#theres a correct answer

[dromaeo-sauridae]

is chuck e cheese a restaurant or an entertainment center?

[kiddokori]

trans woman yjh isnt even a headcannon to me thats my beautiful wife

[raven]

if daft punk was persona characters who would they be

[froggyrights]

IMPORTSNT QUESTION!

[productofaritual]

Fuck "more doors or wheels", enough " Milk first cereal first", are you a "Yes, I'm a simp-"

MAYONNAISE ON AN ESCALATOR

Or

Chippi chippi chappa chappa

[femmesandhoney]

do you call yerba mate "yerba" or "mate"

[yellowhearther0]

hi gang. using my computer poll privileges to ask

[you-know-cchio]

luke "all the facts i give in the show are fucking true" manning vs. alexander "consistently loses the plot" jeremy is truly an unstoppable force meets an immovable object

like sam bullshits his way through facts, so tom and luke can take joy in correcting his mistakes. but correcting aj only brings the others suffering because most of the time, aj himself doesn't necessarily believe anything that comes from his mouth. the man is just saying words recreationally. which also happens to establish the reality of the world the other three exist in.

[ygamiraito]

do you think they ever explored eachothers bodies

[bookshelfdreams]

Saw a Take earlier today like "Ed stans have only 1 argument and it's accusing everyone who likes Izzy of being problematic" or something to that effect

and it made me think "Nah babe, you're not problematic. You're just wrong."

And then I thought. Huh. Why do I think that?

It's a perfectly respectable thing to read a text in a way it wasn't intended to be read. In fact, "reading against the grain", doing critical readings, shifting perspectives when engaging with a text - all of thee are important skills! You can, and should, do feminist, antiracist, postcolonial, queer, etc readings of texts that were never intended to be read that way. Hell, all fandom (often) is, is doing queer readings! Ask the text uncomfortable questions it doesn't want to answer!

However. It's pretty difficult to do a queer reading when the text already is a queer narrative. The questions you would ask the text if you did a queer reading, or a reading focused on gender roles, or similar things - those are questions the text is already actively exploring.

If you want to do a subversive reading of a text that is already quite subversive - what do you end up with?

"What's the story like from Izzy's perspective?" is a question ofmd deliberately doesn't focus too much on because Izzy's perspective is the default and ofmd wants to challenge that. There's a reason the angry white man is the antagonist in this show, and if you ask "Okay, but could he be right though?" you're missing the point.

Or rather, you're turning everything that's interesting about ofmd back around. You're asking "Okay, but why don't we focus on a white perspective that strictly adheres to oppressive power structures?" of a narrative who already asked itself this question and gave the answer "Because that's been done enough and there are other stories worth telling."

And I think people are aware of that, which is how we end up with completely bizarre takes like "Izzy has the only queer character arc". He hasn't, but he has the only arc that a queer reading can be done on - for everyone else it's text, plain and simple. Refusing to engage with that text in favour of centering Izzy is basically doing a heteronormative reading without being willing to admit it to yourself.

And no, interpreting Izzy as a queer man doesn't change that.

[reki-of-the-valley]

I'm still feral, so please pick one

[fujobritta]

the time has come .

[channel-d-is-open]