#I've seen people complaining how the show is so stupid because 'the protagonist tries to arrange school pizza party and coup d'etat at the

[reaching-giraffes]

Man I'm just so happy Code Geass is airing again

[theonethatwatchesalotofshows]

Hello there! Totally random but I've been watching Dawson's Creek and had a hot take and needed to share, and you have some of the best hot takes about these shows so I'd though I'd bother you with it lol sorry.

Granted, I haven't finished the show yet, I've seen til the season 3 finale, so this might be proven wrong by later seasons, but I've been thinking this for 3 seasons straight - Is it just me or is it completely and visibly Gail and Mitch's fault Dawson is Like That? Like, yeah, there are a lot of scenes of just Dawson complaining about his parents' relationship, but honestly? He's kind of justified! Their relationship is a mess, and they always put their son in the middle, and the drama was so needless and repetitive that by their S3 wedding they were even more boring a relationship than Dawson and Joey. And whenever he tries to bring it up with them, it's framed like he's just in the way of them being happy (whether that means being together or apart, whichever they're feeling like that week). It's not really any wonder that he has such a messed up relationship with Joey, because watching his parents, sure, why wouldn't he think he can treat her any way he wants and she'll still want him and they'll be "meant to be"? Works for Mitch and Gail! Not to mention, all their parenting consists of is telling him what a special and perfect boy he is (correct me if I'm wrong but I think the only time they "discipline" him is having him work at their family restaurant?). Once again, no wonder he gets such a protagonist complex and thinks he should always get his way and whines when he doesn't.

Dam, this show is just a mess... Every character either starts great and is completely assassinated or forgotten about (Joey, Andie, Jen, ...) or starts badly and is given a redemption arc bc the writers realized the actor can act (Pacey, Jack) or is barely even a character, just a plot device at the whims of the writers (Dawson). Anyways, this is all just because I've heard for years before watching the show about how Dawson is the worst and actually watching the show has me thinking Mitch and Gail might really be the worst. Sorry for the rant! But I needed to share this with someone. What do you think? Am I totally off base here or does this actually make sense?

Hi! No worries, you don't bother me, I love hot takes (unless they're extremely stupid lol).

My hot take is that Dawson is not the antichrist as most of the fandom tried to paint him. Is he annoying and whiny? Sure, but what teenager isn't. Now that I think about it, maybe the reason the fandom hates him so much is because they see themselves in him and they don't like it? Just a thought.

You are so right about his parents though! People like to say: "Dawson has nothing to complain about, all other characters have it worse". Sure, Dawson's parents are not dead (at the beginning), in jail, physically abusive, mentally ill or didn't ship him off to live with his grandma, but that doesn't mean they are perfect. They put him in the middle of their messed up marriage and fighting. No 15-year-old should know about their parents' sex life and that his mother is having an affair. I also think they were too chill and let him get away with too much, like you said. But that's in almost every American show. I can't imagine talking to my parents the way teenagers on tv talk to theirs, that's not just a Dawson thing. It might have something to do with how the actor plays Dawson perhaps?

As for the character assassinations, I feel like the problem is that the writers mold the characters to whatever they need in the moment rather than having consistent characterization and letting conflict naturally arise from that. That's why the characters contradict each other a lot and seem to change so much (I still maintain that Andie cheating on Pacey was completely ooc). Also what bothers me is that the writers rewrite history a lot in order to be able to recycle old plot lines. The best example of this is how Pacey underwent such a great character development while he was with Andie only for it to be erased so he can undergo it again with Joey. When he told Joey: "I have never gotten an A before" I rolled my eyes because he literally had the same storyline with Andie like two seasons before! It's like in season 2 the writers wanted us to root for Pacey and Andie, but in season 3 and 4 they changed their minds so they ruined Andie's character to make room for Pacey and Joey. But then in season 5 they decided: "scratch that, Joey and Dawson it is" so they erased all Pacey's development again and had Joey pine for Dawson again.

A bit off topic but I thought it related to what you said about the characters. I don't think Dawson is the worst. He was annoying but I feel like he got progressively less and less annoying as the show went on. Joey is a different story. I could rant more about that but it's a very unpopular opinion since everyone on here loves Joey.

[m0th-punk]

This is something that's been on my mind for a long time. Long ramble under the cut

TL;DR: Grazer-razor has some of the worst black and white mentality I've ever seen and I can tell he has never critically examined his biases a day in his life.

