#sure theyre a result of his childhood but that doesnt excuse him

[failure-girl-fuyu]

AHWIEHSOSHSK I LOVE KID LUKA

HES SO CUTE I WANNA ADOPT HIM AND RAISE HIM BETTER

[akechicrimes]

it does matter, actually, that goro akechi is a minor. not because this somehow exonerates him morally, or because this somehow makes him not responsible for his actions, but because persona 5 is invested in children as a source of hope for a better future. 

once i saw someone complain that people will defend akechi’s murders on the grounds that he’s a child/minor and how they felt that this doesnt excuse multiple counts of murder. and i was like, ok, well, im not sure anyone was excusing him, but alright, sure. and i’ve seen a few rebuttals to that, one of which is that shido and the other adults in akechi’s life had a responsibility to support akechi in such a way that it didn’t come to murder, and of course it’s on shido to just not be a massive dick who endorses fascism and murders in the first place. and i was like ok, well, this seems a little patronizing and dismissive of akechi’s agency and autonomy, but alright, sure.

in a very roundabout way of explaining my first two sentences, there’s one thing that bothers me lately, and it’s selim bradley from fullmetal alchemist: brotherhood. 

for those of us not familiar with fma:b, selim, or pride, is the oldest homunculus/artificial human in the show and the second-oldest villain, despite the fact that he looks about eight years old. of the seven homunculus named after deadly sins, selim/pride is the only one to survive the show--with an asterisk, which is that selim gets the “homunculus” part of him erased by the end of the show. with the “pride” aspect of him gone, selim is mortal, without any special powers, without memories of any of his amoral acts, and is generally just a happy, normal child.

which is a weird exception to fma:b’s general rule in which every other homunculus dies. even fan favorites like greed and envy don’t live, despite the fact that greed and envy are far more sympathetic as characters. selim kills multiple people on-screen, shows zero remorse whatsoever, and is an active helper in all the other mass-murders that the homunculi engineer. selim’s not an innocent in any way. also, he’s like, 200 years old? 300? he’s very old. biologically, mentally, emotionally, selim is not a child.

but fma:b goes out of its way to make sure that selim gets a second chance at a future, just because his body looks like a child’s. cut another way, he gets an exception from a large number of terrible crimes, up to an including participation in genocide, just because he looks like a child. 

fma:b reminded me that, outside of tumblr’s purity politics over children, and especially so in japan, children are socially constructed in a very specific way, beyond biological age and legal majority cutoffs. 

yes, biological age is a thing. yes, legal majority is a thing. i’m not saying that being a child isn’t a biological thing--it is, obviously. but what i’m saying is that there’s a difference between, say, the sex assigned to you at birth and your gender presentation, to use an analogy. there is a such thing as biological age, but the societal status of being a child of a related but separate thing. and this status of being considered a child is a societal construct.

the social construction goes like this, insofar as i’m aware: children should be good and silent and dutiful and work hard and go to school and listen to their elders, and their elders in turn should do everything they can to guide the children to the right path and build a good society for these children to inherit. (if we want more details on this, please see the entire history of filial piety in asia.)

so that’s a social contract right there baked into the social construct of childhood: children don’t have power, but adults have an obligation to make sure they don’t need power, and to make sure that the future and their children’s futures look bright. 

children represent the future, essentially. they’re the next generation. they’re simultaneously without legal rights as adults and in a very vulnerable position, for sure, but they’re also simultaneously considered the country’s most precious capital: quite literally the people who will inherit and lead the country next.

which, personally, i think puts a whole new spin on the phantom thieves in general. they’re not just kids who’re being rowdy or kids telling abusive shitty adults theyre being abusive and shitty--or, they’re kids doing those things, but they’re not just kids doing those things. they’re kids who’ve been specifically let down by adults who did not fulfill their social obligation to them. they’re kids who’ve been abandoned and neglected by the very adults who should have been paving the way forward for them, as society has asked those adults to do, because those adults have instead chosen to line their own pockets and cover their own asses. 

so the kids said: alright, well, then i’ll take power for myself, and i’ll make my own future. (which is where we get a lot of those promo slogans of “steal back your future” and junk like that.)

sae’s comments about how adults should do their part to fix the world for the kids is just a resolidifying of the way the world “should” work, and we could talk about her comments on the matter, but actually i wanna talk about yoshida.

