pupmkincake2000

[pupmkincake2000]

Careful, I bite. 🍎

A bit late to the trend. But wanted to really try it for these two.

[pupmkincake2000]

Something adorable

Now we have the hugs as they should be.

[pupmkincake2000]

When Hank says Connor did the right thing.

JUST! Connor looks even more in love!

[pupmkincake2000]

I really thought the Baldur’s Gate 3 fandom would be one of the rare spaces without ship wars.

The game literally lets you romance anyone. Every romance is canon if you choose it. All the companions are bi. Everything is canon no matter choices you make.

So why is it that every time I see bloodweave debates on tiktok, it's almost always like this? What tf is happening?

Like. Why? Since when does enjoying one ship mean you have to discredit another? Why does liking something different turn into declaring someone else’s ship inferior?

Just to be clear, I do not hate Wyll or wyllstarion, I just do not ship them. And I do not care if anyone else does.

You don’t have to like bloodweave. That’s fine. But maybe just… don’t be a jerk about it?

[pupmkincake2000]

Ew you ship Hank and Connor

It finally happened! I was wondering when I was going to get one of these. LOL. Have you checked out the rest of my blog? It gets worse… 

[pupmkincake2000]

Got this comment on my Royal AU comic on tiktok...

So let me get this straight- a literal comic you have posted which is a ship has the lines ‘im too old for you’ and ‘you protected me since i was a CHILD’. Yet you still think this is okay?

I'll answer here the way I answered there, because such people need touch some grass.

It’s a medieval fantasy AU, the setting influences tone and themes, but even in a modern context, an age gap between two consenting adults is not inherently wrong. The line ‘you protected me since I was a child’ reflects emotional history, not a power imbalance. Both characters are portrayed as adults with agency and mutual respect. The ‘I’m too old for you’ line expresses internal conflict, not something problematic. The ship is still not problematic. Fiction allows us to explore nuance — and if it’s not your thing, that’s fine. But context matters.

If two fictional adults in a consensual relationship trigger you just because of an age gap, maybe it's time to log off and touch some grass. Not every dynamic you personally dislike is inherently problematic, sometimes it’s just a story between grown characters.

[pupmkincake2000]

You’re definitely not alone, it’s frustrating how often HankCon shippers get treated like we have to justify ourselves for simply enjoying a dynamic that’s clearly deep, emotional, and mutual. There’s nothing shameful in reading their bond as romantic, especially when people freely interpret other dynamics without constantly being questioned.

We don’t owe anyone a defense. Just keep shipping what you love and know there’s a whole community that’s right here with you.

Yet, we do have every right to defend our ship, especially when people try to frame it as inherently wrong or creepy. It’s not. The game leaves space for interpretation, and HankCon is just as valid.

People freely ship all kinds of pairings, some with way more questionable dynamics, and no one bats an eye. But somehow HankCon always gets singled out. It’s not about “proof,” it’s about what resonates. And if it resonates with you, that’s enough. Don’t let anyone shame you for that🫂

And we’ll just keep making beautiful content and supporting each other.

why is this the energy I’m met with when I say I’m a hank connor shipper until I give my ten point defense presentation

[pupmkincake2000]

If someone says: “Well, if Hank is too mentally unwell to be a father figure, then he can't be a romantic partner either”

here’s my take:

That logic only works if you assume relationships (romantic or parental) can only happen when a person is in perfect mental shape. But that’s not how people work.

Hank isn’t portrayed as a healthy, nurturing father figure in the game. He’s suicidal, alcoholic, aggressive, and emotionally shut down when Connor meets him. So arguing he’s “fit” to be a father but not a partner is already inconsistent.

What actually happens in the game is that Hank and Connor impact each other. They grow. They change. And it’s through that process, through emotional connection, care, and understanding that they begin to heal. That dynamic can lead to many interpretations: friendship, trust, partnership, or yes, even romance.

Saying someone can’t be in love or form romantic feelings because they’re mentally unwell assumes that trauma cancels out all capacity for intimacy. That’s just not true. Some of the most meaningful relationships come from people who find each other during the darkest times.

