#I don’t consider myself an actual person that’s why 😶

[dykeredhood]

Opening the door for someone with their arms full of laundry baskets made me feel happier and more fulfilled than spending the entire morning running errands/visiting the hardware store/doing things that technically only benefit me

[back-to-louis]

*HUGE SIGH* - Part 1

(Or: the poll has spoken)

“I love to discuss (argue).” - The Larrie OP

That’s one of many differences between us, and why ultimately this is a waste of my time. I’m not here to argue. I didn’t start this blog to argue. I have always simply tried to get people to consider the harm of their behavior in propagating the conspiracy theory of Larrie. By stating up front that the goal is to “argue” (read: get attention), it’s clear that the OP is not operating from a position of being willing to reflect or change their mind. That’s why this is a waste of time. All I can do is point out the flaws in the arguments, with the best case scenario that I teach the OP how to make better ones next time. I’m certainly not willingly giving them the attention they wanted.

I’d like to suggest readers take a shot (or if you do not drink, a sip of something unpleasant! a squirt of lime in the mouth or something, lol) every time the argument does this thing where they have already determined the crime being committed, try to force an equivocation between that crime and the thing they’re linking to/quoting/discussing, and then interpret the gaps in what they are presenting, or the mention of the other item, to be evidence of the thing they have imagined.

“People commit crimes” is not a black box into which you can insert whatever specific crime you imagine and work backwards from there. There will always be a crime you can imagine being committed. A conspiracy theorist has no reason other than the CT they’re trying to “prove” for asserting THAT OFFENSE is the one being committed. It could be, by those standards, ANYTHING. They would need to explain why they haven’t looked into why XYZ crime isn’t being committed rather than their pet ones. (The answer is in their header)

I’m breaking up the arguments into more manageable chunks, so there will be multiple posts. I will not respond to further baiting about this. Go play with yourself if you want to keep going.

Em, Admit You Were Wrong Because Lifetime Contracts Do Exist! a) Starts off with this DELIGHTFUL SELF OWN:

“Pls don’t tell me that you actually think there’s a single person behind everything and a NAME can be NAMED 😶”

That… is a conspiracy theory, not evidence. Do you know what a conspiracy theory is? Do you know what evidence is?

[slaps self] No, no! I promised myself I would not ask any more questions. I will instead make a statement. A person *gestures* (not saying it's the OP but not NOT saying it) can say anything they want to say, but the statement itself does not constitute evidence. If one such person were to say, “crimes are being committed,” and the response to the question “by whom?” is, “you are very silly, as if there is a person one could name as being responsible for the crimes,” what you have is a conspiracy theory, not evidence of a crime.

If one could simply assert “crimes are being committed” and that one could never actually identify who has committed them, then absolutely ANYTHING ONE COULD IMAGINE could be inserted for “crimes,” according to the accuser’s desire, and ABSOLUTELY ANYONE the accuser imagines could be committing them. Which is what is happening here. The crimes being imagined are according to the larrie’s tastes. If the crimes could be ALL OF THE CRIMES, why SPECIFICALLY closeting? Because that is what the larrie wishes to imagine is being committed. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

b) Quote from Rebecca Ferguson in response to (let’s be real, a larrie) asking: “maybe it’s too exaggerated but can a musician be trapped in an abusive contract for life???”

“Yes 100%”

Now, this is going to blow your mind, but “a musician being trapped in an abusive contract for life” is NOT the same as “lifetime contracts exist” and HERE IS WHY.

There are many items that can be in a contract for a record label, among them obligations for the artist to perform certain actions –(oooh, the larries salivate, this can super duper include anything we imagine like faking a baby or birth certificate or obituary or faked co-habitation etc!)-- such as, I continue on, delivering a certain number of singles, or a certain number of albums, or performances, or tours, or appearances, etc. These are just off the top of my head, surely there are more and others, although I would not insist that just any old thing I can think of will fill that black box.

If an artist bound by such contract, say for example, is obligated to produce ten (10) albums, and never quite manages to get there because they do two and they’re overworked and need a break, mentally or physically, or they’re out of money, or they have a mental block and can’t write, or they don’t want to work with the producers the label instructed them to work with (let’s say because the producer is an abuser and rapist - like that KE$HA connection referenced but not linked, and I wonder why - it’s very easy to find using Google. Here: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/kesha-dr-luke-case-highlights-hidden-side-of-record-contracts-113491/ – btw, ALSO not a “LIFETIME CONTRACT” - it’s about her producing music) or any other number of plausible and implausible reasons why the artist is “unable to deliver” upon the requirements of the contract in a PRODUCTION sense. They aren’t just relieved of the contract because they can’t or won’t deliver (as further elaborated in the article linked above). They’re bound by the contract until they deliver. If they can't deliver or get out of the contract until their death, then the contract is in effect until then.

A “lifetime contract,” in contrast, would be one in which the artist is supposed to be bound to the record label until they die, regardless of deliverables or performance of duties. 

Now, MARRIAGE contracts? Those are for life. “As long as we both shall live/until death do us part?” that’s a LIFETIME contract.

What we have here is that the larrie read a thing and cannot, for the life of them, consider that the thing they read can be true in a way that doesn’t specifically confirm their conspiracy theory. It’s a lack of imagination, frankly. Also, take a shot.

So, no, I don’t think I will “admit” lifetime contracts exist, because you haven’t proven they do.

2. By asserting something very emphatically, the OP thinks they have made it fact.

    In response to another tweet by Rebecca Ferguson (I have no idea why this larrie is so averse to using text instead of images, but I’ll type it out again.)

