”you want everything to be spelt out to you!” “The show doesn’t need to explicitly spell it out for you!” “You can just infer it!”

This is the exact same defense I always get whenever I argue with Viv fans when I criticize Viv’s piss-poor writing. And the thing is this IS true; shows don't need to explicitly spell things out to the audience, as there are conclusions that the viewer can draw on their own without having to be explicitly told by the text, usually by the text giving direct hints to that explanation.

The problem is that Viv fans' definition of inferring isn't "drawing conclusions on our own with direct explicit hints given from the text that is the canon explanation the story wants you to come to" it's "making shit up to try and explain and/or justify Viv's terrible writing".

There are three times where I got this defense when arguing with HH/HB fans all three times I lost several brain cells in the process.

The first time was in a discord server where I posted an HB episode tier list and put Truth Seekers in C tier (the mediocre one). One of users commented on this and I explained my reasoning why I thought the episode was meh. One of these reasons was the plot hole of why the Dhorks didn't send the footage they already had to the government.

The user then countered that with "how do you know didn't send that old footage?". Well, the reason why I know that is because the episode gives no actual indication that they sent it, and when I said that the user countered that with "because there was also no indication that they didn't send the footage". And then after that the argument spiraled into both of us repeating the same counterarguments over and over again.

The user says that it's logical for the audience to assume they sent the footage because it's the logical thing to do cuz why would they keep it. Which, ok, you can assume that they did send the footage but there's no indication of that within the story. This does not change the fact that this is an unanswered question that the story itself didn't answer, did they or did they not send the footage?

That's a pretty important question to answer and the show can't just leave it there. And then the user tells me "you don't need to be told, Its in your face how they act". There is no way to infer if they did send the footage because the story gives a SINGLE hint that they do, and the story DOES need to say if it they sent it or not.

This is not inferring. This is making shit up to explain Viv's writing for her. Did they or did they not send the footage? This is a big question that the episode does not answer even though this is a major plot hole and it can't just leave it hanging there for fans to just guess. The episode gave no indication that they sent the footage, so I have no reason to believe that they did. You can't infer ANYTHING from this.

This explanation is simply something made up, not a conclusion that's given direct hints from the show. If the next never said it happened, it did not fucking happen. This assumption is literally just headcanon.

The next argument was from an ask I got calling me media literate for my point about how fans shouldn't have to create fan theories to explain Viv's writing for her and Viv should explain her world-building herself. It stated that the explanation for why sinners are confined to the pride ring (making the exterminations more efficient/easier) is the clear explanation that the show doesn't have to spell out because 1) The show says that there are annual exterminations which aren't viable without the confinement and 2) Lucifer gets control over which ring his subjects go to.

Both of these explanations suck, here's why.

The exterminations simply being there does not explain the confinement. Also, this explanation doesn't work to begin with as I've talked about before

Lucifer having control over where he sends his subjects to doesn't inherently explain why he sends them to the pride ring specifically.

The "sinners are confined to the pride ring to make exterminations easier" was a fan theory created by the fans to explain this because the show itself didn't bother giving an answer. That's bad world-building.

The show itself needs to explain these things rather than having fans create explanations for it. There isn't any way to infer that because the show never once gives any hints that this is the reason. And, like I said before, the explanation doesn't even work anyway.

There is no way to infer why the sinners are confined to the pride ring at all, this explanation is once again a headcanon. But when I pointed this out, the anon said that I just want everything spelled out for me.

The third and final instance of this is with our good ol friend truffhollowell. Ya know, the person who's been going around on Hazbin critical posts spouting nothing but complete bullshit.

This argument was under this post about why Vaggie's turn around made 0 sense. In the post truff tried countering my argument with "uuuuh, actually, not all murderers are heartless monsters!" even though that is explicitly what the exorcists are shown to be.

They then go around and say that Vaggie could've been thinking "how could a child end up in hell" and she realizes Heaven's corrupt systems and develops her own identity (at least that's what I remember them saying since they deleted all of their replies once they lost the argument lmao)....even though there is NO indication within the show that this is what's happening.

This is not inferring. This is just a headcanon. But truff says that you CAN infer it because...child murder is bad...

