#Doesn't mean I don't support his alleged actions

[scentedluminarysoul]

Been thinking about this recently

Humans are complicated and contain multitudes

Good people can do really bad things

Really bad people can do good things

Like, did you know that Hitler loved animals and was one of the first to put animal protection laws on the books? Doesn't make him less of a monster

And it's uncomfortable. And that's actually good. People need to (re)learn to sit with that feeling and think about what it means to them. People need to (re)learn some fucking nuance

Purity is the easy way out. Never think bad. Never do bad. Bad = bad always. No good person can do bad. Bad deed = bad person. Good deed = good person. Etc.

Y'all just want it EASY.

Nothing in this life is EASY.

I hate the police and their union as much as anyone, but I agree with them on banning fireworks because it's always used to attack people, and even signed their petition. Am I a bad person now? Some would say yes.

You NEED to engage with people you don't agree with. Because there's always something you have in common. I'm not saying become their best friend or whatever.

But fucking acknowledge them as human.

Y'all are so quick to dehumanize people. You know where that leads, right? Who does that?

Bad people can bring forth good things, and you need to accept that.

If you're against everything someone does because they're a bad person, no matter what they're proposing, you're no better than any run of the mill bigot. I'd even say you are a bigot.

to pretend that horrible people cannot make good art is another way to conflate beauty and talent with integrity and morality. the works of monsters are best examined with knowledge of the author in mind but art is not inherently reflective. human beings are creative, and habitual liars- it'd be stupid to pretend art must always be a portrait of its creator

[keefechambers]

I wanna be blunt about this ongoing James somerton suicide threat issue but I don't want to connect it to my IRL Twitter to comment on the dogshit takes I'm seeing there or the good and well meaning but maybe too kind takes I'm seeing here.

Obviously, I hope that this is a false alarm cry for help fake threat. Yes, it would reinforce that Somerton is a self-centered egomaniac who can't handle consequences but that's preferable to dead.

But I work in local news and let me tell you something. I've covered half a dozen family annihilating murder suicides and heard hundreds of men making suicide threats over police scanners and a huge swath of these don't happen because they're depressed or because people are mean to them on the Internet. They're punishment. A person with an enormous amount of entitlement towards people around them gets backed into a corner and they punish the people closest to them by killing themselves or threatening to kill themselves.

No one wants to talk about this feature of suicide because...you want to help people who are struggling and guide them away from this path and being blunt about the fact that sometimes people die of suicide as a consequence of their own shittiness towards the world does not really help actively suicidal people. But suicide rates are higher in men not just because they have higher rates of untreated mental illness (a societal issue we must address for the sake of all) but because some people, often men, use suicide (but more often the threat of suicide) as a tool of abuse and control.

I'm not saying somerton is like, an icky abuser bad guy, he's just a run of the mill grifter scumbag, but his actions in the past show a clear pattern of escalating behavior that aligns with this.

Somerton gets called out -> somerton alleges physical threats of violence against himself and his fans rally around him supportively -> Harry calls somerton out in a bigger way -> Somerton says he's hospitalized but there are inconsistencies with the story but no one wants to talk about that because you wanna be nice-ish about a guy who just tried to kill himself and now he's trying to be framed as tragic but it doesn't really stick -> somerton apologizes again but his apology is rightly called out for lies and manipulative framing as well as his continuing attempts to profit off the community he betrayed -> James posts a suicide note publicly putting the onus of his own suicide on the loss of his friend Nick who he repeatedly threw under the bus and now everyone is rallying to say nice-ish shit and wring their hands in concern over poor james -> indefinitely repeat this vicious cycle forever until he actually does die or finally gives up and gets real, intensive therapy and a day job.

Thats not to say anyone's concern is misplaced, it's 100% better for him to be a living scumbag than a dead one. He deserves the chance to grow and learn and have a life outside of youtube.

But you don't have to portray this as the action of a sad depressed man who got bullied off the Internet. It's manipulation, whether he intended to go through with it or not and whether someone intervened or not. Not denying that internet bullying is a thing, I'm sure there were some people who were shitty directly to James but he made the choice to not unplug from this and to try and keep being a public figure rather than taking care of himself. He could have deleted Twitter, blocked anyone who was an asshole, gone to therapy and tried to move on with his life but if he'd deleted his channel he'd have lost monetization... Can't have that, right? So he posts some apology videos so his channel stays active and then complains about how ruinous this is while never trying to take real accountability.

But the reality is that people would have forgotten about him so quickly and maybe his job prospects would've been impacted but...that's on him, and that's for him to figure out but it's not actually life ruining. He chose to continue to engage knowing he'd get backlash and hate and he'd feel worse and worse and things would never get better without the time and space for people to forget.

He made the choice to make a public spectacle of his own alleged suicide. That is the action of someone who wants to put the weight of their suicide on someone else's shoulders and is morally wrong. He can be held to account for that, alive or dead.

[aroaceleovaldez]

you're like the first blog i thought about ranting on this to but it drives me up the wall that some people treat any criticism aimed at tsats2 as being anti-ship or avoidable via just "not reading it". i dont think they realize that we're talking about a bigger issue of soulless commercialization and heavy quality downgrade of a franchise, not like. about an indie author publishing a fan book lmao

'i'll read it anyways haters gonna hate' crowd likely largely funding richard's mediocrity is sad.

I think part of it may have to do with a.) a lack of distinction in recent fandom culture between "Fandom" and "Audience" (alongside other recent fandom culture attitudes as well) and b.) so much of Rick's brand is built up exactly on parasocial behavior that a lot of fans get caught up in it. [under cut cause this got long:]

Re: The first, more recent fandom culture tends to treat "Fandom" and "General audience" as wholly equivocal. Because of this, the concepts tend to bleed into each other in a way we haven't quite seen before fandom became mainstream, and as a result we get a kind of Worst Of Both Worlds situation - a bunch of very passionate fans who have no community, create little to no fanworks themselves (only consume), and only engage at a surface level with the source material. Their only "fandom" community hub is the source material and official social media and they don't have a concept of how to exist outside it, unlike folks who are more used to older fandom culture and are self-sufficient. They have the passion and identity of classic fandom, but none of the depth, and so threats to the source material feel like threats to their community as a whole. They also just don't seem to understand that different subsections of the deeper fandom community are engaging with the material on an entirely different level, or they don't understand why they're doing that. They see no need to because they're never actually engaging with the community or source material beyond a surface level. Functionally they don't have a community. And mainstream media is actively encouraging this because it's profitable for them - they're reaping all of the rewards of fandom, minus the fact that because of the lack of actually community and support structures the entire "fandom" will only have a shelf life the same length of the source material. But at the same time this means they don't have to worry about quality or etc, because this extremely passionate side of their audience will just take anything thrown at them and it'll phase out almost immediately. It doesn't need to be good, it just needs to elicit some kind of reaction on social media. Any publicity is good publicity type stuff.