“No more sexually assaulting women in hotel rooms! No more covering up sexual assault for your seedy friends no more grooming 17 year old boys who are confused about their sexuality! No more taking people out of circulation as if they are cattle… #Netflix #Documentary” a) “You are wrong again. Grooming 17 year old boys to remould their sexuality isn’t closeting then I don’t know what is. (Is it even legal?)” 

    i) Well, you said I was wrong, so I guess that settles it?

ii) The larrie seems very sure that the grooming of he 17 year old boy who is confused about their sexuality is about making the boy heterosexual, appear heterosexual, or think they are heterosexual. We don’t know what the grooming behavior being referred to is, in this case - either Rebecca didn’t elaborate or this larrie has not chosen to share it, but either way, I can’t make that conclusion from what has been shown here. Is the grooming molestation? Is the grooming showing porn? Is it gay porn? Straight porn? Like, if it could be reasonably said that Michael Jackson groomed young boys, was he making them straight? Was he closeting them? This statement is a very big “NEEDS MORE INFORMATION,” not a slam-dunk case of “grooming 17 year old boys is closeting them,” which leads me to

    iii) “If grooming someone is not closeting them then I don’t know what it is” - yeah, it’s very clear you DON’T know what grooming is! https://theconversation.com/grooming-an-expert-explains-what-it-is-and-how-to-identify-it-181573

Take a shot, readers. Just because grooming is a form of abuse, and the larrie has pre-determined that closeting is also a form of abuse, they’ve just slid the two together and think that the declaration that grooming is happening is the equivalent of the other. This is a fallacy.

    iv) “(Is this even legal?)” I was going to ask if the OP even looked up whether grooming was illegal or was this question meant to be rhetorical, but since they don’t even seem clear on what it means, I guess that’s a no.

v) As a side note, re: my comments about choosing which crimes to be outraged about. Look at what's listed in that litany by Rebecca. Look what OP CHOOSES to be most incensed about, blog about day in and day out. Not even the crimes actually listed, crimes that can be charged, litigated, sentenced (I bet Rebecca could name names, there's no mysterious "they" doing these things!). Nope, they're concerned with the one offense they can imagine to be defined therein, which is specifically the one they went in looking for.

~end part 1

[akria23]

One question: Do you think Dom and Letty have a codependent relationship?

Thanks

Absolutely not.

Codependency is about over reliance from one partner to another, IMO that’s not what Dom and Letty is about at all.

I haven’t really seen any argument for them being codependent as I haven’t been in the tags or anything but I assume any argument would be built off the series focal on them being for eachother other, to the point that they’re willing to die for the other. However I think this misses the nuance that both Letty and Dom have ideologies built of ‘everything for family’. They aren’t just willing to die for family they live for the family. They work off the mentality of being good when family is good. They don’t place themselves in a bubble and make everything about themselves, they feel that way about everyone they consider family. We’ve seen Letty help save Brian, the scar on her shoulder is from getting her and Mia out of a dangerous situation and so on.

Some of this may also come from their slogan ‘Ride or Die’ or their vows, “You will never be alone again. Wherever you go, I go. You ride, I ride. You fight, I fight. And if you ever die on me I die with you.”

All of which can seem intense. Dom and Letty have an extensive history, they’ve known eachother most of their lives and have always had an awareness of attraction / love even during the period where Dom was trying to fight it. Then there was a whole period where he thought she was dead. And also the fact that even after he found her, she had forgotten her memory 😶 Even their current situation was jarring because suddenly they had a kid to take care of and how does that affect both of their ideologies about family, their roles, their abilities. So I do think those times also affect their ties and willingness to sacrifice for one another. Ride or Die speaks to the commitment to do anything for the person you love in the face of danger & being willing to stand with them through any tribulation they may face - something the two have been doing for one another and family since the very beginning. The vows are just a different variation of this commitment. Is there a conversation that can be had about contrast of a woman’s loyalty lengths versus a males? SURE absolutely but that’s a different one from the one we’re having.

I think it’s just imperative to really understand that Dom & Letty are like different sides of the same coin. They have differences but at their core they’re incredibly similar and this is why they move the way they do, why they work the way they do. It’s not just in being family oriented, it’s in the how as well. They are both built for a certain lifestyle and with a specific ideology. Not just as a pair but as individuals and it just creates who they are as a unit. There is no actual enabling of toxic or destructive traits from one to the other, there’s no manipulation and trying to exalt other relationships from around them like so often in codependent relationships. Even when Letty didn’t understand herself because of her memory loss, Dom didn’t try to force her, he didn’t try to manipulate her to get her to stick with him. He let her go explore and find what she might have needed and come back. He didn’t tell her they were married as some way to get empathy or loyalty she didn’t feel. Instead he let that come back on it own as well - like he tells her later “You can’t tell someone they love you”. He respected her space, he need to heal and rediscover herself and them. I think there’s a certain list of things you have to fit to be considered codependent and I don’t see them exhibiting any of the few I know. I think they’re just two people who love eachother, who try their best and give everything they can to taking care of one another and their family.

I hope that answered the question 😊 Thank you for the ask. This reminded me that I still owe the tag a post about Letty & Dom for the last film 😅 I just don’t want to be repeating myself cause ppl will likely hate that, I do wonder what aspects ppl want to hear about. I think I’m gonna write a piece out and post it up for Christmas…yeah Imma do that 😂. Anyway thanks again for the ask.