i especially want to talk about yoshida because yoshida and shido are the two politicians we see the most of, and both of them spend a lot of time reciting political rhetoric to speak to the hearts of the general japanese populace. we all know the way that shido thinks of japan: a large vehicle that one person is in control of, and the masses just compose the throne upon which the ruler sits.

we also already know that yoshida’s a Real G, but it’s worth really close-reading some of his lines. he speaks a lot about apathy, the lack of caring for each other in society--a general willingness to disregard your fellow man, to not uphold one’s social obligation to each other. but he also talks a lot about the “youth”--which is not really uncommon for a politician, obviously, since politicians are always talking about “the children” and “the kids” and “the next generation” and “those damn millennials” and all that shit. 

yoshida instead gives us these fun lines:

A world where the young exist only to be exploited... is a world that must be changed!

And while our society appears to be prosperous, many of our young people are quietly suffering. They lack jobs, security, savings... The next generation will lead us into the future and yet they have no plan for how to arrive there.

Passing on the societal ills we have created to the next generation... is not right!

...the current administration refuses to discuss their plans for the future... Can we really accept such an utter lack of transparency?!

If you make a promise, you must keep it. If you make a mistake, you must atone for it. These are basic human principles that we have all learned from the youngest of ages... 

yoshida’s entire thing about how the adults have let the children down isn’t just him saying shit--he’s commenting directly on the fact that the social contract has been broken, and he’s putting the blame on the administration for not upholding their responsibility to secure a future for the children, especially since the children are the future of the country. 

this is partly why he doesn’t blame the phantom thieves for acting the way that they do; rather, he seems them as a logical reaction to the injustice that’s occurred as a result of the society that the adults have left for them:

I bet [the Phantom Thieves] are a group of young people. Young people who have experienced cruelty and injustice... They bravely face the societal ills that plague our world without thinking of the consequences.

(i think also in part he admires the fact that they’re anonymous and don’t benefit personally from their actions, which is exactly the opposite of what he did as a young politician. he also doesn’t throw the real embezzlement culprit under the bus to exonerate himself presumably for the same principle of desiring selfless public service instead of personal gain.)

in both the early parts of the s link and later on when yoshida starts talking with matsushita more extensively, akira’s important because he’s young--he represents the young demographic that yoshida and matsushita are discussing the future of. akira demonstrating support for yoshida in a public way means a lot because he’s a minor. matsushita asks akira for his opinions on the phantom thieves and other issues because akira is a minor. akira’s opinion is supposed to be heard and valued by adults, who should take his opinions into consideration and do their best to not let him down. 

this is tied into the general thread of yoshida being a person who was self-admittedly just as corrupt as everyone else, who was blinded by glamor and fame and money, who got caught up in political scandal. yoshida’s general acceptance of his mistakes as a human being and politician ties over to his general belief that it’s not that the youth are rebellious no-good teens, but that the youth have been let down by politicians like who he used to be. he blames himself, and because he is not too different from the rest of the older generation and politicians in general, he implicates a lot of the older generation and politicians as also blame-worthy.

his quest for redemption and atonement dovetails neatly with his views on the broken societal contract. taken together, yoshida’s s link implies to us the idea that the entire general older generation in japan more or less owes the children of japan a formal apology, and the older generation better get on their redemption arc and start being the vanguard of the change for children:

The reason [the Phantom Thieves are] causing a stir is because they are addressing the world’s problems. Setting aside whether their actions are right or wrong... there is one thing I can safely say about the Phantom Thieves. A belief with conviction... has the ability to move a person’s heart.

I’m sure you are all aware that I am “No-Good Tora,” the one accused of embezzlement. However, because I was accused like that, I was able to understand the suffering of the weak. Why am I in politics? In the past, it was merely for personal gain. But why do the Phantom Thieves continue to change hearts? I believe they do it for the world and its people. And in choosing to do justice for others, they had no choice but to disguise themselves. No matter what the world says, I fully support them. 

I’m just an average citizen. However, I will continue to voice my beliefs. I may not be able to become a Diet member this election... and I may not be able to effect change during my lifetime... but I’ve made my peace with that. I will be happy as long as I can be a meaningful stepping stone for the future of our youth!

okay. so that was a lot of close reading about yoshida. why did we do this exercise, tumblr user akechicrimes. 

there’s two takeaways from this. the first is the one that yoshida has already talked about extensively, which is that the phantom thieves are just but not because Fuck Cops and Fuck Capitalism and Fuck Anime Jeff Bezos. the phantom thieves are just because the people who are supposed to be upholding society aren’t doing their fucking jobs. the phantom thieves are specifically saying: we’ve been let down by society, so apparently we have to do everything our goddamn selves around here.