This lack of true community plus the parasocial emphasis the RR company has tends to make these types of fans double-down. Rick and co. are explicitly advertised as being both part of the "community" and integral to it. And when they've built Rick (and co) up as this moral paragon critical to both part of their identity they're very passionate about and what little of a community they have, any attack on him feels like an attack on themself. Particularly when so much of the publicity and marketing surrounding Rick right now is about his alleged activism when a lot of the criticism about him and the series is actively calling that into question with his unaddressed internalized bigotries. Acknowledging that what Rick is saying and promoting himself as versus his writing and actions don't always line up and pointing out the bigotry present in his work forces people to acknowledge and think about performative activism, which can make a lot of people very uncomfortable! It's forcing them to acknowledge "Oh, even if I'm saying all the right words and calling myself an ally, I am not immune to being bigoted if I don't address my internalized biases. My actual behavior matters." and that especially can feel like a personal attack. Especially in today's western landscape of media consumption being viewed as a moral act in itself.

I suspect this is why a lot of the retaliation against criticism of Rick and the franchise right now is "Why can't you just have FUN? You're just trying to hate for views. Don't take it so seriously! It's not that deep!" - they not only have no interest in engaging deeper in the material, but don't understand why others would, and doing so jeopardizes the foundations of what they consider the fandom. They can't fathom anybody legitimately having these criticisms (particularly not anybody who would ACTUALLY consider themself a "fan" - because their perception of "fan" is themself) because they're so resistant to digging deeper into the media/source material or the concept that anyone would for any legitimate reason (because as long as they keep it as "it's not that deep!!! it's just fun! just enjoy it you wet blanket!!!!" and take things at their word, they can feel secure in that performative aspect and not have to unpack it), and acknowledging that those criticisms exist and are valid means they have to acknowledge the franchise is flawed and imperfect, so they presume the claims are entirely superficial and the individual has ulterior motives rather than, yknow, doing what fandom does: diving deeper.

[mortalityplays]

This is a very good illustration of the increasing susceptibility to conspiratorial thought patterns I've been seeing on the left lately. Just because you don't believe there are space marines on Mars doesn't mean you're immune to building imaginary connections between aesthetic or emotional data points and mistaking them for evidence. A lot of well meaning people in my circles have been sharing this story, buying uncritically into the first narrative they encountered. I want to break down why:

Jones' twitter thread was extremely emotional and extremely urgent. The idea of a child being ripped away from his frantic mother and a ticking clock to decide his fate both helped the story to bypass analytical scrutiny. It sends the message 'act now, before it's too late, it's the only compassionate thing to do'.

Her connection to an existing conspiracy (a concerted effort by the state to cover up Covid statistics) creates a strengthening association with the idea that this is also a conspiracy. The thread offers no positive evidence that her son's arrest was a conspiracy, and no positive evidence that his arrest has any connection to her prior experiences.

Jones' allegation that the arrest was retribution for her actions as a whistleblower implicitly identifies her in the reader's mind. A lot could be unpacked about her dispute with the DOH but it doesn't really matter because I don't think most people who circulated this story knew much about it either way. The point is that it anchors her identity in a few key concepts: 'whistleblower', 'covid scientist', 'concerned citizen'. None of these qualities are relevant to the events detailed in the thread (or evidenced in the thread, if we're being really rigorous), but they unconsciously prejudice the reader's assessment of whether to trust or side with her. Simply put, if you are concerned about how covid was handled and/or inclined to support whistleblowers, you are more likely to assume she's credible.

If you dislike and distrust cops, you are primed to accept a narrative in which they are doing something straightforwardly evil. Don't get me wrong, fuck 12, but I say that armed with an enormous preponderance of cases in which we have positive evidence of police acting out of self interest, cruelty, corruption, racism, misogyny, etc. Allowing ourselves to be seduced by the fantasy that they are always always without fail breaking rules and fashing it up in broad daylight only makes us easier to delude and manipulate.

She repeatedly made the point that her son is autistic. Again, if you are autistic or sympathetic to autistic people, you are more likely to be 'warmed up' by this detail and inclined to take her side. I'm not going to say it's irrelevant to the idea that he was being unfairly targeted, but it is overwhelmingly emotionally weighted. And again, it is not evidence that he was unfairly targeted. It's another weight on the scale that tips you to judge the truth value of her story without reality checking.

The example of a meme that she shared is characteristic of a type of online humour that is at least familiar to most of us. If you or your friends make edgy jokes and share tasteless irony memes, or if you've been online for more than like a week, you understand that they're mostly harmless. The idea that this meme could be used as evidence by law enforcement to detain you is ideologically threatening in an immediately relatable way. It evokes a reflex defensive impulse — that's not fair, the cops are wrong, the kid is innocent — bypassing the process of verification. Is this meme the reason he was arrested? Is it the only one he posted? Is it the only reason he was arrested?

All of these factors create a gut-led constellation of information that quickly forms a picture. Because it is being pieced together from multiple subconscious feelings and prejudices, it feels as if it has been evidenced. Because the thread was highly emotional and highly urgent, readers were pressured to jump to rapid conclusions and ask "what can I do to help?" (and the answer, as it almost always is, was 'donate money, quick').

I want to be really clear that I am not saying Jones manufactured any of these effects on purpose. It would be completely within reason that having a young child arrested would send anyone into an emotional tailspin, grasping for reasons this might have happened, leaping to his defense, rallying resources to fight on his behalf. I am not in any way ascribing malice to her actions.

What I'm interested in is the effect that this emotive kneejerk appeal had on people who were unknowingly predisposed to believe that the state of Florida would kidnap a child to punish a scientist for disagreeing with the department of health about covid statistics. That is a baseless conspiracy theory, and a huge number of people in my immediate circles reflexively amplified it.

Personally, I think arrest is a godawful way to respond to a child having a mental health crisis, even if they are seen to pose a violent threat. That still doesn't mean the cops did it at the bidding of a mad dictator in waiting. In the hypothetical parallel universe where it turns out Jones was right and this was all a conspiracy to punish her, it still would not have served the situation to jump to that conclusion on a gut feeling.

