronger internal game. Furthermore, it could also benefit from someone willing to call bad actors on their shit. I hope to do the same. Perhaps you will be my witness.

Cheers, and thanks for your visit.

-The Cryptist

[elyssias-blog]

This is just me ranting about JD from heathers (mostly how some people talk about the character, so spoilers for the end of heathers) I just want to get this off my mind. (I also feel like people talk about this A LOT so this is probably super tired discourse if you are apart of the fandom)

So forewarning, I’m like not even skin deep in the heathers fandom, like i really enjoy the show. But I’m not really involved in the fandom so idk how well this actually reflects the community as a whole (and I think its a sizable minority at least) this isnt supposed to be like a call out either. I also haven’t seen the movie so the movie perspective might be a bit different.

but like I listen to the songs on youtube sometimes, like the lyric ones, right. So I practically never look at the comments. But on the r a r e  occasion I do I nearly instantly regret it. Because pretty much everytime I see like a comment or two about how sad JD’s death was and I’m like...

HE WAS GOING TO BLOW UP THE FUCKING SCHOOL AND HE DECIDES HEY MAYBE THIS IS A BAD DECISION AND I’LL SACRIFICE MYSELF SO THE E N T I R E SCHOOL DOESNT EXPLODE WITH EVERYONE IN IT???

like his death isnt that sad, bc no oNE WOULD HAVE TO DIE IF HE DIDN’T MAKE THE FUCKING BOMBS IN THE F I R S T PLACE????

Like I don’t think him realizing he fucked up and making that sacrifice is redeemable enough. Because 1, he was already suicidal the only things he ever cared about in the show was Veronica and 7/11 (and the 7/11 thing was like before he and veronica got together and is only mentioned in Freeze Your Brain) and maybe his mom who was long gone before the start of the show.

The point I’m trying to make is that him sacrificing himself was probably not a “huge” sacrifice for himself. at the end of the show, Veronica had broken up with him, and then he thought Veronica was already dead, like I would be more shocked than not if his character was planning to stay in the school for the explosion after Veronica faked her suicide. Like from a character motivation perspective he didn’t really have anything to live for. Like could you imagine what JD would have done if everything went according to his plan? Because I can’t, like he has no purpose because he does not care about anything else. He let Heather Chandler die (or straight up killed depending how you look at it) bc she had wronged Veronica and his fucked up sense of justice; he killed Kurt and Ram for the exact same reasons.

IF Veronica was gone, he had nothing to live for. In Meant to be Yours, his reasoning for blowing up the school was that the only possible reason that Veronica had broken up with him was because the other students had “messed up (her) mind, they made (her) blind” so he was going to kill them for “revenge”. JD is can’t stand to think that maybe Veronica broke up with him was because his self-righteous “vigilantism” because he was so much better and smarter than everyone else and he is above them and blah blah blah. (this basically fits into one of the show’s main themes of, how everyone thinks they’re better than everyone else when they’re in hs and that everyone else is just stupid. And that you, specifically are the smart and self aware one that sees everything how it is. this video touches on it)

He had also already suffered a gunshot wound, he might have thought he would have died anyways.

However, I understand that perhaps the sadness associated with his character is could come from the fact that if his childhood had been more normal that he could of become like not psychotic, and instead like a genuinely good person? In which case I don’t exactly disagree.

Yet, I’m under the impression that a lot of the “sadness” about JD’s death has to do with people shipping him with Veronica and that he died to “Save her” (but ya know she wouldnt need saving if he hadnt been crazy in the first place) Now, I don’t have a huge problem with people “shipping” the two, if people are very aware the relationship was abusive and like the dynamic from a storytelling perspective (kinda like how people like fucked up characters, bc they’re interesting) As long as their relationship isnt’ romanticized. But I feel like there are some people that don’t quite get that?? idk. But, if you’re sadness about it from the “romantic” perspective is similar to the previous paragraph where the tragedy was in that they could have had a normal relationship that was sweet if not for etc-  thats fine too.

Again, if you like the character of JD that is fine too. JD is a well written and complex character. And I understand that people find a character that is completely fucked up more interesting than a typical character and thats fine, as long as you recognize that they’re fucked up right.

I also get that those comments were made probably by like some 13-15 year olds that were just having fun talking abouta thing they like and they probably have less experience of “critical analysis” in english class, and they just have a different perspective. I also get that this whole thing is SUPER PETTY, like lmao this shit is beyond first world problems really. This post is alsoa mess, like im well aware. I just needed to vent.

also like I am up for debate and discussion over this, It just angers me I guess when I see an over simplified comment saying “nooo dont remind of jds death its sooo sad” or something and im just like no, I celebrate everytime. Veronica might say “say hi to god” but im like “lmao have fun rottting in hell you pyschotic lampshade”

ANYWAYS

thats all i have to say, thank you to anyone who actually read all this okay