(which also ties in neatly to the general “fuck cops” vibe of persona 5 which, i would like to say, is very specifically “the cops are not doing their jobs.” the TV station scene where akira speaks back to akechi is, if i’m remembering this right, maybe the ONLY time we really hear “akira’s” opinion on the morality of his own activities, which is fascinating because he just does these things without ever justifying himself to the player--anyway, his three options are: (1) They’re justice itself, (2) They’re necessary, and (3) They do more than the cops. so akira can’t ever at any point say that the phantom thieves are bad, but his most interesting and detailed answer is to point out that the cops aren’t doing what they’re supposed to do, so who can really blame the phantom thieves for doing what the cops aren’t?)

the second takeaway is that yes, goro akechi does get more leniency because he’s a minor. 

yes. seriously. this isn’t a matter of excusing what he did, or downplaying the fact that he committing murder. i’m not saying that he wasn’t old enough to make decisions (although i would never say that he was old enough to make decisions, because he was 14/15 when he got wrapped up in shido’s conspiracy). i’m also not saying that akechi, somehow for some reason, didn’t volunteer himself willingly, because all the evidence points to the fact that he did (although of course “free will” is also highly circumspect considering his living conditions at the time and the fact that shido makes it clear that he was able to manipulate akechi without ever infringing on akechi’s sense of autonomy). i’m not even saying that akechi was driven to the point of murder and had no other choice (although i think that might also be true as well).

what i am saying is that under the construction of childhood as japan’s future and japan’s hope, akechi is considered a valuable member of society, and is therefore worth saving.

or at least he should be.

akechi says that he’s an unwanted child, but “unwanted child,” according to yoshida’s rhetoric (and a lot of japan’s general rhetoric of children as hope for the future) is an oxymoron. (or at least it would be an oxymoron if japan weren’t so fucking hypocritical.) you can’t not want the future of the country. you can’t not want hope for a good future. the very idea that a child could be not wanted or not valuable doesn’t make any sense, because children are the future--in some ways, whether you like it or not, that child is going to inherit the earth when you’re dead.

the kind of person who’d not want those things is--well, shido. (this is why i used yoshida; yoshida and shido are two polar opposite politicians.) shido quite literally does not want a good future for anyone in the country and quite literally does not want akechi and quite literally does not see akechi, one of the very young-person citizens that shido is supposed to be serving, as useful or valuable in any way unless akechi is directly promoting shido’s fame and popularity. shido being akechi’s father is just a very neat and nice way of literalizing the ways that shido, as an adult, has let down akechi as a child--the ways that shido quite literally owed akechi something to make akechi’s life and future better, and instead did everything awful.

there should not ever be a thing like “unwanted child.” that in and of itself, from the start of akechi’s life, was nonsensical. and to the extent that shido being akechi’s father is allegorical of the ways that shido is a terrible patriarch for japan, i would say that akechi, as an unwanted foster child, is just another allegory for the ways that children nowadays are treated as misbehaving, lazy good-for-nothings who have to work themselves into the dirt to be given half the salary and half the praise. akechi, as an unwanted child, is just the personification and representative of an apparently unwanted generation. 

what i’m getting at is that akechi’s status as a minor (and yes he’s a minor even if he’s eighteen; age of majority in japan is twenty)--akechi’s status as a minor is a critical part of why akechi gets a shot at a redemption arc. so yes, actually, the other villains or palace-rulers don’t get redemption arcs because they are adults, who had a societal obligation to do better by their peers and by the children of japan. yes, actually, akechi’s informal “trial” in the hands of fandom is to be tried as a minor and not as an adult. yes, i know kamoshida didn’t kill anyone and akechi’s literal crimes are more morally repugnant, but yes, unfortunately, being a minor does actually exonerate him on the morality spectrum to a degree. 

being a child matters in the larger scheme of persona 5′s logic of who owes who, who’s responsible for who, and why we should not be apathetic. adults owe children a better future. adults have been letting children down. adults owe every single phantom thief, including akechi, an apology, a better future, and health and happiness; and they owe that to japan’s future not as a matter of exchange or morals, but simple social obligation. adults are supposed to take care of the kids--full stop. 