Pausing to identify relevant, verifiable facts before sharing a story like this is always warranted, even if you think the person telling it is 'on your side'. The more you worry that questioning the narrative wastes precious time or makes you a bad person, the more you should scrutinise why you are being made to feel that way. Accepting unfounded conspiracies into your worldview is not benign, even if you think the 'targets' deserve it. It erodes your critical perspective and turns you into a vector for the people around you.

tl;dr: you are not immune to baseless conspiratorial thought

[geekthefreakout]

The Joy Leaving the Work

This post will be discussing the works of Neil Gaiman and my personal relationship with them. If you don't like that or cannot handle that, kindly don't read. Also, there will be allusions to SA in the discussions.

So, a couple of weeks ago I decided to pick up Anansi Boys by Neil Gaiman-- a book I've owned for a couple of years that's been in my "to read pile" waiting its turn. In the light of the allegations against Gaiman, I put off reading it a couple of months more as I tried to process how I felt. Now I've read it.

Background: Neil Gaiman has been my favorite author bar none ever since I read Coraline in 5th Grade. He and Sir Terry Pratchett share a bookshelf of honor in my room- the one right behind my bed, so I can easily reach for a comfort read. I've always loved his twists on various stories-- The Graveyard Book and Neverwhere being two of my favorites. The dark-but-not-too-dark tone, the dry humor, the magical realism, all of it. Anansi Boys looked like it would have all of that.

And it did! In a vacuum, this would have been a very enjoyable read. But with the allegations, I noticed things that I wouldn't have before. For example (spoilers, I guess):

Mr. Nancy (the titular Anansi) is a funny old man, and often a bit lecherous. In his final moments, he's doing karaoke with some young, buxom blondes when he has a heart attack and falls off the stage, hand outstretched. As he goes down, he sticks his hand out, grabbing one girl's tube top and exposing her as he dies.

This anecdote in the book is presented as something that embarrasses his son (our protag) but is generally interpreted by the other characters as something that was just so funny and charming.

It made me uncomfortable. In fact, just about every time Mr. Nancy alluded to his Master Roshi-like interest in buxom young women, I felt uncomfortable. But wait, there's more:

Spider (secret twin brother of protag Fat Charlie) is interested in Fat Charlie's fiancee. He tricks her into thinking that he IS Fat Charlie, and this girl who had been saving her virginity til marriage is so taken by him that they have sex. Meaning not only did he entice the girl to sex under false circumstances (this is rape), but it's also unclear as to how much of her going along with him is really HER and how much is his... mojo, I suppose. To the story's credit, once she realizes what has happened she gets angry and breaks up with both of them, no longer wanting anything to do with them... until, of course, happenstance brings them together again and she admits that she had real feelings for Spider, who finds himself wanting to behave better for her.

That doesn't sit right with me in the best of circumstances. These are not the best of circumstances.

I finished the book and it took me this long- two weeks and change- to decide how I feel about it. And how I feel about it is this-- I cannot separate it from the author. I cannot enjoy this book because the slime from Gaiman's actions oozes all over it. And that sucks.

I'm almost afraid to reread my favorites from him, for fear that my happy memories of those books will be ruined too. That SUCKS.

And it makes me feel dumb for never having seen the misogyny in the books before. It's like when Rowling showed herself to be what she was and I couldn't enjoy Harry Potter anymore, but worse because Gaiman is an author that I was still actively reading, who had been vocally supportive of queer and trans people, who I'd still looked up to. When it all went down with Rowling, I realized that I'd been excusing a lot of problematic shit in her writing as ignorance, rather than malice. But it WAS malice. And now I'm wondering if I didn't make the same mistake with Gaiman. That sucks too.

Anyway. That's my rant. Thanks for listening. Please share if you're having issues like this too, it's good to not feel alone.

[sprinkleonthatcriticism]

(UPDATE 13/12/24) I just want to let people know that I do not support Jack or condone his actions at all, I use to be a fan and then when all the "Jack groomed Yippee" allegations came out, I originally wanted to wait to hear his side and was netural, that changed when it was revealed that Jack victim blamed someone who was a victim of him cocsaing them and that he did some other heinous shit, I drop all my support for him however, I will still stand my ground and say that Jack NEVER groomed Yippee in that post but he should've told xem that isn't okay to draw. ____________ Seeing the twitter dorks calling Jack out for "grooming" a minor is really annoying considering that I'm a grooming victim myself and I know for hell it ISN'T grooming Yippee-boi CW// Mentions of child grooming

It all started when Yippee shared a piece of fanart of Lucifer's oc, Idot-boy (who is a hypersexual sona like is meant to represent Jack's traumas just as his hypersexuality due to it's past experiences with SA and incest) so Yippee drew xe's hypersexual sona with it's sona.

I look at the image and yeah I can see where people got their "It's suggestive" from because Yippee's sona does look pretty suggestive but at the end of the day, it's just a sona that is use to cope with mental health just as hypersexuality.

And people are trying to use this comment as a catch 20 with Jack. Which, I don't see how that is grooming??? It's just

And then there's this (context: the person is Hyuuuuk who by judging from their profile, they happily call theirselves a huge Birdie hater which is pretty pathetic, oh and in the comment, they simply tell Jack to not talk to the minor and this was under this art which was posted before the hypersexual one).

People on twitter been using that comment as a "gotcha" but they don't actually do research and realize that "Hey, this comment is actually from the minor's different art piece NOT the other one" and maybe if they did, they would realize that Jack isn't being weird.

Like, maybe if Koish explain what the problem is Jack would understand because this isn't the first time where it didn't know he did something controversial until someone told him the problem.

But anyways, back on topic, the first screenshot is where Lucifer is simply complimenting the art featuring the two hypersexual sonas which yeah, like I said I can GET where you guys are coming from but again, Jack isn't being a groomer here or predatory. Is the comment weird? Yes, if people read it wrong and assume it's a suggestive comment somehow where to me, it's literally Jack saying that the art is "yummy" and then proceeding to type 'nom nom nom' jokingly eating it..

Now, this does not mean I won't call Jack out on one thing which is it shouldn't of spoken to a minor since the kid is like 15 and on Jack's tumblr's bio, it says 16+.

