chronically-ghosted

[chronically-ghosted]

If Pedro comes out gay I will straight up leave this fandom.

[chronically-ghosted]

psa clint isn’t joel miller and if you’re flattening him into a joel archetype we need to talk about race again

i’m aware they both wear plaid, have a daughter, battle with grief, and are hot covered in blood and enacting violence

this isn’t a callout i just don’t remember where i saw these specific posts about the red handkerchief and clint as a ‘blue collar’ man. but i know i’ve seen plenty of clint = joel posts floating around. 

AND i wasn’t going to say anything bc i thought i was just being gatekeepy bc i didn’t wanna see clint get the dbf treatment which would be my personal problem and i can happily write about him on my own blog how i want etc etc and i know i don’t have to read anyone else’s takes BUT then i thought about it and once again…it’s always about race…

edit: i apologize for using such a specific example without reaching out to the person that made the post—i could have taken the time to find it before using it as a launching point, that's on me. the handkerchief post wasn’t part of a huge fic or broader take on clint’s character (sorry for the jumpscare).

it did, however, stick out to me as a strong illustration of how important cultural context is. the issue is systemic not interpersonal. the rest of my examples weren't based on any one post—the blue-collar, marlboro man, works-with-his-hands, joel-coded/lana del rey-coded/ethel cain-coded vibes have been everywhere: fics, tags, comments, posts, tiktok edits. i know there’s nuance in fandom culture—tropes, memes like “close enough, welcome back joel/javi,” “____ coded” jokes, music, etc. and if we can understand that level of context for internet culture, we can understand the importance of racial context too, right?

i stand by the rest of what i said and will continue to argue that cultural context matters if you consider yourself an anti-racist reader or writer.* re: the post i saw somewhere about someone having a head canon about clint having a red handkerchief as a snot rag - sorry i forgot where i saw it and this isn’t an attack on whoever wrote that, but an fyi to anyone thinking about him the same way… if you’re writing a latino man in 1987 oakland—especially someone working street-level jobs or tied to criminal economies—and you think a red bandana is just a ‘snot rag,’ you’re missing major context

fyi, in 1987, color politics were not optional if you were a man of color in california. even though bloods (red) and crips (blue) originated in LA, their color codes and the larger gang culture around them were already known across the state. in northern california specifically, norteños (tied to the nuestra familia prison gang) wore red. their rivals, sureños (tied to the mexican mafia), wore blue. 

who cares? well, even though oakland wasn’t dominated by bloods and crips the way LA was (in part due to the black panthers), it had its own street crews, plus a heavy norteño/sureño influence by the mid-80s. even outside organized gangs, the association between red and gang affiliation was strong enough that wearing a red bandana could get you profiled, targeted, or attacked—by cops, by other crews, or by random people trying to read your allegiance.

if you were a latino man in oakland in the 80s—like clint—you wouldn’t carry a red bandana by accident. it would be flagging. even if you weren’t affiliated. as a street smart guy, survival would mean being hyper-aware of how you present yourself, especially in neighborhoods policed by gang dynamics and racial profiling. cops would use color displays like a bandana as probable cause for harassment searches or worse during the height of the ‘war on drugs’ and the crack epidemic. 

characters like clint—latino, working-class, street-adjacent—would have understood the consequences of being read wrong. this doesn’t mean no one ever had cloths, handkerchiefs, or functional rags. it means the color and the way you carried it mattered: what pocket, what visibility, how deliberate it looked.

throwing a red bandana in your pocket wasn’t neutral. it wasn’t folksy. it wasn’t just blue-collar roughness. it was a risk, and survival was about reading the street, not walking through it like color codes didn’t apply to you.

clint wouldn’t casually rock a red bandana like a cowboy. latino men have never had the privilege of being casual about how they're read in public, especially not in a city like oakland, especially not in the 1980s.

re: clint as a ‘blue collar’ character there’s a difference between being ‘blue collar’ and being trapped in criminalized labor. wearing a plaid shirt and working with your hands doesn’t automatically make someone a blue-collar worker in the traditional sense. 

blue collar historically refers to wage labor—construction, manufacturing, trade work—where the worker is paid (poorly) but still operating within the boundaries of legal employment. union jobs. often unionized labor, tied to systems that, at least in theory, protected workers through collective bargaining, benefits, and job security. those protections were never equally available, especially to workers of color, but they existed as part of the larger working-class structure. 

clint’s labor isn’t protected. it isn’t recognized. it’s criminalized. he’s not just a man doing rough work for low pay—he’s disposable labor, surviving in a system that sees him as expendable from the start. calling him ‘blue collar’ erases the fact that he’s not inside the working class safety net. he’s on the outside, paying off debt with violence he didn’t choose.

it carries a specific context of class exploitation, yes, but it’s still different from the kind of criminal coercion characters like clint are caught in.

