#this obviously isn't referring to actually problematic people

[despair-nagito]

Because some people need to understand it

I'm posting this because I'm bored of seeing people (including part of KmHn shippers) saying that KomaHina is "problematic", "abusive" or "toxic" and treating it like if it was canon while it isn't.

KomaHina isn't a "problematic" or "toxic" ship. Unlike some people are stating (probably due to their headcanons, misunderstanding or in result of completely ignoring Komaeda), Hinata and Komaeda's canon relationship wasn't abusive. Their canon relationship is complicated but not abusive. You're allowed to headcanon them as having an abusive/toxic relationship but stop pushing it down other shippers' throats because according to canon they had lots of misunderstandings towards each other AND they wanted to understand each other better. They both cared about each other. Seriously, a complicated relationship of two (or more) characters doesn't make it problematic in any way. Problematic is one thing and complicated is another (both can overlap but not always and their relationship is an example for a complicated but not problematic one).

KOMAEDA

Komaeda wasn't a yandere or dorodere. He didn't want Hinata exclusively for himself. He didn't hurt anyone Hinata was close to (oh, wait, he didn't have any friends, everyone was remembering Hinata when they wanted something from him or just were some programmed AI but still it doesn't change the fact he didn't try to separate Hinata from the rest). On the contrary. He asked Hinata to kill him so he would get a chance to escape. He never tried to make Hinata believe the same way as him. He wasn't selfish. Do you remember Komaeda telling Hinata that he's in love with him? Before the fourth class trial he tells Hinata: "why do I care about you?" His confession is the answer why he cared about him. (remember: FTEs are canon what is explicitly showed in the case of locking Imposter's last FTE until Island Mode and locking Komaeda's scenes if Hinata didn't spend time with him during the first day). Komaeda wasn't obsessive about Hinata, he simply wanted to help the one he loved. He said that just the fact of their eyes meeting was enough to make him happy.

His jokes shouldn't be taken seriously. He was literally making no idea that it could be taken as an offense while it wasn't his goal to offend anyone and he was making no idea when someone was offending him ("winning personality? Are you praising me?")

He will be happy

After completing the Final Dead Room, Komaeda says: "he will be happy! I was finally useful!" what obviously refers to Hinata. To it, he was shocked about learning that Hinata was a reserve course student.

You aren't the traitor, are you, Hinata-kun?

There's an optional interaction in Chapter 5 after Komaeda's announcement of staying at the restaurant. If you go back there and interact with him, he's surprised and then says: "people like you will be devoured by them" (not an exact quote) what could mean he learned about his actual identity as Kamukura and was warning him but there's also a possibility he remembered the situation from before the program of him and Kamukura talking (Kamukura is Hinata so he could easily match both appearances).

HINATA

Do you want Hinata's side? Here you are: Hinata never hated Komaeda. He even wanted to forgive him after learning about him being terminally ill (I'll go back to this part later in the post) and just was confused like everyone else but unlike the rest he knew the real Komaeda – that traumatized, terminally ill guy and the thing Hinata wanted was to understand him. In chapter 4 when Komaeda tells Hinata that he "played" Russian Roulette Hinata is worried and shouts: "you could die!" Later, in chapter 5 after they force-opened the doors Hinata was scared to the point he couldn't move and later he was refusing to accept the fact Komaeda was dead. During the investigation when Hinata for the first and only time enters Komaeda's cottage, "All Star Apologies" is playing in the background when Hinata wonders what Komaeda was thinking and doing when he was still alive – he never was so deep in thoughts after someone's death as after Komaeda's death.

In the morning after the trial when he's informed about Komaeda's last will he's full of determination what is seen only if you interact with Komaeda's cottage. In chapter 6 when Hinata is reading about hope he says to himself that Komaeda's hope was the real hope. He wouldn't think it if he hated Komaeda. The ultimate confirmation of Hinata not hating Komaeda is SDR2.5 that was written by Kodaka (I'm mentioning it because DR3 wasn't) and you can see Hinata doing everything to wake Komaeda up of comatose. In the ending there was a party on a ship and they weren't participating in it. They were standing together away from the rest.

Is Komaeda's ghost whispering to you?

It's possible you don't remember this part because it happened during the class trial. It shows perfectly that though Hinata was trying to deny the feelings he had to Komaeda, he couldn't stop thinking about his wish to understand him.

ISLAND MODE

It's also interesting to take a look at Island Mode that is an alternative plot. It's full of Hinata caring about Komaeda and shows him being interested in him in a romantic way. Just see Komaeda's ending. Hinata is kind of disappointed when Komaeda stops and asks: "will you be my friend?" but later they're holding hands and it's not the only time they were doing that. They were also hand-holding two times in SDR2.5 and in UTDP once. If there wasn't comphet, they would obviously become a couple in Komaeda's ending because their relationship was developing in the most natural way in comparison to the rest (they actually were attracted to each other and Komaeda was never forcing Hinata to anything, and vice versa).

WHICH "DERE" KOMAEDA IS?

Going back to the part about Komaeda being ill. He's the perfect example of byoukidere – a character who's usually sweet but suffers of an illness. Komaeda was very sweet to Hinata but there were moments when symptoms of him being sick were appearing, "twisting" him (do you remember when Komaeda started "rambling about hope" and when he snapped out he was making no idea what was going on?) There was also a very important moment during Chapter 3 where he almost died of despair disease. Without following his FTE you won't understand why was his condition so bad. It was also the moment when Hinata was openly worried about Komaeda. Komaeda is also an utsudere. He was traumatized, suicidal and was initially masking it (he was taking the mask off while talking to Hinata).

"IT'S NOT CANON AND NEVER WILL BE"

Them being a couple is heavily implied by canon but it doesn't make them a canon ship. Yet, there's something that IS canon. They were attracted to each other in a romantic way and seriously, you don't need them to kiss on screen. Look at the scene above. If there was nothing between them, they wouldn't spend time like that when the rest was throwing a party. In my opinion, this is the moment of them being the closest to each other in the whole series. Sure, Hinata looks nervous but it can be easily explained by the fact that he was next to someone he "liked" while knowing the other person "likes" him back and Komaeda… Well, Komaeda is Komaeda.

»Click here« to read an anonymous comment to the post.

Update: 7.12 2023

[the-most-faithful]

For the series "False arguments against Snape on TikTok"

I actually had this conversation with a person.

Under one of my comments where I only said "Poor snape" referring to the bullying he suffered I got these responses:

Apart from the use of the Snivellus against Snape which is already problematic, let's continue

So let's clarify, this person admitted that James was a bully (So was Sirius in canon but we'll get back to that later)

James was a bully, point taken. BUT THEN he matured. He didn't in canon. But even if this were true, it would not erase the bullying of years before.

And here comes the worrying part

"Sometimes people deserve it" EXCUSE ME? This person is really saying that some people DESERVE to be bullied.