But I'm gonna give him the benefit of a doubt and assume that it thought it was fine since the minor was almost 16 which doesn't excuse it and I think that Lucifer should address it and that people need to stop calling it "grooming" or going on twitter comparing Jack's sexual assaulter to him which is....disgusting??? I myself am a victim of child grooming in the past and like I said, I know what is or isn't grooming and that wasn't child grooming because as Jack mentioned and the minor mentioned is that they both never dm'd or pm'd each other. Granted, they could both be LYING about that but at the end of the day you have to just take their words for it unless someone comes out with evidence that yes, they were both in fact in dms and were both in fact being weird.

(Link to 15 yr old's response)

[go-learn-esperanto]

Considering the recent situation relating to Shelby's abuse story I will take some actions that sadden me but are, unfortunately, necessary for my peace of mind.

I will shut down my @socket-duo blog. If you want to reblog something from there for archival purposes please do so until tomorrow.

Same for @sootings-fuck-you. Even though I don't think there's much to get from there as it was a joke blog.

I will discuss how to proceed with the Crimeboys Ao3 Feed (@ao3feed-crimeboys) with the other mod.

I might not have the time to take a lot of things related to Wilbur from my pinned for some time, so be aware that's not because I'm taking his side on this. I will also probably not remove all posts related to Wilbur from my blog as there are most likely thousands of them.

I may also not remove posts related to Wilbur from the cursed and iconic masterposts however, as those posts were intended to be an archive of the fandom. I'm still considering what to do about this. They'll stay for now.

I will change my blog theme when I have the time. I will keep talking about Hermitcraft as I've done in the past few months however I may start posting about something that isn't MCYT too. If any you likes to talk about Honkai Star Rail you are encouraged to ramble about it on my asks ^^

To end, the MCYT fandom, even the late Dream SMP fandom, here on Tumblr was amazing. You were the biggest community I was a part of and so many of you I love and have been friends with. I don't regret joining it all as I got to see such cool art, stories, theories and more from everyone. You all are amazing, and having been a fan of someone who turned out to be shitty doesn't mean you're shitty.

Support Shelby if you can as all of this must be taking quite a lot from her. This has such a big impact and she's a queer woman revealing something personal about herself when her (very plausible alleged) abuser has so many fans. And while I'd like to believe most of us that were his fans can think for ourselves and recognise when we should say "fuck you" to someone who we enjoyed I know that's almost certainly not the case for everyone.

... I also please ask you all to stop fighting eachother. This is all quite recent and there's probably people who aren't really aware of the whole situation or aware of it at all. Please have some patience before starting call out posts. If someone is being stupid just block them.

[mysterybutknown]

GUYS, PEOPLES HOT TAKE-

I don't think Scott was in the wrong for the MAJORITY of his actions. I SAY 75% AT BEST.

How you may be thinking, tf? BUT what I've been heard and saw, Scott realistic is just being a mature adult who doesn't understand what is wrong BECAUSE we're from different generation AND because we all just think differently.

I'VE HEARD ABOUT THE SK8 THE INFINITY THING, and we're he's from (the UK) the legal age of consent is 16, is the fanarts still icky YES, is it illegal NO. So you can't call him a Ped0.

Furthermore, an artist who lives off of/works for commissions can not control the commission that get sent, can if you're REALLY struggling, are you gonna reject $100+ to draw to FICTIONAL character?

And the whole situation about MCC being on a Jewish holiday, I'd like to remind you that he only pick the teams and goes through the application, he DOES NOT pick the date. And if YOU are upset with the date RESPECTFUL tell them.

Don't just send death threats until someone breaks.

NOW do I think he was wrong? NO, not at all. BUT he does need to address the matter, he doesn't need to apologise or justify his actions, just explaining the situation.

Because goodness forbit someone make fanart and make a living off of art. GOODNESS FORBIT SOMEONE BE OBLIVIOUS FOR ONCE.

HES HUMAN! PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES. LET THE MAN MAKE A MISTAKE AND MAKE UP FOR IT. DON'T RUIN HIS LIFE.

And for the other (not so nice) allegations, if it's TRULY a problem, then the person can seek legal action themselves. If you claim someone is doing something ILLEGAL the you don't take LEGAL ACTION (or at least an effort to be heard) , then it'll make it hard for people to believe you. Digital evidence doesn't really hood any weight anymore because of how advanced technology is.

IF THEIR IS SOMETHING WRONG SAY SOMETHING! and I don't mean ruin someone's career, if you're accusing someone of a serious crimes, take it straight to your local police department and seek support from either School, foundation and family if possible.

Also DONT FAKE SERIOUS CRIMES PEOPLE!

[lolohe12]

My Favorite Author Probably Belongs in Jail: A Short Essay

I, like many, have been repeatedly devastated over and over by famous people over the years, both minor and major and I've come to a very big conclusion: we have to stop tying our morality to whether or not we enjoy things made by bad people.

Now let me be clear: I am not saying to stop being critical of said art, nor am I saying that if the fact that a person who made said art ruins it for you you should continue to partake in it but I am saying we have to stop treating liking art made by bad people as a moral failing.

Neil Gaiman has been involved with many of my favorite shows and books; I also think he should be in jail if the allegations are true (and with recent evidence I believe he should be). But that doesn't mean the art is worthless and the fact that I don't find it worthless after finding out he's abhorrent doesn't mean I support his actions or that I am a bad person.

Nor do I think you are a bad person if:

You listen to Lizzo despite abuse claims from people she's worked with

Enjoy Black Panther 1 or 2 despite Shuri's actress being anti vax/transphobic or Namor's actor being accused of SA

Liking Tim Burton films despite racist tendencies

Listening to The Beatles despite John Lennon being an abuser

Liking anything by Joss Whedon despite sexual misconduct and abuse of power

Liking Chris Pratt despite being in a very homophobic church

Listening to ANYTHING involving Dr. Luke

Reading Homestuck despite Andrew Hussie being a crappy boss and sending weird legal threats to a much smaller YouTuber

Watch/ listen to anything tied to anyone who supports Israel

And so many other artists who have done horrible things that I truly hope gets them honest to goodness ruined in their respective industries. ( I could list so many I stg...)

I would recommend that people not monetarily support these artists (bootleg all you can). But it's mentally taxing (and nearly impossible) to hold yourself to the standard of  "this person is horrible. I must now hate everything I once loved involving them". Clearly you can and should feel free to simply toss away anything by anyone who has ruined their art for you. It's not as if I've never stopped liking something because someone involved has ruined their art beyond repair; but let it go because the art is ruined for you, not because the person behind it is. You aren't a better or worse person for it either way, please treat yourself kindly. I think it’s time we start directing more outrage towards the artists who perpetrate harm than the people who simply enjoy their stuff.

