#i hate bgs therefore none

[deepdish-tower-au]

Are the duo lovers of fruit? If so, what fruit do they like?

.....📝 just asking for a friend

"I dunno about Tino, but personally I'm a fan of berries. Doesn't matter which kind. I think he likes...."

"...huh?"

'Off to get groceries! Have a gift too. PS, Coffee's gross.'

"...Heh. 'course you'd do that.."

Next | Previous

[struggle-but-its-all-ocean-floor]

Enhypen are really leaning into this vampire thing. The song reminded me of TXT's Sugar Rush Ride - fun, bouncy verses followed by an antidrop chorus. It's like they were trying to recreate TXT's success in the charts given that bgs struggle so much to chart well. The song had 2nd gen vibes (the gen most beloved by the GP) paired with a Latin gg-esque beat. Thus, it was quite different from their usual sound. I quite liked the verses but not the chorus. I hated Sugar Rush Ride's chorus at first too and it took me like 20 listens to learn to appreciate it. Like recent Enhypen tts, the song needed a bridge. The song is short but felt so long since they repeated the chorus and hook or whatever endlessly. The hook is nice though. Anyway, it's a fun song that will probably grow on me, but it's nothing special and I'll forget about it soon enough.

The MV is... Not great, none of their MVs are. I liked the choro though and the use of the female dancers. The weird white jackets/vests they wore were horrendous. I'm not sure what the lyrics mean. Most songs only have lyrics so that artists have something to sing instead of just making sounds. I don't even know why they're vampires or what their lore is but one of the reasons why bgs can't keep up with ggs in charts is probably because their concepts make their music less accessible to the general public. However, that is also what makes people stan them, and therefore makes them sell better than ggs.

Anyway, the song was lighter than their usual title tracks, to me in a clear attempt to make it more GP friendly like Sugar Rush Ride was. I like it better than some of their other tts, but I'm a bit meh on it as of now.

Will listen to the album next.

Edit: Forgot to say that I get Niki is a great dancer, handsome (and a minor...), a stan attactor, a good performer and their main (?) rapper, but he got like 30% of the lines and screentime. I don't even remember seeing Sunoo. Even Jay got less screentime than usual, I think.

[laundryandtaxes]

Sorry if you already talked about this but I saw you talking about gun controls and how making them more expensive is a bad idea wich I think I agree with. But i was wondering what you think we should do to control guns and mass shootings? Mandatory background checks on all sales?

"Mass shootings" and "gun violence" are very distinct issues with very distinct solutions.

The enactings of mass shootings only have a few things in common. They are often committed by men with documented histories of violence against women. They are often committed in places with large gatherings of presumably unarmed people.

1. Solution number one would be to federally standardize definitions of domestic abuse. People with domestic abuse convictions are already legally barred from firearms ownership under federal law and have been for my entire lifetime. People saying otherwise are uninformed. BUT that definition is fairly strict, and does not always cover partners who do not live with the people they abuse. Get rid of that distinction (sometimes called the boyfriend loophole) and create a solid appeals process for those convicted. Federally prioritize domestic violence, maybe through allocation of funds. I hate the idea of giving cops literally any money, but for the most part they'll do whatever you'll pay them to do and you can turn their head in any particular direction with funding.

2. Make the ATF actually do its job. Anytime someone becomes a prohibited person (a felon - which is bullshit bc not all felonies are violent but ANYWAY- or convicted of a DV offense, etc) that person, if records are properly updated, is prevented from buying firearms at any store in the country. But nobody knocks on doors to remove the firearms of people who've just become prohibited persons. Whatever is in the house stays there. I think that's dumb as shit- in the case of the Aurora warehouse shooting that just happened this was a guy state police knew was not able to own guns, but nobody wanted to put a body on his doorstep to remove them. I think the definition of prohibited persons should be tightly narrowed to only include violent crime and domestic violence offenses, so that people aren't getting their guns confiscated over theft or license plate issues or other nonviolent offenses, and I think every single prohibited person should be able to appeal and regain their firearms rights. In the Aurora case, Illinois state police didn't want to risk sending a person or unit in. Fair enough. But people ended up dead because of that.

3. I think there is a case to be made that universal background checks COULD help here, to prevent people who can't buy guns at stores from just buying one from other citizens. But the reduction in deaths I think you could expect to see from UBC implementation would be really minimal, if anything- most mass shooters have either stolen or legally purchased their firearms after passing background checks. I suppose that, if the DV changes I talked about were implemented, more would be prohibited persons and would turn to the private market. I do not believe there is any way to ensure that background checks catch every single potential murderer and firmly do not believe the FBI (which runs the bg check electronically) should have any access to mental health records without a warrant.