Because I'm a terrible little gremlin who can't leave well enough alone, I've been reading these posts

Ignoring the absolute stupidity of these statements (I'm pretty sure the lack of rainbow logos is because in many middle eastern countries, homosexuality is a crime and these companies just want to make money. But I'mnot going into the nuances and implications of rainbow capitalism today.), something stood out to me.

Does Grazer... genuinely think nobody has ever criticized the Muslim faith? That we all ignore the homophobia present within the religion just because they're a minority? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've seen even some of the most staunch leftists criticize things like their horrible treatment of homosexuality or the rampant sexism often sanctioned by radicals. Even other Muslims, especially women and lgbt+ Muslims, have been critical of these things.

It wouldn't shock me if Grazer believedthat anyone who supports Muslims believes they can do no wrong. After all, he thinks any criticism of Christianity is hatred, and dismisses any harmful things Christians do as not being "real" Christianity in a classic case of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Note how he didn't even respond to the first asks comments, just accused them of being me (because obviously any time someone sees his blog it's all my fault /s)

So it seems like in Grazer's mind, there are only two options when it comes to religion: Uncritically praise and defend everything a religion does no matter how heinous it is and justify it because it's done in a God's name, or condemn anyone who practices it as hateful terrorists. Because he doesn't see people doing the former for Christians, he automatically assumes that they're doing the latter, and vice versa for Muslims.

Also note how he gets mad when muslim faith is "respected" (again, homosexuality is criminalized in many of these areas) but then demands a secular children's show cater to his religion for the sake of his precious childhood.

(Also, can we just talk about the absolute fucking cruelty in this answer? There are people out there that had their childhoods ruined by abuse, illness, losing loved ones, homelessness, poverty, bullying, near-death experiences, having their countries torn apart by war, a shitty foster care system, teen pregnancies, and so many other things that can absolutely destroy a life.  Grazer's was ruined by…  *checks notes* a cartoon character supporting gay rights and a drag queen singing a cutesy children's song.  So yeah, if that's the worst part of his childhood he's pretty damn lucky, and the fact that he has the gall to still complain absolutely makes him selfish and ignorant. It's disrespectful, plain and simple, and if he were truly a good Christian he'd have some compassion.)

Okay, so Grazer has some weird "rules for me but not for thee" shit when it comes to religion. This isn't news. Where am I going with this?

Well, turns out he has this opinion about more than just religion. Know how I know this? His response to ESRB ratings and trigger warnings.

So it seems like Grazer sees the ESRB as some sort of moral compass, in a way. Something being rated E or E10 means it's pure and good and wholly unproblematic, while anything higher means it's evil and disgusting and he can't even look at it.

This is further confirmed by this post, where he flat-out states he sees the ESRB as deeming what things are and are not morally acceptable.

Now Grazer, I'm gonna explain this as best as I can, because it seems like you don't quite understand this. Read very carefully.

This is not the purpose of the ESRB rating system.

I repeat, this is NOT the purpose of the ESRB rating system.

The ESRB does not decide on what is and is not morally correct. It simply says "This game contains these topics, and as such is most suitable for people in this age group.". That's it. It's a guideline, not a rule.

Let's take cartoon violence, for instance. It's a very common warning the ESRB puts on games. Almost every game from Mario to Sonic to Crash Bandicoot and even Monster Tale has this warning. These games are all rated E for everyone. Does this mean those games are promoting violence to children, or claiming things like Bowser kidnapping Peach or Pinstripe trying to gun down Crash are perfectly okay and morally correct? Of course not. It's simply saying that these games contain mild, non-graphic violence, but most children should be able to handle seeing it.

On the other side of the coin, let's take a look at the warnings for nudity and sexual themes. Most games that contain these topics are rated T at the lowest and AO at the highest. This obviously isn't saying that nudity and sex are inherently bad or evil. All it's saying is that these topics are best handled by adults (And, regardless of morality, it is illegal to distribute sexual content to minors unless it's meant to be educational, like a health class textbook).

A few extra points:

. Games can be rated different things in different countries. Different countries have different regulations. Do you know why the blood in Danganronpa is pink? It's because in Japan, games with excessive amounts of blood and gore are given a Z rating (Japan's equivalent to an AO rating). They got around this by making the blood pink, securing the game its desired M rating. Meanwhile here in America, Mortal Kombat is allowed to show as many graphic, brutal deaths as it wants and still receive an M rating.