clint is not a proud working man making an honest living. his entire arc in freaky tales is about being forced into violent labor to pay off inherited debt he had no choice in. he is not rough and gritty because he chose a rugged life. 

he is rough because he was born into a system designed to keep him indebted, desperate, and expendable. he’s not working a blue collar job—he’s surviving in a criminal economy that feeds off people like him, using violence he doesn’t even want to enact just to stay afloat.

flattening clint into a vague ‘marlboro man’ archetype (joel coded)—rough clothes, kind heart, good intentions—it strips away everything sharp and painful about his actual story. it whitewashes the complexity of being a latino man criminalized by birth and survival, not by choice. it reframes his struggle as a generic americana fantasy about working-class virtue, when what’s actually at stake is how structural violence forces people into roles they never asked for.

especially when it’s a latino character, this flattening isn’t neutral. it erases the realities of racialized labor, racialized criminalization, and survival. clint’s tragedy isn’t that he’s a gruff tough guy with a soft interior. his tragedy is that he was forced to become violent in order to pay off a life he was never allowed to own, and he carries that weight without any guarantee of getting free.

you can’t understand clint if you don’t understand that. and if you’re not willing to sit with that discomfort, what you’re writing isn’t really him—it’s just a projection of a character he was never allowed to be.

clint and joel might overlap in aesthetics, being single girl dads, and physical strength—but reducing clint to a copy of joel misses everything that actually defines who he is, and why his story matters.

joel miller is a texas man—a man shaped by frontier mythology, southern survivalism, deep mistrust, and violent individualism. he is, by his own admission, a man whose grief and guilt hollowed him out so badly that even his brother was scared of him. he’s not just traumatized; he’s actively dangerous, closed off, and isolated. his story is about losing his humanity and clawing parts of it back, maybe too late.

clint is not that. clint is an oakland man—east bay, west coast, working-class and criminalized, not because he chose violence but because he was born into debt he could never pay off. he’s an underdog, not an antihero. 

he’s soft with his woman, he lights up under her attention. he’s goofy in the video store with the clerk. he’s not some hardened loner who scares everyone around him. he’s just a man trying to survive a system that was designed to use him up.

when you flatten clint into joel, you’re misreading two characters with different emotional cores and fetishizing the aesthetics of pain and ruggedness while ignoring race, class, place, and survival context.

clint isn't a texas cowboy. he’s not steeped in frontier violence or manifest destiny myths. he’s a west coast underdog who knows every step he takes could get him crushed, and he still tries to protect the people he loves without letting it rot him from the inside out.

the tragedy of joel is that the world took everything from him and he let it turn him into something colder, crueler.

the tragedy of clint is that the world gave him no choice- he says he was born into breaking bones to pay off his father’s debt, and he still tries to hold onto his softness anyway.

if you can’t tell the difference, you’re not seeing clint, you’re just projecting a fetishized joel trope onto another character…��

[chronically-ghosted]

THE LAST OF US (2023-?) 2x03 | The Path

[chronically-ghosted]

PEDRO PASCAL as CLINT Freaky Tales (2025) dir. Anna Boden, Ryan Fleck

[chronically-ghosted]

PEDRO PASCAL These Are The Freaky Tales | Special Features

[chronically-ghosted]

I don't EVER wanna hear you say they don't know how to act again.

[chronically-ghosted]

THE LAST OF US (2023- ) 2.02 “Through the Valley”

[chronically-ghosted]

• tommy and maria •

the last of us | 2x02 | through the valley

[chronically-ghosted]

Pedro Pascal as Harry in MATERIALISTS (2025) dir. Celine Song

[chronically-ghosted]

the thing that really broke me was the way ellie said ‘no’. like up until this moment she’s been so angry, so tough, so full of rage and bravado, that it’s easy to forget she’s still a child. but with that one word, that one single word when ellie’s voice broke, it all came rushing back. because it’s so quiet, so broken, so small, so childlike. and she’s been so mad at joel, but he’s him, and she’s her, and nothing is going to change that, and she just watched her dad die. and she’s just a fucking kid.

give bella their emmy now.

[chronically-ghosted]

now who runs this fucking account

[chronically-ghosted]

god bella truly blew that scene out of the fucking water. and now the fact that the MAIN CHARACTER of one of the most popular television shows rn is played by a queer non binary actor just means so much and UGH i just love them. i love bella i love ellie i'm soooo

[chronically-ghosted]

This is just going to be like when the game came out, isn't it? Death threats, constant complaining and refusing to engage with the material in any constructive manner. I wonder how these fans cope in real life when something happens that they don't like.

[chronically-ghosted]

him looking this pretty even before dying was unfair. I will avenge you, Joel miller.

[chronically-ghosted]

​Joel Miller you are alive and well it was a bad dream get up Sarah made you eggs for breakfast

[chronically-ghosted]

YEAH, YOU DO

[chronically-ghosted]

PEDRO PASCAL photographed for Entertainment Weekly