For general violence, we already know exactly what reduces violence, and I do think it needs to be discussed not as gun violence but general violence, because that allows us to implement things we know work for violence overall. Guns aren't magic. They're just tools that can be used to commit violence. We know that giving people jobs (yes I am suggesting just giving, like candy) reduces their likelihood of engaging in violence of any kind. We know that poverty increases violence. All we need to do to drastically cut homicides is spend some money to lift people into more stable and I think that, over time, cultures that encourage or revel in violence will follow suit simply because those who did not grow up in violence are less likely to enact it.

Things I do not even kind of support:

-Bans on "assault weapons." The term means nothing but any semi automatic rifle, meaning any rifle that fires one round each time you pull the trigger. Those kinds of rifles can look like this

or like this

(those are all mine!) but they operate using 100 year old technology that is no different in concept from how a standard Glock pistol works. Pull the trigger, it goes bang. Pull it again, it goes bang again. Rifles in this category are excellent for any number of things and completely suitable for self defense. An AR-15 style firearm is my bedside/ home defense gun.

Even if this wasn't all true, consider this. AR-15s contribute REMARKABLY little to overall gun deaths in this country. We are talking a drop in the bucket- we are talking 322 people killed with rifles of ANY kind in 2012. Out of 13,000ish annual murders, that is remarkably small. So small that you are about 15 times MORE likely to be stabbed or bludgeoned to death (I'm linking the FBI numbers here directly) than killed with a rifle of any kind.

-Magazine capacity limits. They don't even make sense on their face. First of all it only takes on bullet to kill one person- is 10 deaths an acceptable number? Second of all, I am a relatively untrained shooter and fully self taught, and it takes me less than 2 seconds to drop an empty magazine from a rifle, load a new one, and fire another round. The California response to this is, well, make it harder to reload. Third of all, if I have a right to self defense with a firearm, then I have the right for that firearm to be functional, and MOST handgun malfunctions (talking in the context of concealed carry here) are due to magazine malfunctions. If I ever have to draw my handgun in defense of my life, I should be able to quickly fix any malfunctions. To put it simply, I believe I have the right not to be cobbled unduly in my own self defense. Fourth of all, considering that cops generally stand outside mass shootings waiting for things to die down (remember Pulse? Or Parkland?) the idea that the 2 seconds it takes to change magazines saves lives during assaults strikes me as ridiculous.

This notion that we can just get rid of the bad guns and keep the safe guns and all be safe is nonsense. Any gun can kill someone with one well-placed shot. Any person who owns a gun owns the means to do absolutely horrible violence to other people. These are things you have to reckon with in a society where private gun ownership is a right. I also think we need to be realistic about how low we can get our numbers. Let us assume that all 14,000ish people who were killed with firearms in the US in 2017 (to get that to work, organize results by year, then in the cause of death area click "injury intent and mechanism" and scroll in the box on the right to find FIREARMS) were killed using different firearms, so no mass shootings or double homicides, etc. Divide that by the sheer MASSIVE number of citizen owned guns in the country (a LOW estimate is 350 MILLION) and you're looking at .004% of all guns being used in murders. That alone should put this notion that the US is so astoundingly dangerous into context. For a nation with this many guns, and this level of easy access to guns, to have less than 15,000 murders using them per year should tell us that the very very vast majority of firearms owners are not harming anyone and therefore it literally only makes sense to tailor solutions to problems in a way that at least seems like it would work.

Few clarifying points here.

To be clear, I understand that the pro gun control instinct is to compare the US not to Brazil BEFORE lessening its guns laws (it still has stricter gun laws and a homicide rate a good 4 times higher than ours last I checked) but to the UK or Australia, etc, and not to compare homicides per firearm, but homicides using firearms per capita. This is nonsense because the number of firearms in those countries doesn't even come sort of close to the number here, and that number will not decrease but will only increase over time given the continuation of the 2nd Amendment as currently understood. Secondly, none of those countries have a right to firearms ownership and therefore many attempted solutions enacted there are literally not legally allowable here, just as total bans on private ownership of handguns except for competitors. Thirdly, the ownership of firearms themselves per capita does not come close in any of those countries to that here. I'm not denying that more guns probably means more deaths when comparing countries, though it does noy seem to mean more deaths between states in the US.