...umm...WHY TF WOULD THE EXORCISTS GIVE A SHIT IF CHILD MURDER WAS BAD IF THAT CHILD IS A FUCKING SINNER????? And THEN they hit me with that same fucking claim of "oh, you want shows to spell things out for you!".

Ya, well, guess what, I can't infer any of this because that's not what's happening. This is not what's happening in the scene, this is just a headcanon truff made up.

There's more to their arguments than just that but that was the general point they were making.

I'm so sick of always getting this stupid-ass defense because NO, I DON'T want everything spelled out for me, I want things to actually make sense. I'm looking at specifically what the text itself is saying, the information that it gives out and what's happening within the show.

Not your headcanon you made up to explain Viv's terrible writing. None of these explanations are people infering things based on direct evidence from the show. They are just headcanons/theories with nothing in the text hinting towards it.

So, to anyone who is going to give me the "you can just infer it yourself!" excuse to defend these shows whenever I criticize them...

Shut the fuck up.

was completely mystified for days by my cousins being like “let’s watch a movie!” and then BOTH OF THEM proceeding to stare at their phones throughout the entire film, glancing at the screen only whenever the dialogue or a musical cue implied that something Important was happening, only to realize that the issue is that modern films don’t rely on nearly as many purely visual elements as older films did, so my poor cousins missed over 50% of the jokes because i didn’t think to warn them that, when watching films directed by people who got their start before films had dialogue, you actually need to WATCH them to understand what is happening.

I was thinking about how the run away with me au Robin and Steve "should we get divorced?" conversation comes about:

Theyre about 23 and Robin comes home in tears after another break up. The reason: Robin had asked her girlfriend of 8 months, Lorraine to move in with her and steve. Lorraine assumes this means steve is moving out and when Robin clarifys that no Steve is staying, he's an important part of her life theyre married for chists sake. Well Lorraine doesnt take that well, says she isnt going to spend her life playing second fiddle to Steve.

This isnt the first time a relationship had ended for either of them because a partner hadnt been able to accept that Steve and Robin were a package deal. Things had been especially rough for them romantically in the first couple years of their marriage. It wasnt until a particularly awful screaming match between Robin, Steve and Steves first real boyfriend, that they were able to admit their relationship was incredibly codependent and unhealthy. Steves boyfriend had been upset when Steve had cancelled on him for the 3rd time in a row because of a Robin Emergency™️ and decided to confront Robin about it while Steve was in class. Things escalated quickly when Steve came home early from class to find them arguing and immediately took Robins side. The argument and Steves relationship ended with a slammed door, a lot of tears and a new rift in Robin and Steves relationship.

It took a lot of long conversations with Carina and Marjorie, Steve working through his toxic masculinity enough to go see a therapist - He and Robin made a deal that theyd both go talk to someone about, you know almost dieing "do you think me being fucked up by what happened at starcourt makes me weak steve?" "No of course not!" "Well then why would it make you weak?" - and a summer spent apart (Robin taking an internship in rome to study latin) for them to sit down and have a long conversation about boundaries and ground rules for how they would navigate their relationship as well as dating in the future.

Steve and Robin agreed to both take a break from dating while they worked through their respective traumas, and figured out how to navigate their relationship in a healthy way. Things werent easy, the both of them occasionally backsliding into unhealthy behaviors, more than a few nights where one of them spent the night with Carina and Marjorie in order to have space from eachother. But eventually they get their shit figured out and decide to brave the world of dating again. Steve and Robin both have their share of flings and short lived relationships but nothing so far seemed to stick. That is until Robin met Lorraine.

Lorraine was funny, sweet and a little bitchy. They had immediately clicked after being introduced by some mutual friends from school. Robin really thought things with Lorraine were going to work out. Steve and Lorraine had gotten on like a house on fire, she had slipped into Robin and Steves dynamic easily, trading jokes and light hearted jabs, cooking breakfast together on days Lorraine would stay at their apartment. Robin had fallen hard and fast, she thought she had finally found someone who accepted that her and Steve were a package deal. So 8 months in when Lorraines lease was ending Robin (with agreement from steve) asked Lorraine to move in. Things don't go to plan. Robins dreams of a future with lorraine are shattered. She goes home broken hearted.