[lordstormageddidnt]

@cha0ticlesbian had this question on my last post:

Hi! Genuine question, I’m new to supernatural (I’m on season 4) and I can definitely see what people mean about dean and cas and obviously I know about the confession scene but I’m confused if it’s true that deans feeling are “up to interruption” or if he just doesn’t like him back? Also I’ve seen some people saying he’s like homophobic? Ive just really confused and dean is my favorite so I wanna know lol

So let's talk about that. Are Dean's feelings up to interpretation?

Simply put, yes.

Basically, in s15e18 "Despair", when Cas is giving his whole "I love you" speech, Dean doesn't say very much. At random intervals, he gives NPC-type comments* like "Why does this sound like a goodbye?" and "Don't do this, Cas". He does not ever say "I love you too" (unless you're watching the Spanish dubbed version, where he says exactly that).

On the surface, I know my friends (who only get their spn info from me holding them hostage in my discord server), took issue with the line "don't do this". They kind of read it as Dean not respecting Cas in Cas's final moments-- in their eyes, Dean didnt want Cas to confess because he's uncomfortable with Cas's feelings. But the speech isn't about Dean-- it's about Cas giving himself permission to be happy.

That line of thinking plus the past allegations of Jensen Ackles being homophobic is usually where people get the idea that Dean is homophobic. From what I can see, the "Dean is homophobic" is mostly part of the meme of the scene in general, and not something most people actually believe, but some people do genuinely believe he is homophobic. This belief is also supported by Dean's hypermasculine personality in general and the comments he makes; we never once see him outwardly homophobic to any of the openly queer SPN characters, but especially in earlier seasons, he makes jokes (like Sam being a girl because he has long hair) that you would expect someone homophobic to say.

I do think homophobic Dean a valid interpretation, but the logic kind of ignores some of the context of the scene.

For one, there's a moment after the confession where Dean gets a call from "Cas" (it's Lucifer) telling him that Cas is outside the Bunker and needs to be let out. Dean breaks into a sprint to get to the door, and I think this action speaks louder than words (or, lack thereof). Whether or not Dean reciprocates, he cares about Cas as a friend and he wants Cas to be alive again.

For two, when it comes to "don't do this", the more common interpretation is that Dean doesn't want Cas to sacrifice himself. Again, Cas starts the speech by explaning that he will die during his happiest moment, and then transitions into saying that confessing his love to Dean is his happiest moment. Dean doesn't want Castiel to defeat Billie by sacrificing himself.

As a destiel shipper, my interpretation of this scene is a slight variation of the previous one. In my general view of SPN, Dean has known he's in love with Cas since at least s11, and he's known Cas has loved him back for a while, but he's just never felt like it was the right time to start a relationship (constant apocalypses and everything) and he's worried that he'll screw it up. In my head, when he says "don't do this", it means more like "don't do this [love confession like this]". Like, Dean doesn't want their first ILYs* to be marred by the fact that Cas is sacrificing himself.

So, last question-- how do people read the scene as Dean liking Cas back when he never verbally reciprocates?

Some people see Dean's silence as him either not liking Cas back or not realizing he likes Cas back yet, but there's another option here. The reason Cas is dying is because he believes this is his happiest moment. His speech outright states that he believes Dean does not love him back ("the one thing I want is the thing I cannot have"). It's totally possible that Dean reciprocates, but in his mind, saying that really would trigger Cas's happiest moment. There are some great fix-it fics built on the premise of "Dean insults the sht outta Cas to spoil Cas's happiest moment and stop him from being taken by the Empty".

* okay last point. I wasn't sure where to insert this but I think it's insanely interesting. The scene in s15e18 is not actually the first time Cas tells Dean he loves him. In s12, there is an episode where Cas believes he is dying, and he says the line "I love you. I love all of you" to the small crowd of Dean, Sam, and Mary. NPC behavior from Dean ensues as he insists Cas isn't going to die without ever acknowledging the "I love you". The common interpretation is that the first ILY is for Dean, and the second ILY is Cas speaking to the Winchesters as a whole. Do with that as you will lol

Anyway, that's all I got :D thank you for the opportunity to rant about supernatural and feel free to ask me if you have any other questions!

[not-goldy]

Umm but Tae cross that line tho. You said you can't support taennie because what Tae doing is unfair to her I.e pushing tkk by namedropping JK while not claiming his gf and indirectly nodding his Fandom to attack her. Which is disrespectful for both Jikook and his relationship with Jennie.

I agree about JM coz personally the only member I take seriously when they speak about love and commitment is Jimin. Because when he says it he means it 101%.

Tae crossed that line with whomst?

Shipping and fan service is a normal part of Kpop and a member name dropping another member is not crossing the line in my opinion.

The part he's not protecting his alleged girlfriend is a very valid point. There's no excuse for that I agree. And yes I can't support that at all because I wouldn't want to be Jennie in that situation.

And showing love to the same people hating on your SO is wrong on every level. I would have deleted my account and only showed up on live if Hybe forced me to. I would make shitty music dissing my fans and drag them to hell if they don't buy or stream it🥲

Stream this song called my fans ain't shit armya.

I'll shave my head bald.

Wear socks for masks in public

And I'll gave a butched tattoo on my forehead.

Like forget the Y. Jx write Armpit on my neck.

Drop she's better than you out of no where.

Ipost and delete "love you armed robbers" and repost with the correct fan name so you know I meant yall.

I'll be such a terrible idol you'll regret stanning me. That's how petty I actually am.

Oooohhhh, you mean Tae's behavior is disrespectful to Jikook because of the way he acts with Jk sometimes?

I mean.... yes and no.

Stay with me alright,

People are allowed to do whatever they want. Just because there's a boundary or wall don't mean it will keep people out. Sometimes people go over walls, burn down and break walls.

When that happens it is up to the individual to take steps and actions to address those breaches and to prevent them from happening again.

Where you try a peaceful settlement and that fails cutting people off completely or keeping your distance becomes the ultimate solution.

Does that ring a bell with any ship dynamics in BTS to you? Ding ding ding

Tae "disrespecting" someone's boundaries is not what's important. It's that person enforcing those boundaries or allowing it that matters.

After all JK is not a child any more and so he shouldn't and wouldn't allow things he's not comfortable with. And in that regard, what may be a hard limit to you may not be a hard limit to him so he might allow it.

It's the same with JM and every body.

I think from Tae saying he wouldn't be willing to do red line tattoos with his members, it's safe to say he does understand some sort of limits or boundaries when it comes to relationships.