This doesn’t mean Hank is a “perfect” partner. He isn’t. But he’s also not a perfect parent figure either. What we see is emotional complexity and there’s more than one valid way to explore it.

[pupmkincake2000]

I got a comment recently that outlined a "symbolic" reading of Hank and Connor’s dynamic — specifically, the idea that Connor represents “the future Hank never had” and that their relationship should be read as father/son rather than romantic. Since these points come up often in the fandom, I thought it might be worth unpacking a few of them.

Connor is a new android in need of a human chaperone

All androids are new. Literally every deviant android is “new” to personhood and autonomy. All of them are just beginning to explore freedom. None of them are treated as “children” in need of supervision. Connor was created as a fully developed, intelligent adult. He doesn't go through childhood or adolescence, and he doesn't need caretaking, he is a highly intelligent android designed for investigative work, and the game itself presents him as emotionally and mentally mature.

If being "new" justified a parental bond, then every human-android duo would follow that dynamic but that’s clearly not how the story treats androids.

So no, Connor being “new” doesn’t make Hank his dad. It makes him a person learning to exist, just like everyone else. I'd say a new android in need of a human chaperone is a reductive and inaccurate framing. Connor is not a child in need of guidance, he’s a prototype designed for high-level law enforcement investigations. He’s fully trained and operational. He’s assigned to Hank not as a student, but as a partner. The game shows Connor as competent, not naive. There is nothing childlike about his design or behavior.

Hank lost his son (whom he was guiding), so it’s natural to see a father/son dynamic

Yes, Hank’s grief over Cole is important to his character arc but that doesn’t automatically turn his bond with Connor into a father/son relationship. Hank never treats Connor like a replacement for his son. The entire point of Hank’s arc is learning to see Connor as a person (and androids in general), not as a proxy or object. The relationship grows into mutual respect and care between equals.

I find it kinda unealthy to even suggest that a grieving parent would see a military android made in the likeness of a grown man in a position of replacement for a dead child. It takes away from Connor's agency as an independent person and completely ignores both his and Hank's character developments. Hank needs to move forward, not a substitute kid.

Father/son people focus on reading into emotions and how they influence each other

That’s literally what hankcon shippers do. We explore how their dynamic evolves, how they challenge each other, how emotional walls break down on both sides, and how they slowly build trust and connection. Just because the interpretation leads to a romantic outcome doesn’t mean we’re ignoring their emotions. Quite the opposite, we’re centering them. Romantic doesn’t mean shallow.

Shippers point out the physical differences, but father/son fans see symbolism

That’s exactly the problem though, it is not the same as narrative intent or emotional reality. Comparing a fully grown android modeled after a 30-something man to a child who died is not “symbolism,” it’s a projection. Connor and Cole are not visually or behaviorally similar. There is no indication Hank sees Connor as “the son he never had.” That’s a fan interpretation, not textually supported symbolism. Symbolism should still connect to the actual narrative. This doesn't.

Connor and Cole are not similar, not in age, design, personality, speech patterns, or behavior. Hank never treats Connor as if he were Cole, and the game never presents Connor as a literal or symbolic substitute son. And frankly, it’s troubling how some people insist that Connor — a grown, sentient android man — must represent a child in order to justify why a romantic bond with Hank is "wrong." That says more about how people perceive Connor than what the story actually shows.

Hankcon is based on mutual growth, choice, and emotional connection. The player is literally given the option to develop that relationship into trust, understanding, and something deeper. That’s not projection, it’s built into the structure of the game. And no, this isn’t "just interpretation." It’s examining the material for what’s shown, what’s implied, and what’s consistently reinforced by player choice. If you want to read them as father/son, that’s your preference. But don’t pretend that’s the only lens or the more legitimate one.

Connor isn’t a ghost of a child. He’s his own person. And Hank treats him that way, when you let him.

Cole could’ve grown up to look like Connor.

Again, This is pure speculation, not supported by anything in the game. Cole is shown to have different facial features, different skin color, and a completely different demeanor. Hank never suggests that Connor reminds him of a grown-up Cole. And again: Connor is an android, not Hank’s child. This idea is not grounded in the game, it’s a headcanon stretched to justify a father/son view.