For them, if a person is terrible (We still have to understand what makes Snape terrible as a student in an active way) then it is right to bully him. According to this logic, as I wrote then, Snape had every reason to bully the Marauders. Is the concept clear? if someone isn't a nice person you have every right to bully them because... well because a Marauders Stan who has sound moral principles tells you so.

Although he later obviously retracted by saying that ONLY James was a bully, Sirius, little star of the universe was just a prankster.

So the real villain was ONLY James who then changed. FALSE

It's incredible how the "justifications" are always the same fragile ones. You only have to read the canon to see that James and Sirius have not matured by understanding their mistakes. But I repeat, let's pretend that they did it, this does not justify them as young people, it does not erase their being bullies.

Let's clarify the fundamental points:

Snape was never an angel. That doesn't erase the fact that James and Sirius were bullies Snape was classist That doesn't erase the fact that James and Sirius were bullies Snape joined Voldemort That doesn't erase the fact that James and Sirius were bullies Snape bullied students as a teacher That doesn't erase the fact that James and Sirius were bullies

James AND Sirius were bullies this is the Canon and Snape didn't deserve to be bullied, no one ever does. Stop defending bullying and bullies

[mamaangiwine]

Hey about your post on the Barbie movie. Totally open to you still disagreeing and hearing why but as someone who saw the movie I just wanted to give perspective.

Obviously the consequences in Barbieland are just cute and funny but ultimately bad but I'm having a hard time seeing how comparing smallpox blankets (a tool of imperialism used to kill people) to infecting a place with patriarchy (another system of oppression that also kills people in real life) is a harmful metaphor.

I agree in a lot of ways the movie completely fails to actually address things like race and class to solely focus on sexism and it has been heavily criticized for being libfem. However, is it not analogous to compare two systems of oppression that obviously work differently but are both very bad?

I appreciate you reading my ask and hearing me out. I look forward to understanding your perspective better.

Thank you for being respectful.

So firstly, as you said the movie has been widely criticized for not touching on racism or classism- which is honestly something I expected. It's The Barbie Movie, after all. I wasn't expecting a particularly in depth exploration of that kind of intersectional feminism. No... Barbie's "intersectionality" lies in its optics. There is a trans Barbie, disabled Barbie, and various woc Barbies. Which begs the question- in a movie that wishes to show case its inclusivity and celebrate that inclusivity via the diversity of it's Barbies...in a movie that wishes to suggest "intersectionality" through the diversity of its Barbies...who then is missing in this film?

There were no Native Barbies.

Honestly, that's not unusual for me as a Native. I didn't expect to see Native Barbie. I don't expect to see Natives in much of anything that doesn't take place in "the old west" or some kind of historical drama (that is, if it isn't being written and/or made by Ndns). Up until recently, people didn't even question why we hardly got to play indigenous roles in films (Johnny Depp as Tonto comes to mind).

Which is why it's so sad that the only representation we get in a film that is trying to tout its "inclusivity" is a throw-away line that references our suffering and the genocide we endured...and are still feeling the effects of to this day.

Tragedy is not one for one. Oppression is not one for one either. I don't agree that small pox was a "tool" of imperialism. Small pox, once colonizers realized they could weaponize it, was a failed "means to an end". It was just genocide. Plain and simple. Also, "patriarchy" is a broad concept that affects multiple people differently (going back to intersectionality) whereas Native genocide only affects Natives. Including the imposition of western, white patriarchy on both Native women and men. If one is going to make comparisons, they need to be prepared to take responsibility for ALL of what that comparison implies.

Let's not forget though, this wasn't just a "comparison". This was a part of a joke. Granted the joke didn't center around smallpox, but it was still placed within an exchange of dialog in which, yes, they are discussing patriarchy, but still funny-silly-goofy things are happening. For one thing, even if you could make the argument that there is an analogy to be made, there is a time and place for things- and it certainly isn't in a comedy centering around two white actors.

There isnt an analogy to be made though. The truth is, this "joke" is apart of a long problematic history of white women (like Greta Gerwig) using the history of minorities as a means to compare their own oppression to atrocities that they were also historically complicit in. White men were not the only one who stood to gain from Native Genocide. It's also a way for white feminists to wiggle their way out of discussions of their own privelege and take accountability for a system that they benefit from.

I would like to posit a question here, if I may... Would you have felt comfortable with a reference about the Holocaust in the Barbie movie? Would you have felt comfortable with a reference about Jim Crow in the Barbie movie? Particularly refenced via a line that had no bearing to the plot or any real attatchment to a character's world view or identity? That could have gone unmissed from the final product as a whole? If the thought made you pause or cringe, that's understandable. That's how it should be.

Personally, I feel Greta Gerwig felt she could make this comparison because Natives are not always treated as a living group of people suffering under colonialism, racism, and patriarchy- it's for the same reasons we are only seen in movies set in the "old west"- we are often thought of as something from the past. As though we are already gone. This makes it so Ndns have to work especially hard for our voices to be heard sometimes, because the genocide we experienced wasn't just about exterminating us but convincing people we had already been exterminated.

For all these reasons, Native voices should be elevated, Native actors should be hired, and Native History should be respected.

[monards]

super duper curious about the lack of proper documentation on Rhinedottir pre-cataclysm now, especially since it's been confirmed it couldn't have been that she was just someone working under the nose of society,, and that she would've been esteemed enough to have had (at the bare minimum) majority of khaneriahns known of her, and her accomplishments, which knowledge would have then passed onto the surface of teyvat, in some capacity-- especially since any figure with THAT major of accomplishments, who'd be public, would and should have proper documentation ;; especially considering the phrasing of the log in "???"

" It seems that there was an alchemist from Khaenri'ah named ”R” who joined a secret order. From what fragmentary records exist, it appears that they made significant headway. But the available materials are scarce… If Rene doesn't recover, the Ordo will slowly dissolve. And if we were all mistaken, and the colossal beasts and apocalypse are false, will there be others who shall research the trail left behind, as I am now…?"

Compared then to what Dain described her (and the other sinners) with,

Clearly, these two perspectives are. not matching up!!!! The ambiguity used to refer to her in the Log clearly insinuates there's a HEAVY lack of proper knowledge or documentation on..,, anything she'd done. or who she even WAS ;; "an alchemist from Khaenri'ah named ”R”" also insinuates something as simple as her name wasn't known which is...,, very problematic considering who she is. THEY DONT EVEN KNOW HER GENDER OR PRONOUNS EITHER????? "they made significant headway" huh!!!! ;; . "From what fragmentary records exist," insinuates that, not only would these documents consisting of what was likely considered some of (what would've been) the most revolutionary and highly advanced alchemy at the time, were scarce; they were in NO way preserved which is. already. very odd!!! It's common knowledge by any civilization or group or ANYTHING that it's essential to properly document important knowledge for safe keeping;; Obviously, we know Khaneri'ah has( and is being) actively sort-of wiped/ignored in common Teyvat's history & knowledge (some relevant considering the utter lack of ANYTHING on it from the average person) ;; but the issue is that ordo was active 400 years ago-- a point where there'd still be people ALIVE from the cataclysm to tell the story and share that knowledge.