His limits may not however be the same as every body's.

For instance while he said he wouldn't do the red line tattoo at all JK didn't mind. He was willing to do it save for a few modifications.

It doesn't mean JK has no sense of boundaries because he is the same individual who said he wouldn't be okay with his SO feeding his friends perilla leaves or whatever.

Those two have different sense of boundaries.

Tae tend to be very liberal, carefree and has a lower social threshold. When he was younger the members used to say he had zero sense of boundaries and we could all see that too most times.

A reminder, he's the same person he stripped young Jk naked in the shower so he could have that male bonding experience and stop his shyness.

Yet he is also the one who wouldn't share his close friends with his band mates and said he likes girls that looked mean (unapproachable) on the outside.

So we know he has some sense of boundaries too. It's just not what you'd expect.

What is a boundary to you might not feel like a boundary to him. I recall him posting TKK photos on his birthday when Jk had gone out of his way to edit himself out of those pics.

The environment a person is raised in has an impact on their understanding of social dynamics and so we all have unique social needs and boundaries.

When it comes to Jungkook, he does put up boundaries where he feels he needs to and allows things he feels he's comfortable with including his one bandmate nibbling on his neck 🙃

He"ll quick punch us in the throat if any one of us tried that shit🤧

And I don't know if Jimin will be down to bump dicks with us- or it's just a jikook thing. Idk idk😩

[46ten]

Were some of AH's reactions over-the-top?

@icarusbetide wrote the following here:

and i'm paying attention to what you said about how "He viewed things differently than they because he had different motivations" - that's generally how i feel about the reynolds pamphlet, because i can very much see the reasoning behind why he did it, even if it was a terrible political decision. a lot of his actions can definitely be accounted for by thinking of his priorities, which a lot of scholars have nicely argued were public integrity, honor, fame.

do you think there is something illogical/irrational in a lot of his over-the-top reactions to slander, or do you similarly think they are ill-considered but still rational? i don't have an answer, because i think they make sense given his aforementioned priorities, but i've also seen people argue that that level of intensity and "rabidness" probably had some psychological basis. flexner in the young hamilton seems to lean heavily into that (i have grievances with that book in general so i'm not taking his word for it lol), arguing that hamilton would revert to this insecure, child-like mindset at crucial moments - this isn't really about bipolar disorder or ADHD, but i wanted to ask if you think there's merit in that general idea!

I hate Flexner, and others do, too. I think psychobiography is not at all helpful to history, as a discipline, as "facts" are made up to support the psychological speculation.

It's hard for me to come up with hard examples of AH behaving "irrationally" in his life - that was not his personality at all. He was overly rational, an over-thinker at times. And he was also decisive - he would take this risk if he thought that outcome was worth it, but he does not strike me as someone unaware of the pros and cons who was just marching on. (His rationality, his ability to see many sides, his clear-headed thinking and ability to move that to action, and then his judgement, are qualities his colleagues praised about him - which doesn't mean that he didn't have examples of what they considered to be poor judgment - hello Adams pamphlet.)

To discuss the Reynolds Pamphlet briefly, since this is often suggested as an example of how crazy and impulsive/reckless AH was, he spent at least a month composing it. It's long and detailed. He explains why he's writing it. Considering we have it - documented - that AH consulted with some of his friends about dueling Aaron Burr (another example where it's in fashion to claim AH was some crazy loner guy making bizarre choices), I'd speculate that he discussed writing the pamphlet with EH, John Church, Oliver Wolcott, and William Jackson almost certainly, maybe Fish, Troup, Clarkson....He may have discussed it with Philip Schuyler! [He didn't get as far as he did in military/professional/political life without understanding the idea of consultation and seeing all sides to the problem, even if he wasn't aiming for full consensus.]

Callendar's pamphlets (which we no longer have copies of - historians are working from the History...of 1796 and AH's quotes in the Reynolds Pamphlet) took aim at whether AH was a trustworthy public servant - the intent was to wound his public character. He is absolutely going to need to respond to that in some way. The way he wants to respond to it, however, is to have the editor (Fenno) disavow it, and then to have the men (Monroe, Venable, Muhlenberg) to whom he provided an explanation of the Reynolds Affair way back in December 1792 provide him with letters stating that Callendar's allegations are false. He is furious when Monroe refuses, esp when Monroe states that he didn't really believe AH at the time! He's pretty ticked off that he instead has to argue his own innocence himself, and he lets the reader know he's ticked off to have to do this. That's not reckless, impulsive, crazy behavior. The issue, really, is the amount of detail he provides: not only "I didn't do that," but "I instead was doing this...." He is "too honest," "MOST INDISCREET" as GM probably would have put it! But this was also him putting all his arguments out there - this is what you should judge me for, because I was innocent of that other thing - and besides politicians knowing since 1793, the general public already knew (it's in the press by 1795) that there were accusations of adultery around him. He really wasn't revealing anything except rather excruciating details of the affair, but that again, is his "too honest" style and his thinking like the lawyer he is - "I'm giving you guys all the facts!" There may have also been some thinking that by providing all these facts, it would shame folks in the future and he could avoid being the subject of similar attacks - he may have also wanted to correct people on the record about his adultery; it's difficult to say. (Maybe this link to all my posts on the Reynolds Pamphlet will work, for those interested.)

One of AH's best friends, Robert Troup, states "his ill-judged pamphlet has done him incomparable injury," and Webster's quotes are pretty well known - the common objection is sort of a "why respond at all?" Well, AH explains why he responded - it's not unreasonable.

Let me bring this back to Flexner and his speculation that this has to do with some awful childhood events (that we have no record happened) and his resulting insecurity from it. There's no basis for thinking this. No evidence, no assertions from AH that this is a concern for him - it's just a story to sell books (come on down, Chernow!) Now if we're going to argue that some of AH's defensiveness around attacks on his public character came from his being an outsider, so therefore often having to re-assert his position in the gentleman circle, that may carry more weight - and some scholars do argue that. But I don't think AH, through most of his life, thought of himself as an outsider on the American scene.

If you give me some examples of what you consider to be over-the-top reactions to slander, I may try to respond to a few. I am planning a response to your questions about AH's personality, if that's okay, which I will post in a few days.

[theteablogger]

The First of Many Warning Posts

This is another extract from the timeline. The rather lengthy, bulleted analysis of Andy's response to an anon about the warning post doesn't actually appear in the timeline--I'm including it here so I can link back to it later.