After Robin has cried herself out, her and steve cuddled together on the couch Steve is the one to broach the topic. Robin immediately bursts back into tears before he calms her back down again saying he doesnt want a divorce but he also doesnt want to hold Robin back, doesnt want to be the reason she cant find happiness. Robin replys by saying if anyone is holding the other back its obviously her, steve gave up everything to protect her afterall. Steve calls bullshit -years of therapy and he can finally say that word without cringing- says he would do it all again in a heartbeat, that she doesn't owe him anything. They stay up all night talking about it, about what the both of them want from their futures. Neither can see a future without the other. they're platonic life partners, one day they'll find their someones who can accept that and if not well, they'll always have eachother.

Of course they do find their someones in the form of a charming if infuriating metal head and a brilliant, sweet, and badass reporter. Through trial and error the four of them figure out how to navigate life together. They all live happy ever after.

Robin and Steve celebrate 30 years of marriage with divorce papers. They'll always love eachother but now they dont need a marriage to keep eachother safe. They dont need a marriage to stay as platonic life partners. They have eachother and they have Eddie and Nancy. They have everything they need.

-

Lmk what you think! I'd love to have someone to scream with about this AU and bounce ideas off of :D

Tagging by request <3 @ramyayaya

I haven't looked at any other game info at all bc I want experiences to be unspoiled, but the curiosity of the radio shoutout got the better of me (which I think is easily missable anyway? that's how I'm justifying myself), and it made me notice, the way evrart is described in the narration vs kim lol. oh harry's like, Into Him into him.

While I'm 6am textposting, I wish to talk a bit about The Warp Effect and consent, and some compelling subtextual storytelling I think we're getting that I haven't seen discussed yet. TW: rape!

It feels really significant to me that the first episode of a story which is so conscientious about its portrayal of sex and consent

1. Opened with a casual, never-commented-on rape*

2. Closed with a time warp event precipitated by yes, a magic camera, but narratively by Alex having gotten pushed AWAY from the fully consensual sex he was about to have, into drunken shenanigans he visibly has little conscious control over and a morning after where he's informed (in a humiliating, kind of sexually-tinged-hazing way) of sex he has no memory of.

*In case I'm not being clear, I mean Meow hopping onto Alex's dick after he told her he wanted to stop. Not some "sex work is rape" shit or something.

Like!!! Yes there is a story about religious trauma and purity culture being told here, but to me it also feels like whatever his mother intended with the purity ring, Alex's path to breaking his sex curse may require realizing he has to 'wait' to actually want and choose to have sex, instead of being thrust (violently, casually, drunkenly, time warpedly, or any other way) into it.

Which would be suuuuch a cool subversion of the sex comedy genre as a whole. Right now he's having pussy and dick literally thrown at him, and the tone is very jokey (ha ha you're a renowned vagina doctor now! have fun!), but he is still v much having to negotiate consent for himself and his partners!

We see it explicitly with Kat - he doesn't want to let her fuck him thinking he's this other version of himself she has a pre-existing relationship with - but I'm wondering if he'll realize it also applies to his relationship with Army, where even if the other Alex consented to Army smooching him whenever he wants, he's allowed to want the guy he still sees as his high school bully to quit being so handsy.

Anywayyyy I sometimes get nervous I'm reading too much into everything, but if the story is at all aware that Alex has learned to prioritize consent for his partners but so far, not so much for himself, there's a lot of rich narrative there to explore.

The hardest part I think is deciding which of the 300 possible interpretations of Red Hood Jason I want to go with

"Not actually out but also no one who sees me doesn't think that there's something going on" is a fun state to be in

Because I am aware of how people operate on the Internet: courtesy of being about to post a fic with some uhhhhh much-maligned subject matter, I may turn off anonymous asks for a few weeks.

re: wyll's lack of a sex scene

"its nice that theres an ace option" there isnt. you still have sex, larian just fades to black after 3 seconds of fully-clothed kissing. if you dont want your character to fuck, you can say no. if you dont want to say no but for some reason still dont want to see anything, the game has a nudity censor option

"he was just lowest priority because, out of all the romanceable companions, he puts the lowest priority on sex" lower priority than haarlep? than the drow twins? emperor? the woman who owns his soul gets full-frontal but his own scene cuts to black before he even takes his shirt off. larian puts in the content they think players would enjoy, and seemingly just saw the option to fuck wyll as unimportant to players

