#didn’t bother looking up a reference so it’s possible this is a misquote

[iwishiwasloopisatspursedog]

this scene lives rent free in my brain

[maeve-of-winter]

Because it bothers me: What Kent is quoted as saying in the 4.19 chapter isn’t what he actually said it the actual Parse Part III comic.

I guess it’s similar enough in actual words, but the sentiment is quite different. This line in Parse Part III always struck me as important:

Kent: “You know what, Zimmermann? You think you’re too messed up to care about? That you’re not good enough? Everyone already knows what you are but it’s people like me who still care.”

I always see this line misquoted as Kent trying to manipulate Jack by saying he’s the only one who cares about him. And I always think that’s blatantly untrue, because Kent clearly says here that multiple--not just him!--still care about Jack.

Personally, I’ve always read this line as Kent saying that no matter how flawed Jack thinks he is, Jack will still always have people to care about him, Kent among them. I think he’s angry when he says it, that he’s exasperated and fed up with Jack (because, like, Jack’s been ghosting him for years at this point), but I do think he’s sincere when he says he cares.

This line is a little bit different, though:

Kent: “You’re scared everyone else is going to find out you’re worthless, right? Oh, don’t worry, just give it a few seasons, Jack. Trust me.”

This is the line that most people treat as utterly indefensible, and the one that canon deliberately misquotes. And let’s break that down.

Kent didn’t say, “Jack, you’re a worthless human being.” He didn’t even outright call Jack himself worthless. He insinuates it, playing on Jack’s insecurities, but I think it’s important to remember that he didn’t actually call Jack worthless to his face, as 4.19 tries to present him as doing.

In fact, Kent’s deliberate mention of “seasons” instead of “time” or “years” almost makes it sound that he’s talking about Jack’s hockey, not Jack himself. he sounds more like he doubts Jack’s ability as a player, not as a person. 

But let’s look into this further. Right before their rookie season in the NHL, Jack ODed and ghosted Kent. 4.19 makes it clear that he didn’t respond to Kent’s attempts to contact him. And Kent dealt with this treatment for several seasons in a row. It’s his sixth season when he’s having this conversation with Jack.

This is more my inferences than anything else, but I think that when Kent is talking about Jack proving himself to be worthless after a few seasons, I think he’s referring to Jack’s behavior as a friend and boyfriend. He’s already mentioned “people who still care” about Jack, and he’s been dealing with Jack’s cold shoulder for years now. So, while I don’t think it was intended to be read this way, I think Kent was reacting to Jack’s poor treatment of him and saying that once Jack begins treating his new teammates the same way, everyone will know exactly what type of man he is.

And while that is just my interpretation, I think it’s important to remember that going by 4.19 canon, Jack has been refusing contact with Kent for a long time by the time of December 2014, when Parse Part III takes place. Possibly since June 2009, when Jack’s OD took place, which would be more than five years. Five years of Jack ghosting Parse and rejecting Parse when he tries to help him, five years of Kent, alone in the NHL, struggling with his sexuality and the hurt and trauma of his then-boyfriend’s suicide attempt. Even if Kent was fully insinuating that Jack was worthless . . . is his anger really totally unjustifiable after what Jack left him to struggle with? Honestly, I don’t think that it is.

(Also, Bitty, yeah, duh, Kent knows Jack tried to kill himself. Because Jack tried to kill himself while dating Kent and then ghosted Kent for years, as confirmed by 4.19 itself. This is not news to Kent. He had to deal with his boyfriend trying to kill himself and then never responding when Kent tried to reach out. He’s been dealing with that, by himself, for years now.)

[stephenaltrogge-blog]

The 14 Step Process For Taking A Pleasant Conversation To Internet Hell

The internet is like sitting around the dinner table with relatives on Thanksgiving after everyone has had too much to drink.

Comments get taken wildly out of context, everyone assumes the absolute worst about everyone else, and it doesn’t take long before the conversation has turned into a backbiting, passive-aggressive/actually aggressive reality TV show.

It’s like the Kardashians on expired anabolic steroids.