Another clarifying note, you will notice I am talking about homicides and cutting out suicides entirely. This is for two reasons. First of all I know absolutely nothing about suicide prevention from a policy perspective and don't even pretend to. If you have any good sources there I would love to check them out. Secondly, it allows me to talk about "gun violence," as in the use of firearms to commit violence between different individuals, more clearly. Thirdly, the very vast majority of the most popular gun control measures don't even claim to impact suicide rates because most gun control groups use those deaths (which comprise 66% of all deaths by firearm in the country, almost every single year) to pad their numbers while not actually talking about suicide as a phenomenon.

I hope this clarifies some things for you and if you have any questions please feel free to ask. I also typed this at 4 am after work so please excuse typos. I also hope that you understand I've picked sources supporting my argument because that's how arguments are supported, not because I'm not open to looking at all into opposing viewpoints.

[ruinedbygaysstylinson]

hi there! i'm still somewhat new to this fandom but i'm familiar with bg and everything so i'm just wondering why people believe that liam is also stunting with cheryl? is he believed to be gay as well and this relationship with her and his baby is just another cover up? like i understand why people believe louis isn't really a dad but i don't see as much regarding liam? can you try and explain this??

Hi Nonnie!

First of all, welcome to the fandom. It’s a mess, but it’s our mess lol

I’m gonna be honest, when I first got this ask I had no clue where to start explaining just how fake Chiam is, and I wish I had a textbook answer for you. The best way I can put it is that literally everything about it makes no sense logically. None of it. Prepare for a lot of rambling.

Not sure how into the fandom you are, but if you’ve heard of RBB/SBB, they foreshadowed Chiam on Liam’s bday in 2015 at a show, using toothpaste labeled “Colegate” which is a nod to her first marriage, and the original babygate which had been labeled a couple months earlier.

As far as timelines go, Sophiam ended late October 2015. Charcole actually got married for the second time in mid 2014, and while her and her husband seperated in late 2015, they both wore their wedding rings into 2016, despite the fact that later it was hinted that Chiam began at the XF final in 2015. Chiam was announced in the exact same way every other stunt is: via an exclusive to Dick Wattpad from the Sun. Baby rumors started a couple months later, nearly 2 full months before the date Charcole supposedly conceived. During this time, Chiam made a few public appearances, all staged red carpets or pap walks, and they were never spotted together by fans outside of these. Charcole had a baby bump months before she was pregnant, and baited the media by putting her hand over her stomach in multiple events. After she became “pregnant”, Liam basically moved to LA and lived there for her entire pregnancy. He began partying, worked on his album, and acted like a single guy for the duration with no care in the world for Charcole. What a normal thing for a dad-to-be to do. They never officially announced the pregnancy, she just turned up obviously pregnant in December 2016, and then posed for Loreal with a massive bump on a campaign released in February. Her bump changed in sizes and height throughout the pregnancy, but she went into hiding so it was difficult to actual tell what was going on, which was 100% the point. The birth was announced via a single photo of Liam with a baby, despite the fact that usually moms pose with their baby. To this day, we’ve never seen the baby’s face, and Charcole has yet to show off her pride and joy. Privacy is one thing, but this is another thing entirely. If it wasn’t for Liam babbling on, you’d have no clue she had a kid.

So what are my issues with Chiam? First of all, her association with Satan Cowbell. They are besties. Judges together on XF, and recently I found out that she’s also an executive producer. Chiam was used to promote XF in late October with probably the cringiest moment they’ve had yet. If you hate Satan because of what he did to Louis/Harry, you better be concerned that Liam “willingly” shacked up with one of his friends.

Secondly, timing. Liam was planning a solo career. It’s been his dream for over 10 years. Why on earth would he decide to settle down in the middle of trying to launch his solo career, just months after ended a long term relationship? Basically this stunt forced him to “choose” between his career and his kid, which is NOT something that a loving partner would put you through. Charcole was also married until late 2016. If she was so desperate for a baby, wouldn’t it make more sense to have it with your husband rather than a guy 10 years her junior in a completely different stage of life? She’s old but she still has time. Literally everything about this relationship was set up to fail. Also, what exactly do they have in common? They moved so quickly that Liam never had to talk about her/why they are even dating. To me, the only things they have in common are that they were both in a band (with very different experiences..) and they have a kid together. Nice.