February 25, 2013

Tumblr user F makes the first warning post addressed to the SPN fandom with regard to Andy, in response to an anon ask that refers them to Abbey's and Colleen Doran's blogs. F sends Andy a couple of private messages regarding these allegations, and when they don't receive an answer, they publish a response to the ask in which they include links to the posts the anon mentioned, as well as some other references, and suggest that people read them and draw their own conclusions.

Andy gets aggressive with F, referring to the content of the warning post as "scandalous allegations" that need to be removed or made private. He claims not to have received F's messages, chastises them for not calling him instead, and tries to get them to take the conversation to Skype or phone. F refuses, finding it disturbing that Andy has immediately asked for "personal, offline identifying information" from them, and says that any discussion between them will need to occur in public space. They later publish a message from Abbey and direct readers to her blog.

Andy responds to an ask about the warning post. In this instance, Andy doesn't tell many outright lies, but he does bend the truth quite a bit and ignores facts that are inconvenient for him. Taking it point-by-point:

While Andy's primary goal has never been to con money out of people, he has obtained or extracted money from others under false pretenses when there was a promise of an immediate (albeit intangible) reward, or when he couldn't cover his living expenses on his own. For example, he convinced Turimel to use her credit card to pay for LotR actors from New Zealand to fly to the US for a convention that he knew wasn't going to happen. That money wasn't for Andy, but the purpose was to demonstrate his power and influence to the Bagenders and other BoE members by bringing celebrities directly to them. Another instance would be his lying about a heart condition during the DAYDverse era in order to motivate people to pay for him to travel to visit them, to spend more on commissions from him, and to give him money "for heart medication" or other medical needs.

Four words: hiding in plain sight.

The crazy things that people say about celebrities have absolutely no bearing on the things people say about Andy, most of which are supported by years' worth of evidence and testimony from former friends, roommates, and followers.

The extent of Andy's openness has been to deny everything that his detractors couldn't prove at the time, to remain silent about everything that hadn't yet been uncovered, and to blame the rest on mental illness and a host of other excuses. The bit about his medical history may be referring to his status as a trans man, and he's correct that that should never have been an issue in the first place.

Similarly, Andy is correct that some of the information being circulated about him is false. "Some" does not mean "all" or even "most". By now, Abbey, Diamond, and Little Sam have all spoken out about his actions from 2002-2007, and Abbey has corresponded with at least a couple of DAYDians. Turimel and Fandom Wank are no longer the only resources available and the truth is coming out.

Andy is once again trying to hide behind the trans issue. He's also brushing a lot of stuff under the rug by claiming that all of his abusive behavior took place between six and ten years before this post. And then he throws up a further distraction by calling F a transphobic hypocrite.

Yes, Andy has been investigated by police more than once and has never been charged with anything. Things may have been different if charges against him hadn't been dropped in 2004. In any event, never having been formally charged with a crime doesn't mean that you've never done anything wrong. For example, not getting pulled over and arrested for DUI doesn't make it okay that you drove home from a party while drunk.

Colleen Doran said in one of her posts that she and Andy grew up in the same area and attended the same schools. She apparently was making an assumption that he'd attended public school, but he was actually homeschooled. Andy is not lying about that. This is one of his favorite points to mention when asserting that his detractors are just making shit up and have no idea what they're talking about.

Here, Andy is suggesting that nine years of pretending to channel fictional characters, celebrities, and innumerable original characters was just roleplaying.

Again, the accusations against Andy are not all as old as he makes them out to be here, and saying that they're "inflated" is meaningless without being specific and offering evidence that this is the case.

There are plenty of lies, half-truths, and wild exaggerations on Andy's tumblr and even in this post.

Andy used to say the same thing in the DAYDverse. He was just posting fanfiction and fanart; how dangerous could he be? And yet quite a number of people suffered emotional, psychological, and even physical harm as a result of his actions. While he was manipulating and abusing Abbey, Diamond, and Little Sam, he joked about what a terrible cult leader he would make because he wasn't getting anything out of it—while he was literally their cult leader. This is just another means of hiding in plain sight.

Andy finds it inconvenient that some people feel the need to make his history everyone's business in order to enable other fans to make informed choices about whom they want to befriend.

CFC also posts a lengthy defense of Andy, hitting the same notes that he does in his post, with specific examples of things he's done for her and repeated insistence that Andy's demanding a call via Skype or phone is not creepy. They have obviously discussed this and he's given her some helpful talking points. She then publishes an anonymous ask that is clearly written by Andy. Specifically mentioning Abbey's "degree in psych and gender studies" is a tell, as are lying about Andy's age when they met, collapsing the timeline, and blaming Abbey for Andy's own actions.

In a subsequent post, Andy praises another Tumblr user for deleting their reblog of F's warning post. He validates them as "a good person" and writes off F and anyone else who reblogs the post as a wanker who only cares about gossip. He even throws in his old favorite catchphrase, the "pitchfork mob". Significantly, Andy suggests that F is actively harming SPN fandom, and Destiel fans in particular, by making them look irrational at a time when they're reaching out to the showrunners—as if to say that when Destiel doesn't happen, it will be all their fault for not shutting up about his past so as to make the fandom appear to be harmonious. He magnanimously offers validation and forgiveness to anyone else who chooses to delete their reblogs, and suggests (nonsensically) that this person's deletion might somehow have caused more rumors and wank if he hadn't said anything.

Finally, in this post, Andy links to his prior two statements and to CFC's defense of him. He posts his phone number and Skype name again and promises answers and honesty to anyone who is willing to call him. He insists that he doesn't care about "fandom popularity", which is true in a way. It has never mattered to Andy how many people follow him or are part of his inner circle; what matters is the level of influence he has over individuals, the things he can persuade them to do or say or believe, the amount of attention and adulation they give him, and so forth.

While all this is going on, Andy reblogs a few posts that he thinks are relevant to the current situation. Among them are the post assuring people that the DAYDverse isn't a cult, a post that portrayed Abbey (anonymously) as an internet predator who took advantage of poor Andy, and one of his posts about how it's wrong to criticize him because he's just trying to help people.

[slightlyrebelliouswriter23]

Thoughts on Oak after reading the stolen heir?