And this isn't even mentioning the fact this implies that the other 4 sinners have no known / found records.,, at all.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the only possible things my brain can come up with to explain this at 11:57 pm is that either 1 -> The things the sinners were doing, which were a big no-no by most laws and rules of teyvat, was explicitly left undocumented as to not have that knowledge taken. or to simply cover their tracks 2 -> Said proper documentation was destroyed by someone (likely from Khaneri'ah) who thought it was too dangerous to be left as it was 3 -> Irminsuil fucking with it 4 -> the heavenly principles fucking with it 5 -> these mfs were the most well kept secret by khaneri'ah ever and they SOMEHOW miraculously never had knowledge of them make it's way up to the surface realm.

Considering the entire concept of them originally trying to stop the "vinster king" + their entire thing with the abyss (meaning inherently anti celestia) ;; i can only assume it's gonna be somehow associated with one of those two authorities. but who knows!!! maybe we're gonna get hit over the head with it actually just being a big oopsie daises!!!!!

[cardentist]

apparently there's discourse (not in the bad way, just the discussion way) surrounding lich and trans headcanons because of how he talks about michaela in the books

so here's my opinion as a trans person (other trans people are allowed to have different opinions but this one is mine):

I believe that mothy himself is well meaning about his trans and gay representation, but is unfamiliar with what We'd consider problematic. I'm not familiar enough with either mothy or the general culture of japan to say if this is the result of mothy himself being out of touch, or japanese queer culture just being different from the US's. but either way this is my read on the situation.

and so I engage with evillious with that in mind. it's a series that means well but has problematic elements. and that doesn't have to be a Bad thing, it's just something that needs some awareness while taking it in.

so when mothy writes lich openly acknowledging and accepting that michaela is his sister but then Also has him refer to her with her dead name I don't see that as mothy intentionally portraying lich as transphobic or unaccepting of her. it is, after all, how mothy chose to reveal that she was a trans woman in the first place (introducing us to "lich's brother michael" and having it revealed that she was michaela all along, and having lich acknowledge her as his sister now).

and I think there are two ways to go about this with this understanding.

we could simply gloss over the issue, because at the end of the day we're not going to be able to sit mothy down and explain why it can be hurtful to trans people. we don't have that direct communication with him. and it's not being written with the intent of being read as malicious on lich's part, so it's simply easier to smooth it over.

Or we could translate mothy being well intentioned but misinformed onto lich as a character trait. this works best within the context of him having to learn what he's doing wrong and grow, but obviously it's up to personal interpretation.

as for trans headcanons, there's nothing wrong with that in the first place. trans people are misinformed sometimes, nobody comes out of the womb socially conscious and fully aware of modern sensibilities.

having lich realize that they aren't a man could be tied into lich gaining a better understanding of transness. having lich be transmasc already and just not knowing any better because He doesn't mind these things and hasn't stopped to think that other people may feel differently. having lich be whatever flavor of trans you want in whatever way you want just because it's fun and you'd like to. it's all fine and doesn't hurt anybody

I would Also like to point out that levia has been making fun of behemo for wearing dresses and make up since she was introduced as a character, and people tend not to call her transphobic or highlight this as transphobia.

yes, there is more ambiguity in behemo's case as mothy has never stated outright what behemo's identity is, but calling someone you interpret as a man disgusting or weird for wearing dresses Is Transphobia (and was specifically highlighted As transphobia/bigotry that behemo has faced during barisol's child) regardless of what that person's gender actually is.

I personally like levia a lot, just like I like lich and behemo and michaela, and Personally I think they're all trans Because I like them. and I'm not saying that we should Start defining levia's character by this trait.

but I Am saying that it's an obvious double standard to hold lich as a character accountable while Not doing the same for levia when arguably levia is intentionally written as being harmful while lich isn't.

anyways, I think it's funny if levia realizes he's a trans man that still likes to wear dresses and make up, and I think lich is seth's boyfriend and banica's girlfriend and eater's -̴̱͔̫̭̎̆͆-̴̠͚͘͜-̶̺̰̙̦͗-̸̡̻̽̅-̴̢̹̰̠͐͑̃̈̑friend, and equally trans no matter what

(also potential lich and carlos dynamic intrigues me but I think it's much funnier if they aren't dating each other. banica's husband and banica's girlfriend silently and awkwardly eating brunch together because they figure they're supposed to hang out but between the two of them there isn't one drop of social intelligence)

(they do this every day, it never gets any better)

[neurodogical]

right obviously you can dislike something for whatever reason you like, but the way you talk about it still has an impact on the world around you? when people limply reference to Homestuck being “problematic” and Andrew being “problematic” it just evokes transphobic whisper campaign. this is how people treat trans girls on this website too, no? how many times have you seen camab trans people be avoided on “vibes” or “because they said something racist [citation needed]” like is it really necessary for you to contribute to a transphobic rhetoric in your discussion? you can just not like something you don’t have to act like there’s some deep political flaw with homestuck that makes it irreconcilably evil — people literally ONLY do this to camab trans people’s work, it’s nuts.

I understand that this means a lot to you, but my criticism of hussie and her work has nothing to do with their gender. you can criticize something while liking it, too. i agree that people criticize things harder when it's by someone whose TMA though, I've seen that happen. and I'm sorry that it's something that you need to look out for, truly. however, it's really strange to act like homestuck isn't very racist at times, though. do you not remember damara megido's entire existence? how about the manner of speaking of the condensce and other instances of them using aave in weird ass ways? people can grow and change yes, but i don't have to forgive racism and the groups she was racist against are ones im not part of.

I didn't say a thing about racism in my original posts, but somehow you knew to bring it up though... if hussies work spoke to you deeply, well, I'm glad you found something important to you even if it's something I really can't bring myself to like (speaking truthfully, "problematic reasons" aren't even my full reason for disliking it. honest! I was just in online fandom WAY too young, like 11 years old, and was the main moderator of a 15,000+ person homestuck facebook group for years, got taken advantage of by older people, etc.) I won't get further into it, but i don't like being called transphobic for just disliking a piece of media especially when I didn't even state my actual thoughts about it as a piece of literature, I just shared my broad opinion. I don't see how it's transphobic to dislike one piece of media created by a trans person. I never used the words "evil", I think that's unproductive and disingenuous when talking about literature, even if it's something i dislike more than homestuck.

if people take "I should go be transphobic now" out of "i hate homestuck and don't like the author much", that's their issue because they're not truly reading what I'm saying either and they suck. that is to say though, had i known that hussie was nonbinary before this entire thing unfolded, i would not have claimed she wasn't LGBT in my tags of that reblog. i haven't even read DTWOF and therefore don't have thoughts on it, i just had a visceral reaction to homestuck, remembered the hussie i made up in my mind over the course of 2014-2020, and said something rude that I wouldn't now. I'm sorry for how upset I've made you, but I'm allowed to have my own thoughts on a piece of media that's shaped a large part of my life.