And the internet is even worse.

We’ve all had the experience of getting dragged into an absurd digital back-alley brawl, complete with low blows, bloodied profile pictures, schoolyard insults, and ridiculous accusations.

Afterward, we often look back and think, “What the heck just happened? How did I get sucked into that? I’m not normally that kind of person. WHY DID I GET SO FIRED UP ABOUT AVOCADOS?!?”

I can tell you exactly how it got started. In fact, these rumbles in the online jungle (I’m trying to make as many lame fighting references as possible) always follow a precise formula.

Let me break that formula down for you. For the sake of example, we’re going to use two fictional characters named John and Tim who have no connection to real life characters. The memes and emojis used are real and frequently show up in these arguments.

Step #1: John makes an innocuous comment

“Man, I really enjoyed that episode of Game of Thrones last night. WOW! So crazy! Can it get any more intense?”

Step #2: Tim responds with an ever so slightly passive-aggressive comment in which he tries to make a point without making a point

“I didn’t watch it. It got to be too much for me.”

Step #3: John fires back with a mildly snarky comment followed by an emoji which on the surface seems pleasant but belies a strong judgment underneath

“Doesn’t bother me! I guess I must have a stronger conscience! ?”

Step #3: Tim, feeling a bit riled, fires back his own question, also followed by a laughing emoji, indicating that he’s trying to be pleasant but is on the precipice/thinks the point is ridiculous

“Wait. Are you saying I have a weak conscience? ?”

Step #4: John doesn’t directly answer the question, but words his answer so that everyone clearly knows his answer

“Well, I’m just saying…it doesn’t bother me.”

Step #5: Tim volleys back with a cryptic comment implying something devious about John’s character

“I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that it doesn’t bother you.”

Step #6: John, still trying to maintain the upper hand, pretends to be puzzled even though he knows exactly what he means

“Huh?”

Step #7: Tim quotes the Bible wildly out of context, mashing up several verses to fit his point

“It says in the last days people will want their ears tickled, like wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

Step #8: John begins to feel his blood boil but also wants to stay out of the mud, so he focuses on Tim’s misquoting scripture instead of the fact that he’s watching naked people on TV

“Uhh, Bible much? I think you may have garbled that a little bit. ?”

Step #8: Tim is undeterred and shifts over to sweeping commentary about stereotypes

“It’s sad to see the church sliding into such ungodliness. I can only hope the Rapture happens soon and I can be lifted out of this smut. Maranatha.”

Step #9: John has had enough and resorts to pure character assassination

“What’s SAD is that the church is full of stuck up jerks like you who love to show off!”

Step #9: Tim quotes another passage of scripture, except this one has no relation to the subject at hand, and he uses all caps for no apparent reason

“LET THE LITTLE CHILDREN COME TO ME. LET THEM COME…”

Step #9: John begins losing control and veins begin popping from his forehead

“WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?”

Step #10: John’s friend Andrew, who is not involved in this in the least, inserts the Michael Jackson popcorn meme

Step #11: Tim ups the stakes by bringing more nefarious references into the conversation

“This is what happened with Rob Bell. He started loving the culture. You’re slip sliding away from the truth.”  ????????

Step #12: John, trying to regain control, begins making counter accusations and trying to use his theology brass knuckles

“I wouldn’t say you’re any better. You’re like the Amish, except more strict and with less gospel. And from what I’ve heard it sounds like you don’t understand your eschatology too well.”

Step #13: Tim semi-embraces the accusation, knowing that it will enrage Tim even further

“At least the Amish don’t love the world. And I don’t need to know what escha-whatever is because what matters most is that I love Jesus. Maybe you should think about that.”

Step #14: John invokes Hitler

“You know who else didn’t love the world? ADOLPH FREAKING HITLER. Things turned out great for him, right?”

Step #14: Tim invokes Satan

“Get behind me Satan, for you have not the things of God in mind.”

The post The 14 Step Process For Taking A Pleasant Conversation To Internet Hell appeared first on The Blazing Center.

from WordPress http://ift.tt/2rNWvPa via IFTTT