There’s nothing in the game that explicitly frames Hank and Connor as father and son. That interpretation is subjective, just like any other. But trying to frame it as more “valid” than romantic readings — or claiming romance is “wrong” — is dishonest.

Nothing in the canon supports a literal or symbolic parental bond. Their connection is complex, emotional, and built between two adults which is exactly why some people see potential for romance.

[pupmkincake2000]

Sweeties!

The artist is here: https://twitter.com/MocHa85974102 (permission to share - recieved)

[pupmkincake2000]

I love it so much! I like it a lot when Connor lets Hank touch him like that. I find it so sweet!f🫣🫣🫣🫣🫣

reverse image searching says the artist's account no longer exists

[pupmkincake2000]

Shippers get a lot of lashings for being annoying and “forcing romance” but not enough is being said about people who force the nuclear family structure on everything. Nothing against found families, but the amount of people who seem to cram every dynamic into a cookie cutter nuclear family mold is driving me insane. It’s another lowkey reductive way of engaging with characters that pretends to less reductive than the shippers they constantly complain about. Not every relationship can be categorized as “sibling coded” or “father-daughter” because most relationships are more complicated than that. Don’t even get me started on the way these people use “coding” *cough* their headcanons *cough* to shut down ships they dislike.

[pupmkincake2000]

Found these cute art pieces on pinterest but reverse image searching says the account no longer exists😭😭😭😭😭😭

[pupmkincake2000]

Something that a lot of people here need to hear.

Also, tagging it as hankcon and detroit become human since some people call hankcon shippers proshippers here as if it is some kind of insult/slur. No, it's not.

And my favourite comment is:

The Anti vs Proship debate will never not be funny, because the whole Agenda with Antis is "We are Normal, because we harass people over fictional ships."

The op's name is mimidovee on tiktok.

And she's doing a god's job explaining all of this to the people who basically twisted the very word of "proshipping."

[pupmkincake2000]

It’s funny how often people rush to say that Gavin isn’t actually a bully — that we’re just seeing him through “biased eyes” because he doesn’t like Hank or Connor. But… that’s the thing. We don’t need to imagine what he’s like.

Gavin doesn’t just “dislike” them. He mocks Connor on sight. He pushes Hank’s buttons in front of everyone. He physically attacks Connor. And yet somehow, people act like those scenes don’t count — as if bullying only exists if it’s directed at a “nice” character or done to everyone equally.

Being polite to Tina or neutral to Chris doesn’t undo that behavior. It just shows that Gavin knows how to be civil, he just chooses not to be and only when he knows he can get away with it. That doesn’t make him “not a bully.” That makes him a selective one.

And that's how bullying works. They pick on the ones who give a reaction they enjoy (like not feeding the troll situation, probably Hank in this case), or the ones who can't defend themselves (Connor in early-game situation). Bully doesn't pick on the ones they can't bully for some reason, who doesn't make it enjoyable or who can beat the shit out of them, and usually they leave alone those who decide to side with them to look cool and be left alone. You'll never see a bully in school who bullies EVERYONE. They pick up the 'targets'. The biggest sign of this is in EdenClub chapter where Connor and Hank arrived to the scene, Gavin immediatelly mocked them before they even said anything (despiteful 'plastic pet' naming comes into play). Hank then politely defused his behaviour. "We'll look anyway IF YOU DON'T MIND." He didn't have to be polite but he chose to. That's Hank for you. Even after this, Gavin chose to bully him further with stating how he smells of alcohol underlining his drinking problem. Hank chose not to react, althought it must have hurt him. Connor was just standing there and said no damn word and Gavin chose to push him with shouldercheck. Deliberatelly, with no provocation. Was he defending Chris there this time as well? :D Hank and Connor were as polite as they could have been and were still 'bullied'.

And no — this isn’t about “fandom favorites” or anyone getting defensive about Hank or Connor. It’s not about who’s popular. It’s about how someone treats others. The idea that being constantly hostile, aggressive, or physically threatening is somehow excusable because “they pissed him off” is… honestly kind of wild. That’s not how real-life accountability works. Why should it apply here?

Also: the endless attempts to give him some deeper “reason” for hating Hank — that he used to look up to him and now feels betrayed, or that he resents him for being treated leniently — it’s telling. It’s like people are desperate to assign meaning to the hostility just to make it easier to digest.