[onceler12]

Introduction post!

I drew myself using my actual photo as reference so trust me, this is very accurate to how I'm looking irl. I'm also showing you my photo in this outfit (not this one used for reference) which is showing me and my pillow! On second photo is me and my guitar and I noticed that in movie is similar frame so I made comparison. I hope you like it!

As for introduction at first I should say that I'm 19 yrs old (20 on 1st October) and I'm extremaly similar to Once-ler, we have same personality and interests and this is very problematic to me because people are often thinking that I'm roleplaying when I'm just being myself so you should remember that this isn't roleplay and I'm desciribing my actual self!

So when you know it then ofc I want show you few examples of those similarities. First, I'm very interested in business, I have many ideas for my own businesses even if they are just dreams. I can be very passionate about that and talk so much about it. By example I was writing speech of opening of Thneed factory even if this business is just a dream but I'm just too passionate so I can't let my energy get wasted and I remaked lyrics to song ,,Everybody needs a Thneed" - I mostly changed uses and I done it because I love that business so I was thinking that maybe I should try make few Thneeds in real life and I sewn one but that was Thneed from random material for practice so it's not so good but it have shape just like in movie and I didn't saw any so-called Thneed in this shape before because indeed this shape is very difficult so probably I'm the first who actually did it.

Currently I'm struggling to find better material but when I would find it, I hope that I can make Thneed that is very close to this movie one! Also I'm very good at defending deforestation and telling why it's not that bad and telling about how business in movie could not get bankrupt even after cutting whole forest! I'm also aware than my mindset it's unique and that I can show others different perspective on those things.

I also very good at making pancakes and I'm eating them with marhsmallows and it was my idea because I know that's not common mix and I made it by myself (btw on one photo here there is small picture in photo frame in background which is me with plate of pancakes so you have proof) and baking - mostly cupcakes. I like drawing, writing books and I even wrote few poems but the most I like writing about things I'm passionate about. I love music and I'm learning to play on electric guitar but I can't play on it yet. I also love cats, I have three of them.

I really like movie ,,The Lorax" but when I would making it then of course I would make Thneed business better and bigger and it wouldn't get bankrupt! I also have some ideas of another companies which are involving Truffula trees and obviously there would be more scenes with Once-ler because he deserve it. Anyways this movie isn't making sense very often but this is environmental propaganda so what do you expecting? Like what's wrong with destroying just one forest? I have arguments that even shows Lorax as the villain (this is some example of my unique mindset because no way that I'd say that chopping trees is bad so I'm taking serious when defending this business) but I won't write my arguments here because I already wrote too much and I don't want to bore you (but when you are in fandom then you probably want to hear about it..?) so that's all for now!

If you are interested in meeting person like me and if you want to talk about business, Thneeds or something else related to movie then don't hesitate to interact with me, I'd be happy to met Once-ler fans!

[showmey0urfangs]

I'm the previous anon and would like to clarify because I feel like some people have been misinterpreting what I said completely (not you however so thanks for that), obviously there is commentary about patriarchy and gender in the show. The issue becomes, again, when people insistently refer to a gay male character as "basically" a woman to the extent that some members of this fandom do. I have quite literally seen far more people talk about the supposed misogyny faced by Louis (a man who profited of the exploitation of women!) than Claudia, an actual female character.

The other issue I have with large swaths of fandom when it comes to this topic is how many people seem incapable of acknowledging that one person can have both masculine and feminine traits, which manifest in different ways, and that two gender nonconforming men could be attracted to each other. It's really frustrating because iwtv is genuinely one of the only pieces of media I can name, at least in the mainstream, that features two gender nonconforming male protagonists who are in a relationship with each other and whose narratives and experiences are taken seriously instead of treated like a joke. The attempt to downplay Lestat's feminine qualities by some people also becomes very weird if you know how bisexual men are stereotyped as only ever being "straight-acting," it's like people don't even know this is something bi men face at all, or that Lestat is one of the few bi male characters to represent gnc bi men. It comes off very ignorant. But then, I've also seen numerous people claim that the show isn't "for" gay men anyway (despite being about them?), a sentiment that is not unique to this fandom in the slightest. It's the same shit as basically every other slash fandom ever.

I understand why a lot of people retaliated against all the omg lestat mother shit especially when it IS absolutely true that he acts like a patriarchial maniac but how is the solution to just swap it? or refer to this fact uncritically? people are out here acting like louis WANTS to be treated like lestat's subjugated housewife when in reality he was always uncomfortable with lestat's disrespect and humiliation of him. it's equally cringe to act like louis is basically The Woman and lestat is The Man and refuse to acknowledge the nuance in both their gender presentations. as you said, it also feels misogynistic and the fact that a lot of people seem to inherently associate womanhood and victimhood is genuinely concerning, especially with how common that line of thinking is among TERFs and SWERFs. as if, what, gay men can't be victims of abuse? as if abuse is somehow feminizing? (another a real sentiment I have seen in this fandom.)

if I seem heated it's because I kind of am at this point, because this shit is pretty much ruining my fandom experience if I'm honest. you so much as point out that maybe certain sentiments can be taken too far or expressed in ways that are problematic or that one extreme isn't better than another and people just twist your words. the fact that so many people would rather double down on their homophobia instead of simply own up to and dial it down even slightly is very telling. it's so disappointing, because i feel represented by this show but i guess not even canonical, nuanced portrayls of queer characters are safe from your average fandom bullshit

Hi there, thank you for clarifying and I totally understand your frustration. There is a tendency in fandom to wanna break down characters into archetypes or tropes even if the source material doesn't fit into it; Grumpy vs Sunshine, Aggressive top vs innocent virginal bottom (I've seen fans try to fit Louis into this even though the guy used to own and run several brothels 😂), Clueless cinnamon roll vs Life-hardened tough guy, high school quarterback vs loner loser etc. And this feminine vs masculine is just another trope that can often veer into fetishization, especially when it comes to M/M pairings.

I'd say Louis and Lestat both exhibit some of these traits, but they don't fit neatly into any defined category and that's what makes them interesting. They don't conform to heteronormative gender presentations because newsflash—most people don't actually, real humans are a lot more nuanced than that and well-written characters should/will reflect that complexity.