”okay but @ tumblr user akechicrimes?? akechi KILLED people.”

yeah, i know. i said “being a minor does actually exonerate him on the morality spectrum to a degree.” 

what degree? no idea. that’s up to you to decide. if you want to play in the black-grey-white morality scale that only goes two ways, you’re welcome to continue to ask “what degree.” we can argue that being a minor somehow reels akechi back from the “black” end of the spectrum into the “grey” or “white” parts. 

but (if i may be permitted to go completely off the shits into things that might make people pissed off at me for saying) i implore you to consider that this two-way scale of morality is not the line of thought that persona 5 is pursuing. 

this, again, ties back into the social construction of a child. i’ve said “a child is representative of the country’s future” so many times i think it’s lost meaning, so let me dice it a different way: a child is socially constructed as representative of potential and hope. a child is socially constructed as the capacity for things to get better. in persona terms, a child is the fool at the start of their journey, all futures contained in one present, a vast multitude of could-be’s. 

for a game very concerned with japan’s general societal ruin, children are not just in the position of having been let down by adults, but are--as the phantom thieves demonstrate--representative of better futures regardless of how terrible circumstances look in the current day. they are a source of believing one day this sad, depressing story might actually end with “and then they lived happily ever after.”

if i may go even more completely off the shits, take a look at this heckler from yoshida’s s link, which is the one that akira speaks back to in the middle of yoshida’s speech:

...I��ve been wrong this whole time. Even though someone has failed in the past, it doesn’t mean that person can’t try again.

this is to say, redemption arcs insofar as persona 5 (and also persona 5 royal, i think) is concerned is not a question of necessarily addressing the wrongs that have occurred. yoshida sets the bar pretty high in that yoshida does not ask for forgiveness for what he’s done, and instead simply accepts his actions and their consequences without attempting to lessen the blow. he embraces what he’s done in all its awfulness. 

but because akechi is a a minor, and because akechi as a minor is getting wrapped up in persona 5′s train of thought about kids as the hopeful futures of japan, akechi is at the very least owed a chance to do better. as a minor, japan is societally contracte to give him the space to have the potential to be better and do better. nobody is obligated to forgive him, and indeed neither royal nor akechi ever seem to entertain this as a valid possibility. forgive, forget, reconciliation, retribution, and resolution seem to be all off the table, as if the very idea would minimize haru or futaba’s losses. the very conceit of the dreamworld in P5R wants to shoot down the very idea that the past can ever, to any degree, be fixed, remedied, or even emotionally resolved. akechi will have always killed wakaba and okumura and this fact will always be awful--full stop.

nevertheless, despite the fact that the past cannot be changed, akechi is still a minor. rather than attempting to resolve the issues of the past, akechi is still owed the space to become a beacon of potential change for the better in the future--which is also known as hope. 

i’ve said this in other posts elsewhere, but persona games are like, obsessed with hope. they fucking adore that shit. why not? even in difficult times, even when things are terrible and you’re going through misery, if you at least have hope that one day things will be better, that life will change, that the new generation will step up to the plate and make the story have a happy ending, pain becomes easier to bear. and why not? persona games cover a breadth of difficult topics. 

especially in a game like P5, which talks at length about modern day japan’s ailments, what good is it if the player walks away with a defeatist attitude that the future will be terrible? 

if reality is malleable like morgana says, isn’t the first step to have hope that this is true?

this post has gone on a lot longer than i thought it would. but in any event. that’s why it is valid to say that akechi being a minor “exonerates” him to a degree. 

also selim bradley lives because fma:b concurs that children are a hope for a better future and fma:b is particularly invested in this line of thought because it’s a story about edward transitioning from a child to a young adult who is learning about the ways that the world works and is also still just childlike enough to propose that the world shouldn’t have to work in the bloody, awful way that it does. selim is representative that all children should be given as many chances as possible to do and be better because they are representative of potential. if that wasn’t clear. lmao.

[enixamyram]

Hey, guess what, I’ve found another screen rant I want to react to! I wasn’t planning to do any more but, reading through this article, I just have SO many problems with it... So Let’s do another, agree or disagree with a Screenrant article made by someone with no bias at all. (Sarcasm for the last part by the way.) So let’s see:

Agreed with this point. People act like, if the characters weren’t on screen then they disappeared or something. Maybe they were just living their own lives?