I'd like to see someone defending THIS HARD all the NPC people androids killed even tho the people were just working.

And when people say that if we dislike Gavin just because he dislikes Hank and Connor and that's why we have nothing else to say... Oh we gotta say that to every single colleague that is mentioned hating him in his bio. They're all hating for no reason. Sid from ToyStory was also only mean to toys, c'mon he was just playing, it's not his entire personality what's with the hate? Scar also killed only Mufasa. I understand to like a character so much you forgive them the mistakes, like some people adore Sean from RDR2 thinking he's the sweetest even tho they know he steals and kills. But attacking players for following the narrative is insane...

And if we gotta see Gavin out of the given 5 minutes of appearance in the game itself, then we gotta not forget to see Hank out of the given minutes of appearance in the game. Then he's not supposed to be always drunk depressed guy right? Bcs we know he wasn't like this before the tragedy happened. So don't call him how the game shows him!

The game didn't forget to make him a bully, it showed you exactly who he is, and some fans just don’t want to admit it because they like him. Canon doesn’t have to spoon-feed the word “bully” for it to be obvious.

As for Neil saying he’d be polite in a bar... well, sure — when he’s not around someone who threatens his ego or authority. Being civil when he’s not triggered doesn’t erase his actions when he is. You don’t judge a character by their best-case scenario in a hypothetical bar — you judge them by what they do when it matters.

We know from media history how the narrative can change and bend vibes based on which character's pov it is. Lately Disney pushed the idea to re-tell story from antagonist point of view and it's suddenly something else. It's very easy to tell viewers who they are supposed to root for and which to hate. That is the POINT of narrative. It's not an essay to consultate about, it's a STORY where is a good guy and a bad guy and a plot. Some people like to explore further than the material, that is totally fine, people like to side with antagonists many times if they seem having good points. Some people like to headcanon underdeveloped characters. It's totally FINE. And liking Gavin and making new stories about him IS FINE. Redeeming Gavin is FINE. However blaming people for not doing the same and only disliking him based on the very scource concept — as the narrative intended - IS NOT FINE.

Gavin can be interesting. He can even be a fun antagonist. But if people are constantly trying to reframe his actions or ignore what’s on screen to make him more palatable, maybe it’s time to admit he is written as a bully and no amount of fanon polish changes that.

You can love Gavin. You can find him charismatic. You can build a rich fanon around him.

Love the character all you want. Just don’t pretend he’s something he’s not.

[pupmkincake2000]

There was an interesting question about Hank and Connor working together.

And I'd like to explore the idea of a complementary dynamic between Hank and Connor during investigations.

We know Connor is highly effective with analysis, gathering and connecting information, predicting outcomes, and noticing details human eyes might miss.

So what's Hank's role? What's his strength?

He brings real-life experience, while Connor tends to think "by the book." Hank relies more on gut feeling and instinct, while Connor remains rational and methodical.

Could it be that Connor focuses on the technical aspects, while Hank has a better grasp of emotional context and is more skilled at communicating with the humans involved?

I think Hank’s strength isn’t just “gut instinct”. He reads people, picks up on tone, subtext, emotional tension. He’s not always right, but he understands how humans work in ways Connor is still figuring out. Hank sees not just data. Connor, meanwhile, is hyper-precise. He notices the 0.2mm scratch on a doorframe. He reconstructs crime scenes. But what he lacks early on is intuitive weighting — which detail actually matters? That’s where Hank comes in.

In my headcanon, they complete each other like this: Connor brings the how — the exactness, the structure, the reconstruction. Hank brings the why — the motive, the psychology, the mess behind it all. And they learn from each other. Connor becomes more human not just emotionally, but in how he processes nuance. Hank, in turn, becomes more focused, precise — Connor reminds him of discipline and hope. Their strength is in collaboration, not in who’s more “useful.” Also, I love the idea that Connor could talk to suspects… but Hank knows when not to. Or when to push a button. Or when to just let someone talk. And maybe Connor watches that, quietly recalibrating. They’re opposites, but not conflicting. They interlock. That's what makes them work (and makes them worth shipping, too, ha-ha).