[bimboficationblues]

i haven't read that molly smith book but just from my knowledge of marx your analysis looks wrong to me. i'm aware of two places where marx claims that wage labor is forced labor: the 1844 manuscripts and capital volume 3. i'm going to assume you don't care about the former, so for the latter: "We saw also that capital -- and the capitalist is merely capital personified and functions in the process of production solely as the agent of capital -- in its corresponding social process of production, pumps a definite quantity of surplus-labour out of the direct producers, or labourers; capital obtains this surplus-labour without an equivalent, and in essence it always remains forced labour -- no matter how much it may seem to result from free contractual agreement."

by my count, you are actually succumbing to the appearance that wage labor is the "result of free contractual agreement". marx uses the word "seem" here, and when he does that it tends to mean that it is appearance and not reality. so he's explicitly saying that wage labor is not consensual ("the result of free contractual agreement") but forced labor. as far as i'm aware, we just refer to forced sexual labor as rape. you claimed in your post that this isn't the case so please elaborate

"it’s a framework that can’t distinguish between tricks that were okay or fine to deal with and times where you were physically assaulted or actively manipulated" i don't find this persuasive because, as a student of republican theory, you should know that it's perfectly possible to even have *literal slavery* where the master is benevolent and labor under him is fine compared to labor under a harsher slavemaster. yes, slavery and wage labor are different, but they share the trait of being forced labor, which i think is what matters here. when marx talks about the formal freedom of the wage laborer, that's clearly meant to show that bourgeois notions of freedom (which, it seems to me, is what's being alluded to in the previous quote to distinguish good and bad tricks) are impoverished, the "double freedom" is obviously supposed to be sarcastic/seething and implicitly contrasted to some sort of a real freedom to be realized in communism

obviously, marx didn't want to criminalize sex work, but i'm not seeing how the inference that sex work (or at least FSSW - stuff like pornography is something else i guess, whatever we would want to call forced picture taking/video taping) is rape isn't accurate under his analysis. he and engels regularly disparaginly reffered to prostitution as the "community of women" and they disparagingly compared marriage to it, in both cases making a point about how the normalization of it causes people to have instrumental views of women. marx calls prostitution just one instance of the "general prostitution of the wage laborer", which isn't meant to imply that prostitution is nonproblematic but rather make other wage labor look problematic

I don't really agree with a lot of the assumptions you're bringing to the table here (your interpretation of Marx or that quote, the necessity of being in agreement with Marx or Engels [lol] on all things, the relevance of these points to what I'm talking about, the presumption of my intellectual obligations to anonymous people) and I think maybe reading that Smith & Mac book (or even something more in-depth/less targeted for a popular audience) would be a worthwhile use of time.

again, it's not like it's impossible to use more effective and clear language on this - there's nothing that obligates us to talk in the terms you're defending. is it "violence" for me to have to go to work? did it transform into "sexual violence" when I was doing sex work (or did it lose the sexual because it was virtual, as your parenthetical implies)? maybe! (though probably not, imo.) but I think talking about the weight of money and the market on our reasoning using moral-juridical shorthand has significant costs analytically (clarity, precision), politically (the entire trajectory of this idea as applied in the history of prostitution law), and ethically (in terms of evaluating and taking stock of our actions and harms). in fact the whole reference to pornography sort of troubles this particular narrative (paid sexual labor is rape when it's in-person but not when it's virtual or filmed, despite being produced by the same incentives?), which I think relies on the same idea of sexual labor as unique/mystified compared to other labor that I was criticizing. I'm not pushing a "sex work as empowerment" line here and never have; most other current or former sex workers I know wouldn't. but this is a framework that doesn't clarify, it obscures by reinforcing criminalization and stigmatization, and makes it actively more difficult for sex workers to talk about the range and depth of their experiences in the context of their needs and demands as laborers, both in their own struggle and as part of a larger struggle. it is ethically and politically worthless as a line of thought.

anyway I think this is all quite condescending and in poor taste.

[cryptid-intraining]

Let me introduce you to a strange beef I have with one of the creative members of Criminal Minds.

There was a period of time where I was really into forensic psychology, I was intrigued by the concept of it depicted in Criminal Minds so I started reading forensic psychology textbooks and coursework. There was one section in Criminal Profiling: An Introduction To Behavioral Evidence Analysis by Brent E. Turvey (Fourth Edition) that touched on a now retired FBI profiler called Jim Clemente, in a section about the often flawed and biased nature of the court testimony given by so called "expert profilers". In fact the first half of the textbook is basically just dedicated to explaining how untrustworthy and frequently inaccurate profiling is. Turvey preceded to absolutely rip apart the way Clemente presented his credentials and proof of expertise in the most coldly brutal yet academic manner. For context there were ten whole pages specifically just discussing SSA Clemente's expert witness testimony.

And obviously what I'm getting at is the fact that Clemente was the advising expert on Criminal Minds. He was naturally retired by this point, since I don't think agents are allowed to advise on TV shows when they're still active, but he had worked on numerous high profile (hah) cases before he left the FBI.

Now, onto why I really don't like this dude.

Just looking at the show, it's not clear how much of an influence he had on it, at least not without knowing a little bit about our man Jimmy. Once you do, it becomes clear that he straight up copy and pasted elements of his own life onto the show in some bizarre cool person narrative ego trip.

Have you ever noticed how many times the members of the BAU bring up the case of the DC snipers? It's more than once if you weren't counting. How they often mention how accurate the profile was and generally just use it as a touchstone of "good" profiling?

You'll never guess who created that profile in real life.

They never go so far in the show as to actually name drop Clemente but the constant reference of it is as good as.

We all know and love the team leader of the BAU, right? Good old Aaron Hotchner. His backstory is pretty interesting as well, wouldn't you agree? Prosecutor to BAU profiler, that's neat.

You know who else started as a prosecutor before being recruited as a profiler for the BAU? If you said Robert Ressler you would be wrong but if you said Jim Clemente you would be bang on the money.

There are more, much smaller bits and pieces I've noticed on rewatches. Phrases and metaphors that I've heard Clemente use on video before that he's clearly adding to the scripts (he's done several breakdown style videos on YouTube), it's just a little bit here and there and it irks me to no end.

There isn't anything sinister here. Nothing actually problematic. I just know too much about retired SSA Jim Clemente and I need other people to know about this too because I'm rewatching Criminal Mind and I just can't stop seeing his influences in the shows and it's so annoying.

[taffywabbit]

ok story time let's go

(i guess CW// religious baggage? vaguely cult-y stuff? Mormons?)

so i was laughing at that (presumably bait) tweet that got screenshotted and reposted on here, with the person claiming that y'all is a problematic term used by "bigoted southerners" and someone else dunking on them, because I'm Canadian and I say y'all ALL the time. and like, that by itself wouldn't be too notable - there ARE rural areas of Canada, particularly over in Alberta/Saskatchewan, where the local accent and slang have convergently evolved into something very similar to Texas (and I DID actually grow up in a town like that, though i never picked up the accent myself).

what makes my adoption of y'all particularly odd is that I picked it up in the Caribbean of all places. if you are familiar with my Not-So-Secret Tragic Backstory then you MIGHT know where this is going already.