DISCLAIMER: not everyone is going to like this and probably even less will agree, so keep in mind that this is just my opinion because you asked for it and i'm willing to give it. please take whatever measures you need to protect yourself and not start discourse about my opinion on my post.

i spoke about my thoughts on Oak a little in this post, but i'll go into more depth here.

i felt as if many of Oak's characteristics were plucked from his family and stitched to him without rhyme or reason.

like. do i find the fact that Oak trips and accidentally murders 11 people fucking hilarious? absolutely. no question. do i think this skill is at all supported by his personality, present actions, or what we are given of his background? absolutely not.

i think it makes sense that he would be schooled on how to use a sword, given Jude and Madoc's skills. i don't think it makes sense that neither of them would give him the time in their day to teach him less aggressive forms of defence (i mean really, what else is Madoc doing in exile that he can't teach his only son basic defence and de-escalation tactics when he clearly did so for Jude whilst in the middle of planning a coup d'état?), nor does it make sense that Oak would not request this of them if they didn't offer.

the Death Mode Activated aspect of his character was sort of just dropped on our heads like an anvil in a Road Runner episode. it left me going ??¿?¿¿ 😵‍💫 ?¿¿??¿ and it felt more like a plot device, or a way to make him stand out from the likes of Cardan (king of witticisms and being down bad for scary women), than something that would actually suit him.

and i expect this might be intentional, but to me, Holly made Oak extremely unrelatable. he's "devastatingly beautiful" (to apparently everyone else– the hooves are not an issue for me, but personally i could never get down with the blond hair thing), charming in a smarmy sort of way, an alleged lovetalker (or whatever it's called, i don't remember), an immortal prince (and soon-to-be king) of Faerie, and he's really really good at killing people.

already, there's too much going on there for my tastes.

but then you add in the fact that he doesn't want the throne for no reason other than he doesn't like the politicking involved, and yet he physically inserts himself between danger and other royals? intentionally?? sorry but you're already balls deep in court politics there, my guy.

in the end, i found i didn't have much sympathy for Oak, because when Suren dropped the bomb and bridled his ass, i was cheering her on. it was the best damn thing she did in the whole entire book. i was delighted, even, that she now has the opportunity to humble him in a way he's never been humbled before.

i genuinely hope most of my feelings regarding him change in the next book. i am rooting for this trajectory for him, because it's not as if i want to cavort in his misery. i just do (for now).

–Em 🖤🗡️

thoughts on Suren

more theories and analysis

[raptorific]

People are not “throwing hissy fits” over rainbow capitalism out of some silly socialist posturing. Is it so hard to believe that people are genuinely pissed about corporations who make money off pride merch and turn around to donate that money to conservative groups? Or governments who fly rainbow flags but do not take meaningful action to protect us? People are allowed to criticize these things while also being glad that there are peo-queer sentiments being spread within them. Calling this a hissy fit is genuinely so shitty goddamn

Putting aside the fact that the right wing has perfected what our side has actively and purposefully failed to attempt, which is "I don't care WHY you give me what I want, as long as you DO give me what I want," and what they want is for all pro-LGBT content to be removed from their favorite stores and brands, if you are calling for pro-LGBT content to be removed from their favorite stores and brands, you are functionally a right-winger, and it doesn't matter that your motive is "because it's phony! they don't really mean it! they just want our money!" and not "gay people are demonic and rainbow T-shirts are corrupting the children," and putting aside the fact that you are presumably an adult and therefore capable of being mad at "gives money to conservative groups" and "fails to protect LGBT citizens" and "failing to back up their PR with material support" without also being mad at the one thing they're doing right which is "publicly expressing that being LGBT is okay and even worthy of celebration," putting all that aside for a moment:

This message leads me to believe you aren't beating the "hissy fit" allegations. Does baby need his bottle?

[alcarenka]

Honestly I'm very disappointed for what I read from you here on tumblr, since theorically I'm one of your moot on twitter. All these freaky theories about Jannik amaze me. You don't know him. And I don't know him too.

No one pretends to say that Jannik is a saint, but this treatment he is receiving is so stupid. If you don't like him, ignore him. Simple as that. Many sinneristi will eventually write ugly things about Carlos, that doesn't mean that every sinnerista is bad. Many of us like Carlos, a lot.

So stop with this no sense, because it's getting ridiculous.

Ok I do not mind about that, it is my opinion and I am not gonna change this idea. If you do not like what I am saying, go and silence my account or unfollow me. Anyway on twitter I have been posting tweets implying that I have stopped supporting jannik or that, for example, I don't like his relationship with anna and her too. As you said there in the response, you could do the same and ignore me like you told me to ignore jannik and I have been doing that in the last weeks.

I do not know him too (well I met and interacted with him at the mutua madrid open) but like it or not, I have my reasons why I have been disenchanted with him and his game and therefore stopped supporting him, for example on twitter. Concerning the "freaky theories" as you said, for me it is not freaky theories because jannik gives his statements or does many actions just for the pr and to give a good image, and none of you can deny that to me (and if you do, you are blind). Also, you can see that he tells a lot of contradictory things and is kinda a hypocrite. Like you can go and check his statements about keeping his relationships private when he was with maria and now you see that with anna, his relationship is public. In my opinion, his radical changes are just a movement of pr and marketing because I see all those same movements in multiple famous people in my country that in the end, all these movements were only for pr, winning followers and money, and keeping a clean image.

Of course, jannik is not a saint but your fandom is treating him like a god because for example, you are not capable to recognise his errors and if anyone does it, you start sending hints or posting tweets throwing messages ‘twisting’ reality just because you don't recognise his mistakes. I say all this because that happened to me when the failed discourse in the final of halle open. Or even no one can talk to your fandom because every opinion that goes against him does not sit well with you. That's why I express my honest opinion on tumblr because I know 100% that if I state my honest opinion on twitter I will end up cancelled, with my account suspended, persona non grata in italy or many citations insulting me or with hate just for having a different opinion than others.

And about "sinneristas writing bad things about carlos", it is bad that these kinds of people write only bad things about him, like insulting him because of acne or teeth or even inventing doping allegations when he is the one who has not tested positive in anti-doping tests. I KNOW that all sinneristas are not like that. And I tell the same thing to some carlos' fans who do the same thing with jannik, but please don't let your fandom generalise all fans with those bad people as you say that all sinneristas are that way.

Finally, unfortunately for you, I'm not gonna stop with my opinion, for me, is not nonsense, I only ask for respect for my opinion as I respect other opinions different from mine. In my country, we have a proverb which is quite right and fits this situation… it says “piensa mal y acertarás” (“think the worst and you will not be far wrong”). Anyway, what's really ridiculous is that your fandom bases its personality on the partner of your favourite player (or even endorse her) and, on top of that, idolises a woman who is pro-russian 🙊​🤷​