Also, Connor clearly has the technical ability to detect stress, lies, and behavioral patterns. He’s like a walking polygraph with facial recognition and thermal scanning built-in. But that doesn’t automatically mean he truly understands people. What he “knows” is data — not nuance. He can say someone is 78% stressed, but that’s not the same as knowing why they’re anxious, or what’s going to set them off emotionally (although this can be debatable and applicable to machine!Conor only. I think that deviant Connor will learn everything he lacks in no time).

Meanwhile, Hank has decades of experience reading people the old-fashioned way. He doesn’t need a scanner to recognize discomfort, hesitation, guilt, or fear. He’s been in interrogation rooms, watched hundreds of suspects squirm or snap. That kind of instinct is deeply human, built over time through trial, error, and emotional intuition.

So yeah, I love the idea that Connor might rely on hard data while Hank navigates emotion and subtext. It’s not that Connor can’t learn that, but at the start of the game, he definitely doesn’t have that instinctual grasp of body language or emotional motive — unless the player fills in the blanks.

The scene with Ralph is a perfect case. The player might pick up on Ralph’s tension and piece together that Kara is hiding nearby. But that’s us — human players — doing the emotional inference. Connor in-universe might only notice the spikes in stress and proximity, but not necessarily link it unless he’s actively processing all the data.

And it is really important who talks to whom. Like... Connor might have better access to deviant androids while Hank connects more easily with human suspects. It makes sense both narratively and socially. People trust those who “get” them, and discomfort with the unfamiliar (Connor’s androidness, Hank’s humanity) would naturally shape who’s more effective in each situation. They need each other for balance. It’s not about one replacing the other — it’s about each one compensating for what the other lacks.

That’s what makes their partnership so compelling, honestly. It’s not just brains and muscle, it’s two very different ways of understanding the world, learning to work together.

[pupmkincake2000]

Okay, this gonna be interesting. So again

Him being a dick to Hank doesn’t count because Hank isn’t exactly a good man himself.

Two wrongs don’t make one of them right. Hank being flawed doesn’t make it acceptable for Gavin to be cruel. Pointing out someone’s suffering isn’t morally superior — especially when it comes from a place of disdain, not care.

Yes Hank and Connor’s relationship is great and HankCon too, but Hank isn’t perfect and a saint and we all know it.

No one’s claiming he’s a saint. Hank’s flaws are well-known — and the game doesn’t hide them. But his journey is not about perfection, it’s about growth. Critiquing Hank fairly is fine. Using his trauma to justify Gavin’s abuse isn’t.

Gavin has every right to get angry about his superior and a cop getting hammered, showing up late to work constantly… and pointing guns at co-workers.

He has the right to be concerned — yes. But concern doesn’t excuse mockery, insults, and physical aggression. There’s a difference between accountability and personal hostility. Gavin chooses the latter, over and over.

Gavin’s not an asshole. He’s not a bully. He’s not evil.

Gavin is definitelly not evil. But he indeed is a bully. Bullying in workplaces happen and is a serious problem people tend to swipe under the rug. Gavin does have right to not be ok with Hank's work habits but 1. that's not his problem, that's bosses, 2. he could have said it with a concern over his existence, and/or try to help him with it. Gavin choses the very opposite path. Making him feel even worse while Gavin laughs about it. That IS bullying.

If someone acts like a bully, we don’t need a flashing neon sign. The behavior speaks for itself.

Yes, Hank lost a child. Yes, he is grieving. Yes, he is struggling with addiction and yes, he is suicidal.

Then we agree: Hank is not “just drinking for fun.” He is clinically depressed and actively suicidal. That’s not an excuse — that’s context. And it matters. Especially when you’re arguing that people should stop treating him with any compassion.

But spiraling and expecting everyone else around you just to be ok with it and just to 'fuck off' and let it pass is not ok.

Hank isn’t expecting anything. He’s isolating. Imploding. He doesn’t demand sympathy — he doesn’t ask for help at all. He starts healing only when someone reaches out, not when someone yells “get over it.”

Especially not when A. you’re in a job where you can’t afford to be doing that shit and B. you have someone who is constantly protecting you from facing any sort of repercussion.