I was raised in a Mormon family, so when I was 18 i was basically required to go do the missionary thing with the white shirts and ties and nametags. (this is very funny considering my current status as a gay trans furry artist and leftist, but this story isn't really about that.) I got assigned a random location in the world, and was shipped off to the Eastern Caribbean for 2 years. it was very hot and sweaty and overall not a very good time for me, the world's blondest palest scrawniest teen who would have to walk around all day every day in office attire.

ANYWAYS a few months after my mission began, we got a new mission president (the old guy assigned by the church to be in charge of all the missionaries in a region, along with his wife). while he was generally a pretty jovial friendly guy, he also had an occasional tendency to powertrip and institute random arbitrary rule changes whenever he felt that the missionaries weren't performing as well as he'd like and the numbers were down. with missionaries, there's a huge focus on "exact obedience" and "consecration" - this idea that the more single-mindedly devoted you are to Doing Missionary Stuff and Thinking About Jesus and Never Having A Single Fucking Independent Thought In Your Head Or Taking Care Of Your Personal Wellbeing Or Enjoying Yourself, the more god will bless you with like. charisma superpowers or something. to just change people's minds on the spot as you blast them with your Conversion Beam. and therefore anytime that ISN'T happening (y'know, because people have free will, and also because being Mormon is wildly unappealing to any reasonable outsider), it clearly MUST be because those darn young punk missionaries are probably thinking too much about their partners back home or drawing Pokemon fanart or collecting distractingly colourful neckties. can't have that!

so with all that context, I can finally get to the point, which is that one day our mission president decided the reason nobody was knocking on our apartment door begging to get baptized was probably because we, as missionaries, were too casual in our interactions with one another. specifically, he took issue with missionaries calling each other "dude" or "bro" or "man", or referring to each other collectively as "you guys". he insisted that this was "eroding the dignity of our sacred calling as missionaries" and that we should instead strive to call each other "Elder" and "Sister" (the titles used for male and female missionaries respectively) as much as humanly possible.

specifically as an alternative to "you guys", he suggested we start saying "Elders and Sisters" every time we addressed a mixed group of missionaries. which OBVIOUSLY sounds really fucking stupid. and I was in a leadership position at the time, so I had to deliver instruction/training to the missionaries in my area every week AND call them to check-in every night. being a missionary and constantly being commanded to do incredibly stupid arbitrary things really brought out my latent rebellious streak, and there was NO fucking way I was going to say "Elders and Sisters" if i could avoid it - the only people who actually complied with the new rule were immediately identifiable as goody-two-shoes and suck-ups and everyone wanted to push them into the ocean.

so INSTEAD, i and several other missionaries quickly realized that we could simply get away with saying "you all" or just plural "you" with like, a hand gesture to show we meant the group. which naturally just evolved into y'all pretty quickly because it's an incredibly natural contraction of words and it just feels good to say. and the mission president never complained about it, because we weren't using cool youngster slang like "guys" or "dudes" and instead it just sounded like a fun twangy rural affectation. and then i just kinda kept saying it for the rest of my mission, and continued saying it after i returned home and went off to college in the city and all that jazz.

...absolutely no clue where I picked up saying "howdy" all the time tho. i don't have an excuse or backstory for that one lol, it's just fun to say

[agwic]

a ranking of trans representation in weeb shit

I was thinking about trans representation in weeb shit so I figured I might as well just rank all of them, from best to worst. this will obviously only include stuff I've seen.

umineko: read umineko(I have another, incredibgly spoilerific post on this here)

ciconia: it's trying, and might end up better than umineko, but only 1/4 of is out and I've read like half of that but I don't think it's gonna come up more after this point in phase 1. but it has so much potential, and has already discussed a lot more than a lot of these, so I feel like second place is where it can be.

zombieland saga: has a trans character who is part of the main idol group, she is never misgendered, and the struggle of dysphoria is at least somewhat addressed, so overall it does nothing wrong and a lot of things right.

punch line: to be fair it's revealed by someone shouting "he's a girl" but otherwise handled with a lot more tact that is expected in anime. also, he's a trans guy, which makes it cooler. for anyone who has now looked up the synopsis of this anime, no I will not take further questions for why this is so high up in my rankings. however, I will confirm that it was solidly good, and I don't regret watching it.

assassination classroom: nagisa shiota was not written as a trans guy. he was not intended to be a trans guy. however, if you interpret him as a trans guy, his story both makes a lot more sense and is more compelling, and also gives free representation. therefore, I will interpret nagisa shiota as a trans guy and no one can stop me.

wonder egg priority: on the one hand, the most direct adressal of the consequences of transphobia I've seen in weeb shit. on the other hand, this is fully caught up in the thematic disaster that wonder egg priority is, with the accidental gender essentialism combining with showing a bunch of cis girls, and then one trans guy, having, uh, problematic implications. but like, as a standalone episode(which it probably wouldn't make sense as but whatever), this would be a lot higher up, probably in second place. maybe even first, since transphobia is probably a bigger issue for most trans people than dysphoria. also I'm pretty sure this and zombieland saga(and maybe ciconia) were the only of these where the author knew what trans people were and went in with the intention of writing one. though, to be clear, I do not recommend watching this anime.

re:zero: okay we're getting into the zone where the trans representation is solidly bad. now, ferris is a trans girl. I have read the relevant lines in japanese, and her "lol I'm a boy nyaa" shtick is clearly a joke, whereas the lines where she implies she feels gender dysphoria are not jokes. the issue is, she was not written as a trans character. she was written as a boy who wants to be a girl. and, like, ferris has been written as a character who is fine being referred to as a boy, but like, she's also fine being referred to as a girl. and she is also just so extremely trans. like at the least trans, she is a femboy who is incredibly personally invested in her identity as such and refuses to wear masculine clothes, which uh, is valid I suppose. I'm still using she/her pronouns to refer to her because I've gotten used to it and it isn't like japanese has gendered third person pronouns in common usage so whatever.

steins;gate: okay so to be fair I have not finished steins;gate. additionally, whether ruka is actually trans is up in the air, much like ferris, but like most people who consider ferris trans also consider ruka trans so they're probably right. and if they are right, then introducing her by having okarin repeatedly state that she's a guy is like the worst possible thing to do. also I think that ruka is the one who started the whole thing of responding to "is [character name] trans" with "no, [character name] is [character name]" which is the most obnoxious and unhelpful response imaginable and has been used for all the above examples, so even if ruka isn't actually trans, steins;gate deserves this spot for introducing that deflection tactic.

intentionally not included: ranma 1/2. ranma is a man who is sometimes trapped in a woman's body for short periods of time. this really isn't comparable to the experience of trans guys. really all it is is wish fulfillment for trans girls. except it's only barely that since while in a girl's body ranma spends all his time searching for hot water to turn back. so like, ranma 1/2 is a pretty trans show, but you can't really point to any one character and be like "that's the trans one". actually, ranma's childhood friend who he thought was a guy but was actually a girl is probably the transest character. I know about this character because I, like most weeb trans girls, watched way too much of this show for the aforementioned wish fulfillment. 97 episodes to be precise. there are so many better things I could have done with my time.