"it just wouldnt mesh with his character, hes too romantic" okay but he literally does fuck offscreen in his romance route, so it would in fact be in character for him. also sex isnt inherently impure. this is a less sex-positive take than the generally accepted one in the mormon church (i would know, im exmo). have you never heard the euphemisms "making love" and "intimacy" before? this is a weird take and youre weird for having it

do i, as a lesbian, personally want to see his cock and balls? no. do i think it Says Something when larian just assumes that no one wants horny wyll content in a famously horny game? yes

sometimes im like. god. the lgbt community as a whole is so WEIRD to trans guys. they always act so weird. criminalise masculinity so much that they act like we’re evil for transitioning. then i’m like. yeah they’re just as weird if not weirder to trans women. the whole male-socialised radfem shit some people go on about. always the targets of oppression because theyre women and therefore dogpiled so easily but so many stupid fucking cis people will still see them as possessing something inherently male & therefore be so weird because, again, intense criminalisation of anything remotely socially ‘masculine’. THEN im like yeah this applies to trans amab people in general, like nonbinary amab people. THEN i go… and nonbinary afab people get treated sooo fucking weird as well where it’s this fine line between infantilisation (too girl, young weak & stupid) and criminalisation for somehow pushing transition on young innocent girls (again… anything vaguely masculine is now inherently evil apparently). so i’m like. jesus fucking christ we just can’t treat trans people normally huh

Glitch after being mistaken for a middle school girl for the 7th time in a day

You may notice I frequently comment on the assumptions people make about animal facilities based on their branding. Frequently, people assume accredited facilities are inherently better for animals than unaccredited facilities, or assume sanctuaries are inherently more moral / better at caring for their animals than zoos.

I want to show you an example of why I am always, always skeptical of these assumptions.

If you’re in the California area, you might have heard about Hank the Tank - who is actually a Henrietta, btw - the 500 pound nuisance bear from Lake Tahoe who broke into 21 homes in search of food. She was recently captured by wildlife officials and moved to a sanctuary in Colorado. The Wild Animal Sanctuary has three main facilities, two in Colorado and one in TX. To give you some context, it’s the biggest carnivore sanctuary in the country - they advertise somewhere between 300-500 animals, mostly large carnivores, between their properties. It’s where most of the Tiger King cats went. It’s PETA’s preferred placement for confiscated exotic animals. So, obviously, it’s got to be great, right? Except… take a look at what they posted about Henrietta’s arrival.

Here’s their post about Henrietta’s arrival at the Refuge, the large facility in Colorado that isn’t open to the public. Let’s take a closer look at that food trough…

What do we see here? An entire rotisserie chicken that is either blackened or highly seasoned, and a whole ham. Maybe a second chicken underneath the pile, I can’t quite tell. The sanctuary gets the majority of their bear food donated from groceries stores once it’s past the sell-by date, so we know those are older meats and they’re full of a ton of salt. Then, for fruit and veg, there’s a cantaloupe, mango, corn, avocado, grapes, and apples. Maybe a pepper or two, it’s hard to tell. That’s a lot of sugar and not a lot of fiber or roughage.

But… on top of it and to the right… are those Twizzlers?

Yes.

The sanctuary confirmed on Facebook that they fed this recently rescued obese bear what looks like almost an entire pack of Twizzlers.

I don’t know of any world in which it’s appropriate to feed candy to a bear. Maybe a piece or two as a really high value reinforcer for hard behaviors (that isn’t relevant here, it’s openly against this sanctuary’s ethos to do any husbandry or medical training). An entire pack of Twizzlers is just appalling. But it’s not uncommon for this facility! I have a book written about their operations and animal care (that I bought at their gift shop this spring) which openly discusses how the bears get fed bread, doughnuts, marshmallows, and all sorts of incredibly unhealthy food that comes in with the grocery donations.

But hey, this is apparently fine for the bears, according to the sanctuary’s founder. He was quoted in that same book as saying “Bears are the only animal I know of that can eat insane amounts of sugar and it never hurts them. It does not hurt their organs. They do not get clogged arteries. They do not have high blood pressure. In the wild they eat all these sweet berries in the fall, and they convert sugar to fat… so the more sugar they get the better… we would all love to have a system like that!”