Thirdly, Charcole’s presence in his promo. In 2014 she released an album that flopped pretty badly because she really can’t sing at all her. Her fame came from her very public relationship drama and her association with XF when it was at the height of it’s fame. Her career is pretty much over and she’s most likely desperate for anything to reverse this progression. What better way to find new fans than to try and tap into one of the largest fandoms out there? Of course, she didn’t take into account the fact that we aren’t 13 year old girls with no brains, and therefore aren’t going to blindly stan her like people did with Sofa and Elk in the past. She’s ridiculously problematic as a person (she punched a woman in the face for doing her job and got convicted for assault, admitted to attacking her ex husband, dodged taxes via a shady company that closed in 2014 right when she turned up suddenly married to JB. The list goes on and on), and from what I’ve seen her personality stinks, so why would we support her? For the most part, people either dislike her or just don’t care at all. Bummer. Liam’s promo was the only way for her to get positive news out there about herself without her doing all the talking. Unfortunately for her, Liam went overboard and now people hate her just as much, if not more, than they did before this stunt. Just to be clear: normal celebs don’t launch their careers by constantly telling stories about their kid, s/o and hyping up their accomplishments from 8 years ago.

Fourthly, body language. This is a big one. Liam’s eyes in the very first selfie of them scared me to death because he looked so upset and resigned. Literally screaming for help with his facial expression. All along, the lack of intimacy between Chiam is pretty hard to dispute. They are not comfortable together at all, and I know some media sites called them out for faking affection on red carpets when they are distant in private in May 2016. Liam was a lot better at faking it last year as well, because he’s nothing if not professional. At XF this year, it was literally painful to watch them interact, and I made a post about that when it happened. Basically, as a couple they don’t have the familiarity that they should have considering all they’ve squeezed into less than two years. Liam also doesn’t talk about her fondly at all. If you pay attention, a lot of his comments just about her are negative: she scolds him, nags him, rolls her eyes at him, dresses him (in hideous pants, someone burn those), makes all the decisions about the baby, critcizes his music, etc, but at least she was famous back when he was 15 eh? (Them meeting at 14/24 when she was married for years is just another nasty aspect. She was in a mentor role and I’m disgusted she was okay with this stunt. It’s so wrong on so many levels.) Overall she sounds pretty awful to me, and that’s just based off of the picture Liam is painting.

And finally, the saga of Conchobear. The difference between actual celebrities having babies (think Beyoncé), vs Charcole is hilarious. No one ever saw her stomach when pregnant, she hid for months before and after the birth, and low and behold she popped back up with a new face! That’s the second 1D mom to get extensive plastic surgery when she should be caring for an infant. I seriously doubt she actually was pregnant, but that’s not something I’ll go into here. Liam was out working on his career a month after the announcement, and has been travelling pretty consistently since. He’s missed multiple important holidays; for example, on Father’s Day he flew from the US to Italy for a fashion show, and then back to the US. On Conchobear’s 6 month bday, Liam went out and did interviews. Do you really think that if Liam was an actual dad, he wouldn’t make every effort and move mountains to spend as much time as possible with his firstborn son? It just doesn’t make sense with what we know about Liam’s personality. He’s responsible, and he wouldn’t put himself in this situation. What he says, what we are fed, what he does, and what we know about him as a person don’t line up at all. Liam sounds like an amazing involved dad with his tales, but he lacks a basis in basic human development; his stories are cute and so unrealistic. Thus, Liam hasn’t spent any significant time with a baby. The entire stunt has been setting up single mom!Charcole, but Liam’s team has made sure to prevent her from calling him a deadbeat via the stories. It’s hard to say he was never around when he’s gushing about the kid in every interview. He’s also gotten worse at lying recently, and I get the feeling he’s tired.

So yeah, basically every aspect of this relationship is messed up in one way or another, and I’m expecting to see Chiam end sooner rather than later. If they are both out working on material, they won’t be able to hold it together imo. There’s definitely stuff I’ve missed and if any of my mutuals/followers want to add to this feel free. This is just stuff I thought of off the top of my head.

For specific examples of some of what I’ve mentioned you can check out the Twitter thread I linked below. It has some great resources and that account in general is amazing at breaking down stunt events. I’m also gonna reblog a post comparing Chiam to Zigi (another dead fauxmance) and Hiddleswift that is pretty interesting for you to look over.

https://twitter.com/EndBabygates/status/856439540831195137

Enjoy your stay in the fandom Nonnie. If you have any specific questions or need recommendations for who to follow, shoot me a message!