[theheightofdishonor]

BL/QL Ask game : The Ugly, the Bad and the Worst

by @clara-maybe-ontheroad

This looked fun and it's been a second since i've talked on Tumblr about what i've been watching.

The categories are :

Worst soundtrack / weirdest song choice in a BL

Anytime they’ve made First Kanaphan sing. This includes Moonlight Chicken’s theme song, it includes Only Friends and it includes the Eclipse OS. The boy’s already talented as hell, why must he also be forced to sing?

Most cringe-inducing line (cute)

Gun’s roar in My School President. It’s adorable but it makes me cringe

Most cringe-inducing line (actually bad)

I was going to try to name scenes I hadn't done before but the bathtub scene in VV is still unmatched. For those of you who haven't watched the show, there’s this scene early on in Vice Versa where they’re sitting in a bathtub and Puen’s like “oh your heart looks like it’s been unused, let me wipe away the dust from it” and it’s so cringe, to the point that I still remember it vividly. I also think of this as the point where the show took a turn for the worse. My household refers to it daily.

Most stupid decision made by a character

When Wen Kexing decided to fake his death and expected Zhou Zishu to just shrug and move on with his life. What a fucking dumbass.

Worst plot line

In Tharntype 2 when Type made that whole plot to kidnap Fiat and make him think he’s going to be raped. It was so out-of-pocket and made Type’s character 10x worse than he’d ever been.

The most problematic show you've watched

Recently? I watched Double Mints which isn't a show but is ql. It was great, very fun.

A show people love but you find bad

2gether is bland and boring, I said what I said. But that's a basic opinion to have on tumblr so I'll admit to finding La Pluie boring. I tried to like it, I really did but it's a no. I also couldn't get into GAP the series which was devastating.

A show people find bad but you will defend

SCOY ofc is excellent. I have seen people criticize aspects of Bed Friend and I think that show was very good for the most part.

A show that is just objectively bad but you enjoyed it

The Shipper just is genuinely a bad show. I'd go as far to say that it's malicious though perhaps not intentionally so. Regardless, I did very much enjoy it. Tharntype too.

A bad show that you kept watching because you were intrigued/fascinated

Oh there's a lot I could name for this. VV obviously. 609 bedtime story wasn't necessarily bad but it was mediocre and disappointing so I suppose that counts. I liked the concept of My Sweet Dear, enemies to lovers is always my jam, especially when it's food-related but it wasn't that good.

A bad show that you kept watching because you were horny

Tharntype and WRU?. I didn't initially plan on watching either but I was so desperate after BBS to find something with good chemistry and I heard these had that so.

A bad show that you kept watching because of that one character

I watched the entirety of I Will Knock You because I was charmed by Noey.

The character that ruined a show the most

Puen in VV is still my least favourite love interest ever in a ql but Mork from FUTS also comes close.

Most awful character that you hated

The stepbrother from history 4. I like a good toxic relationship and obsessive love interests but he was too much even for me. (though as is the way of things, i think i've become slightly more fond of him over time, why am i like this).

Most awful character that you loved

Everyone in Only Friends, especially Nick. And the office worker Mitsuo from Double Mints. And Type from Tharntype. I like awful characters sometimes, alright.

A character that wasn't awful but that you just don't like

Neungdiao and Palm from Never Let Me Go both intensely irritated me for different reasons. This next one is also going to be unpopular but I couldn't stand Techno in Tharntype either.

A hero that should have been a villain

I'm still annoyed that Kinn turned into a classic bl protagonist midway through instead of staying terrible. Also Mork is a villain and should be treated as such.

A morally bad character you're into

Charn from Laws of Attraction is so my type that my wife laughed and called me predictable.

A morally bad character you're not into and you wish people would stop being into

I honestly don't care what other people are into but I find Vegas from KP overrated.

The show that disappointed you the most

Recently, Step By Step. I had very high hopes for that show. I've also given up on Dangerous Romance and have very little hopes that it can redeem itself.

The Worst Show of Them All Because of Your Own Reasons

The Bad Buddy Our Skyy eps. It's the one show that I 100% wish I had never saw. Did irreparable damage.

Well on that note, this was super fun to fill out. I'd tag people but I don't think i'm familiar enough with the ql community here on tumblr to do so.

[kaioshin-kai]

👬

send an emoji and i'll tell you my opinion on...

— 👬 shipping

• NGL, as a traumatized person I'm not a fan of problematic ships. They just make me sad and uneasy, sometimes it can be triggering. If you call stuff like selfcest (which isn't an existing thing IRL) and age gaps between consenting adults "problematic", you don't know what "problematic" means BTW.

You personally disliking a ship ≠ Problematic. Please don't spread harmful misinfo.

Also please don't harass people over ships.

• In RP. actually don't care about chem, if it works it works. I can ship something fast if it goes really smooth. However, I'm pretty selective & I have a MxM pref. I also like some FxF, I'm most picky with het ships. It doesn't mean I don't do them but… preferences… lol

• I prefer ships that have a more interesting dynamic. Like, small conflicts or the characters have some contrast or are similar and have goals. I dislike both overly ideal ships or overly toxic ships.

Though I admit that some ships I like make no sense and are just complete AU's lol.

• Ship "collectors" make me uncomfortable. I block OC accounts that give off those vibes. It's nothing personal; I'm simply not comfortable with it.

• That being said, I make exceptions of writers that are able to offer double ups bc I think it's only fair if you can offer OC x Canon in return.

• Probably a hot take but I'm just not keen with people who try to "un-gay" obviously queer-coded characters.

• I definitely have some favorite DB ships I have total brainrot for! 🥰

• I'm only multiship bc it's too hard to singleship. Most writers turn inactive after a while. 😔

I'd be totally up for singleshipping or something semi/limited. I like the idea of having more meaningful/dedicated ships!

I guess I'll put something like "main ship(s)" in OC bios.

• When I say shipping, I generally refer to romantic and or sexual ships. But I think platonic shipping is valid too, though.

• That being said; I'm actually most interested in roleplaying platonic bonds!

[kim-ruzek]

I hate that Kevin is still in the same that he was in when we met him. The writers have done nothing for him, and they should actually be so ashamed, as well as the people who defend it.

They only use Kevin for crappy performative storylines which never go anywhere or when they want him to interact with Burzek and Makayla. And yes, when it is a police show, and the lead police officer is Hank Voight, with people like Ruzek (I think Adam has somewhat improved, but it was just in season 8 where he went off at Kevin when Kim was missing where he told Kevin to put aside all that crap when referring to racism and take a day off from being a proud reformist. He also threw the first punch. There is no justification for the way Adam acted).