A: Fair. The job is serious. B: Not fully true. Fowler does reprimand Hank, threatens to bench him, and clearly struggles with what to do. This isn’t favoritism — it’s trying to save someone who used to be great and is now breaking apart.

Also nice how it says how the boss is ignoring Hank's behaviour at work bcs they are friends.... .....and how long would person like Gavin survive if the boss wouldn't try to ignore HIS behaviour too? Gavin is not a saint.

Gavin is very valid in his comments and hostility.

Comments can be valid. Hostility is not. Especially when it becomes habitual, personal, and aggressive. There are ways to raise concerns without becoming the person who actively worsens someone else’s suffering.

The fact that Gavin never brings up Cole once… says a whole lot.

It says he knows what line not to cross publicly. That’s basic decency — not proof of compassion. He attacks everything else Hank can be blamed for. That’s not kindness — that’s just calculated cruelty.

Sometimes, some people baby Hank way too much.

Maybe. But there’s a difference between “babying” someone and not kicking them while they’re already bleeding on the floor. Compassion isn’t coddling. It’s refusing to treat someone’s pain like an inconvenience.

If you had a co-worker like Hank in real life, you wouldn’t pat his head — you’d do what Gavin is doing.

No. In real life, people either try to help, back away quietly, or report issues professionally. What Gavin does is harass, mock, and escalate conflict in public. That’s not accountability. That’s bullying in a badge.

And just say Hank ended up making a massive mistake while he was drunk or did put a bullet in a co-worker…

That’s hypothetical. But here’s another: What if he took his own life because no one showed him a shred of humanity? What would that be labeled — "consequences"? When someone’s on the edge, shoving them isn’t moral superiority. It’s neglect.

Gavin is actually the responsible one here.

Responsibility doesn’t mean “scream and humiliate.” If he really cared about the team or Hank’s well-being, he would have handled it like a professional, not like a schoolyard bully.

Yes, Hank lost a child. Yes, he is grieving. Yes, he is struggling with addiction and yes, he is suicidal.

Absolutely right — it is a tragedy. But you acknowledge the depth of that pain yourself, and still suggest that those around him should just “deal with it” instead of being present or offering help. That’s not empathy. That’s detachment disguised as toughness.

Also, who gets to decide how long grief should last? Who puts a timer on losing a child? If you’ve never been through it, you don’t get to judge it. Hank isn’t just sad. He’s in clinical depression. He isolates, self-destructs, and contemplates death — silently. And he doesn’t start to heal because someone like Gavin yells at him.

He heals because someone — Connor — reaches out with empathy.

That’s not babying. That’s humanity.

The politeness and 'I’m here for you' phase is over.

Really? When exactly was Gavin ever in a “I’m here for you” phase? When did he show concern? When did he offer support, or even basic human decency?

Because from what we see, there was never a moment of “I’m here for you” only a constant stream of “You’re pathetic.”

So no. That phase didn’t “end.” It never existed.

Everyone has their limit, and it’s obvious that Gavin’s has been broken.

So has Hank’s. The difference is, Hank turns that pain inward. Gavin turns it on everyone else. And that’s not strength. That’s projection.

So yeah, I don’t count Gavin’s comments toward Hank as him being a ‘bully’ because honestly, again, everything he points out is very valid and should be actually addressed instead of Hank pulling out a firearm and telling everyone to fuck off.

Again — valid points do not mean valid delivery. He doesn’t offer solutions. He doesn’t ask questions. He doesn’t help. He attacks. He insults. He antagonizes. And as for Hank pulling a gun — he does it:

Once to protect Connor from Gavin,

Once during a crisis of trust on a bridge.

Neither is unprovoked. Neither is random. Both are emotionally charged moments, not cold aggression. Gavin’s mockery is cold. Calculated. Constant.

Gavin may be “done” with Hank’s pain. But that doesn’t make him right. It makes him indifferent.

Hank is flawed — but growing. Gavin is loud — but stagnant.

And being cruel to the broken isn’t justice. It’s just cruelty.

You can love a character and still acknowledge their flaws. There’s no need to downgrade someone else just to justify why you like them.