you think you’ve seen the most annoying that letterboxd has to offer and then you look at the reviews of blockers (2018) staring the one the only kathryn love newton and see MULTIPLE people calling it homophobic because it was like... a comedy with a gay storyline. Because apparently we can’t be funny and gay at the same time. Because That’s Problematic

Do you think that when dan says “I want more I want you and if u don’t feel the same way I don’t think we should be seeing each other” as dan putting a condition on their friendship and having ulterior motives. And that she only got with him out of desperation. That she only views him romantically at her lowest and that they had to completely deconstruct Blair’s character to make it believable that she would be with dan. That Blair in s5 isn’t best, is anti Blair. That dan took advantage of her

To continue, that all Blair like attributes are gone when she’s with dan and as soon as she starts getting her groove back, dan feels insecure. That her characterization and emotional state in s5 isn’t “mature” it’s painful. That Blair was professing her love for chuck a few episodes before and was using dan as a distraction from her life. Sorry this is so anti dair it’s just a take I saw, thought you’d give a good explanation (2/2)

....wow, who is saying this? 

okay, first part. ulterior motives? huh?? im boggled as to how much of a rock someone would have to live under to say this unironically and actually mean it. keeping dan & blair and television and fiction aside, sometimes, romantic feelings hurt! if they’re very unreciprocated & intense, they’re painful. there’s a reason we have words like “heartache” and “lovesick.” like pining as an emotion IS painful. and when you keep spending time with someone you love, it becomes that much harder to get over them. 

dan telling blair he can’t be her friend because he has romantic feelings for her is not an ulterior motive, it’s him being honest with her about his feelings, and it’s him choosing himself over her. it’s him saying “i can’t keep making myself miserable to make you happy.” 

i don’t think she only got with him out of desperation. they had common interests like movie screenings and viewing art galleries and other pretentious artsy kid stuff. they were spending time with each other and enjoying that time spent together. they were having deep conversations about art and history and whatever else. they were intellectually matched but they also had fun together, and unlike c&b, they didn’t need to harass other people as part of their ‘games’ to have fun. like: dan and talking to dan was enough fun for blair.

dan took advantage of her........... by trying to make her happy when she was sad? oh wow how evil. he should’ve let her stay miserable, that would’ve been noble / s

dan WANTED blair to succeed. he developed feelings for her when they were at W, arguably before she’d “lost her groove”. he believed in her when she didn’t believe in herself (despicable b, “if you could only see what i see.”) dan feels insecure when she starts getting her blair like attributes back? nah. dan knows who blair is. he’s known who she was for years (”google revenge, you get blair waldorf dot com.”) 

ugh, i don’t want to talk about this anymore. i feel like whoever came up with this analysis sat down and went “i have decided to HATE dan humphrey and LOVE chuck and blair!” which is whatever, it’s fine, they can do their own thing in their own space. gg as a show is morally grey enough that anyone can paint anyone else as a villain. i can write a thinkpiece on how nate archibald is the worst character ever, complete with citations. i’m not doing that, but im giving that example to say that gg canon is one of the most fluid i’ve seen in any fandom, and it’s easy to look at it the way YOU want to look at it.

 im just taking their analysis with a pinch of salt. or a whole bagful, idk.