... I don’t even understand this article. Apparently this is 20 things people get wrong and this point is that the timeline can make sense, but then OP goes on to say “However, the more characters were introduced and the more worlds the characters ventured into, it became clearer and clearer that time didn't work the same way everywhere... However, in a world of fairytales, expecting anything more than that is simply asking too much. What does it matter, exactly, when some of these events took place as long as we know that they were a long time ago in a universe not at all like our own?”

Like, so that means this isn’t something people get wrong - the timeline DOESN’T make sense - so what the hell is it doing in this article? You can’t claim you’ve solved it just because you shrug and go “yeah but it’s magic so what do you expect?”

I mean the text directly conflicts the title/bullet point. Luckily I can still safely say I disagree, both with the title and the text because the timeline became f*cked, and just making an embarrassed shrugging face doesn’t change that.

I can’t even say disagree because this is just plain wrong! I don’t quite understand this writer. I can’t tell what they’re deal is, like did they just give a poor title to their article?

Season 1 - The Original Curse Season 2 - Belle and Sneezy lost their memories. Season 3 - Everyone lost a year. Season 5 - Camelot Season 6 - Emma lost her memories Season 7 - Another Curse.

Notice how I left out 4? Well this is where I’m getting confused because this is what OP had to say about Season 4: “While season four dabbled with alternate universes, memories were never wiped or reset in the way they were in every other season.”

... But their memories WERE wiped! They were essentially in a curse because their memories WERE wiped and they WERE given new identities just like the original curse. So yes, memory wipes did in fact happen every single season!

So I can’t agree or disagree because maybe some people do call Ruby a lesbian, but most everyone I talk to calls her bi... So I’ma just skip this one.

Note: She’s bi people. This is canon. If you don’t agree then tough shit.

Agreed, there’s plenty of other ways true love can be proven. TLK is probably just the most convenient, lol.

Kind of agree? I mean I think most people do know and acknowledge this but I guess it can sometimes escape people without realising in passing sentences?

This is true. It was a lame and terrible reveal that made no sense but it was revealed.

... Like, I’m getting confused again. Because this title either doesn’t fit or the writer lives under a rock because no one get’s this wrong! Everyone - rightfully - calls out Zelena for what she did. Even Zelena fans admit what she did was messed up!

... I do agree, I don’t think she made up for all the awful things she did and she definitely became “one of the team” way too quickly for my liking. (I’m hesitant because I suddenly have an idea what side of the fandom wrote this article and I can pretty much predict where it’s going.)

AND THERE IT IS!

DISAGREE.  DISAGREE. DISAGREE. DISAGREE. DISAGREE. DISAGREE.

“Nothing says good guy like being an older man who takes advantage of a young girl, impregnates her, and lets her go to jail for crimes you yourself committed.” First off, we don’t know his age. Second, he didn’t ‘impregnant’ her. She got pregnant. It takes two to tango though I doubt the writer knows this. And third, Emma went to jail for HER crimes. Sorry, dear writer, but let me just fill you in. Aiding and abetting a fellow criminal IS A CRIME! Emma did wrong and she was punished for it. I don’t necessarily agree with what Neal did but he is not responsible for where Emma ended up.

“Even further, nothing says good guy like someone who mocks the woman he allegedly loves for the years of trauma, suffering, and scars she endured as a result of your callous, selfish behavior.” ... WHEN?!

“... Neal Cassidy became more and more like the selfish, frequently malicious parents who raised him.” ... Again, WHEN?! Like seriously, selfish maybe but malicious?!

“In no world would he have been the right man for Emma or a good father to Henry because he could never accept accountability for any of his many wrongdoings.” Except, you know, Neal knew Henry all of five minutes and was already dedicated to being a great dad to him and literally was WAY better at being a father to Henry than Hook ever was to the kid. And I added the Hook part because my God, the writer of this article couldn’t be more obvious a CS shipper if they had every sentence end with swans and pirate flags.

It’s amazing how, even dead, they’re still threatened by Neal’s character.

Maybe this was true in S6, but by S7 they had clearly retconned it, making the Wish Realm a very real place. Otherwise there’s a ton of plot holes and you’ve got to be a real idiot to say you’d rather accept plot holes than that the Wish Realm might actually be real.