The treatment of Kevin in terms of what he does and, usually, doesn't get is something I feel SOOO passionate about and I'll always get on my soap box to talk about the injustice.

But saying that, I do think it's a little unfair to say the writers haven't done anything for him - they haven't done much and honestly it's under the bare minimum in a lot of ways and I'll never deny how fucked up that is, but they did give him his building and showed us how he was being a force for good in his neighbourhood. Which, especially as i rewatched season one recently and he always had that entrepreneur streak to him, I do think is one of the best plot points they could've given him, imo. That, and his father's storyline because I truly do adore that storyline.

The problem is that now going into eleven years of plot lines and a very recent plot point is the only thing I can talk about positively without any disclaimers or annoyances is just so very wrong. Because really, it does feel like often we've barely seen him have ANY character growth. Which in one way isn't neccesarily bad because he's always, from the very start, been a Good character. Raised his siblings, had aspirations, a good friend and a hard working cop, so he didn't have any 'bad' traits to grow out of. But there's still ways to give characters development (for example, his building) and in these ten years, that has been extremely lacking.

And I will forever be mad about that the only plot points for character development has been race based and not even most of the time in a good, non performative way so I'm with you on that.

But finally, I will say I did LOVE Kevin and his treatment in season ten. He got multiple episodes, we got to see more of him just being him, we actually got to see him in burzek's stories which as their best friend he should be and he felt like, for the first time imo in a very long time, a multi dimensional character who wasn't just there to be black.

Obviously one good season doesn't erase all the injustices been dealt to him, or even remotely balanced the scales and the season still had it's deeply problematic aspects that I will never shut up about (i.e. Kev being the one to shoot the racist bastard) but it does make me optimistic that we're heading towards a time where Kevin will be treated more as a multi-faceted character, ESPECIALLY as this season will be Tracy's last.

I'm just hoping we'll continue to get more fleshed out aspects of his life, beyond the building, his siblings and father. And more stuff that could have been formed for anyone, white or black, because Kev is also just a human and not just a black human.

Also voight can go fuck himself, my feelings for the character may be complicated, but that's one thing I will always feel.

Thank you for sending me this ask!!

[sweet-peach-studios]

A crazy Mikoto Theory!

Hey guys I'm new to MILGRAM (and reddit) unfortunately i missed the first voting but I had this crazy thought recently that we probably got mikoto and his mv all wrong?

( Bear with me here bc I really think I'm onto something with this. )

During the second trial announcement jackalope confirming mikotos DiD struck me as odd. This was really the only piece of Canon lore we've gotten and its very early, if this truly was mikoto faking for sympathy or whatever reason they definitely wouldn't have confirmed DID so early. It was almost as if the creators were trying to steer us away from that theory and I think why is because its way off. If we kept fighting the DiD theory bc it could end up being a problematic representation of a real disorder and chose to vote him guilty again based on the fact that he might possibly be faking we would condem him without even hearing him out. This lead me to rewatch his 1st trial with the thought of "if wether or not he does or does not have DiD" isn't what were supposed to be looking for then what are we looking for?" I don't think the creators expected the he's faking theory to get as popular as it did but the MV was obviously made with something hidden inside (that's the whole point of the game) so what did they want us to look for? Well..exactly what we were looking for in the other 8 MVs before his, who he killed and why.

Now I don't know who he killed but I'm thinking the video was hinting twords more why and what happened after it happened. This is when I started to really analyze the lyrics (English anyway)

The first line

"if I could laugh if I could go back id play dead even though I'm alive right?"

This line right off the bat was interesting as it sounds immediately remorseful, if I could go back and change things I would pretend to be dead instead. Considering this line was shown on top of what I'm assuming is his murder he's probably talking about what happens. But who's "he?"

(excuse my terms if anything comes off as offensive to anyone with did just let me know!)

Red(ill call the more murderous mikoto) looks to be the one to sing on the more aggressive parts of the song

  "if I could end, if I could stop, how long will this dream go on?" More remorse but this time with a reference to a dream?

"You don't have to keep it in, hide it away, I will save me"

Here's where my true theory comes in...this music video isn't mikoto swapping back and forth during all of his murders its Mikoto in the process of creating Blue (the mikoto we all know) to cope with what he did.

  The video isn't taking place of the course of mikoto killing severL people ( serial killer theory) but over the course of a few hours where the guilt gets to be too much to bear.

You don't have to keep in what you did anymore you can hide away with the new innocent alter, I will save me from this depression.

After the scene if him sitting after the murder is the first time we see blue in a cloudy dreamy space but we never see blu outside of this headspace most likely due to him not really being out yet red the original is still fronting. Blue "wakes up" so to speak confused and it seems almost like parts of the song are explaining to blue whats happening while still keeping him in the dark.

"I won't forgive you even though I'm right"

This line is repeated often and has been speculated to mean many things, mikoto breaking the 4th wall and talking to es, or him talking to red for getting him into this mess. But I think its actually Red addressing the person he killed. Think about it, this all started with the murder though I'm not sure what led up to it its likely that what happened with victim is why mikoto created blue in the first place.

I'll go in depth with some lyrics to try and translate what I think he's saying

"If I could change, can I do it?, I wonder from when I started to gave up"

He's wondering if he can become innocent again if he can guilt to stop eating him up, to feel something again, finally he has hope

If I could loose it, if I could choose, is this selfish?" Thats too much isn't it?"

If I could loose this guilt if I could choose to be innocent again, but isn't that selfish? This is crazy...

"Maybe its ok to keep living, split in half, make that heart beat"

The alter will give him reprieve if I split in half ill feel better. (Keep in mind I don't actually think he made an alter consciously but I do think the video is showing blue become more and more aware as reds guilt gets deeper.)

Then immediately as red starts to accept it blue Appears again confused and afraid.

Then the aggressive voice is now in the blue headspace red is now fully aware of blue and has come to terms with him being there

"Its like what's wrong isn't wrong, I'm already the fake one"

Sounds like red is convincing himself that this is ok, he can't be any worse than me he's already fake so now I can live without guilt of what I did.

The scene i the bath i think is the climax of the creation and reds acceptance of blue.

"I'm probably not to blame its probably nothing I'm probably just having a bad dream." "I just have to wake up"

Back to the referencing of a dream, Red is now allowing us to front and thinks of his life as a bad dream, (when blue arrives it'll all be over i just need to "wake up".)

Then Once again as he wakes up blue is seen even more confused and little desperate, I think blue knows there's something wrong he just can't figure out what.

And red is now in the hesdspace no longer fronting but is still guilty, "please let me out of here"  now he's fully invested in blue thinking that nothing is wrong "ill forgive you if you tell me that its a lie"

He wants us, es, and the victim to recognize that blue is innocent he will forgive the victim for creating him if you realize this.

Anyway I think this has some merit mostly because I think its a bad idea to keep pushing the idea that he's lying now. Haha let me know what you all think!