. ESRB ratings are not legally enforceable. I was so convinced as a 16 year old that the employees at gamestop would try to card me or something when I was picking up a copy of Bayonetta, and I was surprised when they simply rang me up in two seconds, no questions asked. It doesn't happen. For fuck's sake, one of the first games I ever played, at the tender age of four, was Soul Edge. A T rated game. The only instance ESRB ratings are legally enforced is in the case of AO ratings, as these games often contain incredibly graphic violenceor sexual content. If this outrage is coming from the idea that certain ratings will keep younger people from playing these games from a legal standpoint, don't worry. A nine year old is not gonna get arrested for playing Among Us. Just don't buy them GTA San Andreas or Leisure Suit Larry and everything will be fine.

. No two consumers are exactly alike. While one 13 year old may be perfectly fine with the jumpscares in Amnesia, another may be too scared to even go near the piano in Super Mario 64. That doesn't mean either of these games is rated incorrectly. The ESRB is there, once again, as a recommendation for the average consumer, and doesn't take individual experience into account. An individual experience is not their responsibility. It's also on parents (or you yourself!) To decide what the consumer can or can't handle.

"But Haley," I hear you say, "What if this piece of media DOES contain something morally bad?"

Well it's simple. You are allowed to like things AND still criticize the bad parts of it.

Hold on now, I'm not telling you that it's perfectly alright to enjoy things like Birth of a Nation or anything like that! Contrary to popular belief, there are some pieces of media that are truly too steeped in hatred and morally reprehensible things to be supported, even through a critical lense. The only merit things like that have is to serve as a warning: This is a terrible thing made for terrible reasons, and we should not allow it to happen again.

But outside of those rare circumstances, it's not so cut and dry.

Let's take a piece of media i actually enjoy, for instance, so you know I'm not a hypocrite: Persona 5.

Persona 5 is easily one of my favorite games in the Persona series. It does a lot of interesting stuff, the artstyle and soundtrack are (in my opinion) the best in the series, and overall it's very enjoyable for me.

But, like anything, it's not perfect. I'm incredibly uncomfortable with the hypocrisy the game has in regards to the sexualization of teenagers. While Kamoshida is rightfully condemned for his sexualization of teenage girls and Ann's persona awakening comes from rejecting this objectification, the game and story undermine it by not only putting Ann in a sexually revealing outfit, but also making light of Ryuji's sexual harassment by adult men (Allegedly Persona 5 Royal tries to fix this by making the men drag enthusiasts who think Ryuji would look good in drag and giving them more sympathetic personalities, but it's still really weird and hypocritical of the game to do this.). The teenage protagonist is also allowed the option to date adult women, including his teacher, and the game rarely if ever touches on the problems with this.

The game's homophobia also left a bad taste in my mouth. Aside from the aforementioned men who sexually harass Ryuji, the only other canon LGBT+ character is a bar owner who is either a drag queen or a trans woman (or both?). Sure, she's portrayed as being kind and protective of the protagonist, but there isn't much room to interact with her or learn more about her. On top of that, not only can the protagonist not romantically pursue his male friends (A feature that even the SECOND persona game had), he's not even allowed to give them gifts or platonically show affection towards them without the dialogue mocking him. The game that allows a teenage boy to date his teacher won't allow him to simply give his male friends a present.

And yet, despite those criticisms, I do still enjoy the game. I don't consider the game irredeemable garbage based on those poorly handled topics alone. And I also understand that for some people, those topics make them so uncomfortable that they don't want to play the game at all, and I completely respect that.

Criticizing the things you enjoy is not only normal, it's oftentimes healthy. Being able to step back and say "I like this thing, but I don't like the bad things it's done. This thing would be better if these issues were fixed." Sure, sometimes some people tend to complain a bit too much about the media they supposedly enjoy, but for the most part being able to acknowledge the bad with the good is a good skill to have.

Oh, wait, all of this means nothing because Grazer thinks that critically enjoying things is nothing more than an excuse to consume media he doesn't personally agree with. Okay then.

So if he can't even realize something as simple as "it's okay to criticize some parts of media that you otherwise enjoy", how can he be expected to look critically at a religion that he's been raised in and around all his life?

Soooo yeah, Grazer has some serious problems with black and white thinking that he refuses to acknowledge, further worsened by the fact that he's practically been brainwashed into believing that Christianity is the ultimate moral compass that everyone should follow. I understand that this tends to be an issue for neurodivergent people, but it's not an excuse for the actions he does that are related to these things (sending death threats to the ESRB, antagonizing others, etc.