(Also, just saying, another terrible title because what happened to Emma and Regina when they were in the Wish Realm very much DID happen. So again, really poor titles for this article that clearly doesn’t know what it’s point is.)

... She VIOLATED everyone’s minds by erasing their memories and TRIED TO MURDER ZELENA!

She may have had good intentions but that doesn’t change the fact that she was a villain for a season! Dude, have you never heard the phrase “the road to hell was paved with good intentions”?! I’ll defend Emma turning Hook into a Dark One for sure, but trying to completely ignore the awful things she did?! Jesus Christ!

Again... What? OP... Everyone already KNOWS this. This article is meant to be things people gets wrong but, honestly, I think OP’s the only idiot who gets things wrong at this point. So I’m once again torn because I agree with the statement but I don’t agree that this is something people get wrong.

*Sigh* OP’s giving me a migraine. Not because their statement is incorrect, but because all their reasoning is!

“Regina, as we know, went back and forth to points outside of Maine many times during the preceding 28 years.” It was actually explained, by Regina herself to Hook in Season 2, that because she (and he) had no cursed memories, crossing the town line would not affect them.

“Greg and Tamara are also able to cross the town lines, with Greg even remembering the tiny town for years and years after a traumatic encounter within it during his childhood.” Again. The town line affects people who ARE CURSED! This is made very clear! Henry can also cross the town line when he went to get Emma.

The title, once again, is misleading. People are able to leave - so long as they don’t CROSS THE TOWN LINE. That’s the part CURSED people are not able to do.

I’ve given up Agreeing and Disagreeing at this point. OP’s points are making my brain hurt so let’s just move on.

You’re right OP. It did serve a purpose. It’s purpose was to be a cash grab!

Apparently OP’s excuse is that Anna and Elsa helped Emma come into her own as a magic user? Like yeah, I’m calling bullshit. Emma had no problem using her magic until they brought Frozen in, then they made a whole storyline of Emma having problems just to justify having Elsa struggle and then help her with it.

And after they left they were barely even mentioned. So, again. NO PURPOSE. (Apart from a cash grab.)

Okay, so actually, I do agree. Regina is still Henry’s mum but the fact is, his adoption can’t be legal because Regina would need to have lied on her application and all the usual checks usually done for people wanting to adopt couldn’t possibly have happened.

I was going to agree on technicality but you know what? No.

DISAGREE!

Just because the couples aren’t perfect doesn’t make them toxic. (Using OP’s examples:) “Robin's relationship with Regina results in his being repeatedly assaulted and fathering a child as a result of that assault.” Wow, dude, wait to blame the girlfriend for some of the bad stuff that happened in Robin’s life. I sure feel sorry for whoever you end up with if this is how you see it. “Hook and Emma frequently lie to one another as well,” Lying does not equal a toxic relationship! Certain lies, maybe, but general lying is just what people do when they’re embarrassed or ashamed or upset. What counts is what you’re lying about and also whether or not you come clean about it.

The only one I’ll agree with is RumBelle but even then OP completely misses the reason WHY they’re a toxic relationship. Instead they generalise it into very un-toxic details.

... Again... Like... I agree with the statement but NO ONE GETS THIS WRONG!

OP is clearly just using this article as an excuse to bash Regina. And I’m not a Regina fan, but no, dude, if you’re gonna do this then make a “20 of the worst things Regina ever did” list. Not a “20 things people get wrong” and then list a bunch of things that one in ten people gets wrong!

And now OP’s repeating. Because I’m pretty sure this was covered in the 4th one? Like, agree. I guess. But it feels like OP was running out of things and figured Regina bashing again would be too obvious or something.

Okay. Now this is something a lot of people won’t agree with but... I do.

I agree the show was intended to be Emma’s story and that it then got popular and other characters got popular and it branched out into something more.

... However OP is still a colossus idiot because they ended on this sentence:

“It's what made the concept of a seventh season without almost any of the Charmings such a laughable concept - and such a colossal failure, as well.” And while Season 7 may not be the masterpiece I pretend it is to piss of anti’s, it is also far from the worst. OP just hates it because their fav wasn’t centre stage and they’re bitter as hell.

Wow this was probably the stupidest article yet. OP either clearly doesn’t know what they were meant to be doing (a list of things people often forget about the show) or they just wanted to make a list where they bitched a few points and couldn’t be bothered to think of a catchy title or reason why. Either way, OP’s an idiot and most of these points are ridiculously dumb.