Now while it’s true that bears have physiological adaptations that modulate their insulin production and sensitivity in ways that appear to prevent them from from developing diabetes, that does’t mean it’s healthy for them to regularly eat processed carbohydrates, sugar, and general junk food. And remember - Henrietta gained her fame because of how incredibly overweight she already is, and because she was seeking out human food, According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, a healthy weight for a normal adult black bear is between 100-300 pounds. So, obviously, the best thing to do is… continue to feed her candy.

Then, later on in the book, it details how they have to bribe a camel to sit tight for a regular medical examination (since they don’t train for medical behaviors) by letting him drink a can of Mountain Dew each time.

If a zoo was known publicly to be feeding their animals Mountain Dew or a couple Twizzlers - even just once, on a rare occasion - they’d be eviscerated in the media and by public opinion. But feeding out inappropriate junk food appears to be a pretty common practice at this place, and it just goes unscrutinized because everyone assumes sanctuaries are inherently better for animals.

So, long story short, never make assumptions about the quality of a facility based on it’s branding or accreditation. (TWAS is accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries). If you have concerns about the ethics or practices of a facility, always try to put your preconceptions aside, go and see for yourself, and think critically about what you see and what you’re told.

Hi Jonny, if you don't mind I have a question about the TMA TTRPG! So I noticed that on the player's guide there's this guy, who my friends and I assumed is probably Jon. If it is him, is this a canon design, or more like some of the non-canon stuff that's in the merch?

So, I hope you don't mind if i use this ask to go a bit off on one. I'm not specifically dragging you (I'm actualy glad you asked, as I've thinking about posting on the topic), but all the discussion around the RPG art and how "official" or "canon" it might be is, to my mind, slightly silly.

First up, is it "official" art? I mean, yeah, its art for the officially licenced Magnus Archives RPG. This means Monte Cook Games have commissioned someone to do a beatiful illustration broadly based on some aspect, episode or character from the podcast and it goes in the book. But that's kinda all it means. "Official" is a legal distinction, not an artistic one. The fact that it's in an official product doesn't make it any less one artist's cool interpretation of a character that has only been vaguely described in audio.

Second, is it Jonathan Sims the Archivist? I mean, it's probably based on the idea of him, but it's certainly not set in stone. When we were first discussing art with MCG, we advised that character pictures be more vibes-based and not explicitly tied to specific people (ie. a portrait inspired by Tim wouldn't be captioned "This is Tim" and wouldn't be placed opposite a profile for Tim Stoker, archival assistant.) This was mainly because we wanted the artists to have plenty of freedom to interpret and not feel too tied down by the need to know everything about the podcast. But, to be frank, it was also because we know that there are a few fans out there that are kinda Not Chill about what they've personally decided these characters look like and can get a bit defensive over depictions that differ.

It strikes me as particularly strange to be having this discussion about art that's for a roleplying game book. Something that's explicitly and solely designed to give you the ability to play in your version of the Magnus universe. The idea that this is the thing where we'd for some reason try to immutably establish unchangable appearances for these characters would be pretty funny if some folks weren't taking it so seriously. Similarly ridiculous is the idea we could reasonably have said to MCG "We'd love for you to make a huge beautiful RPG book of our setting... Just make sure you don't depict any of the iconic characters or events from it!"

But... is it "canon"? Now, to my mind, this highlights a real weakness in a lot of fandom thinking around "canon", which is that it generally has no idea what to do with adaptations. All adaptation is interpretation, and relies on taking a work and letting new creatives (and sometimes the same ones) have a different take on it. Are the appearances of the Fellowship of the Ring in the LOTR movies "canon"? How much, if at all, does that matter? Neil Gaiman's book Neverwhere was originaly a 90s BBC series made with a budget of 50 pence; is anyone who makes fanart of Mr Croup that doesn't look like the actor Hywel Bennet breaking canon? What about the novel that describes the character differently? Or the officially licenced Neverwhere comic where he looks like neither of them? Which is his "canon appearance"?

Canon is an inherently messy concept, and while it is useful for a creative team trying to keep continuity and consistency within a creative work, for thinking about anything beyond that it tends to be more hinderance than help.

Anyway, all this is to say that the above picture and all the others in the RPG are exactly as canon as every other picture you've ever seen of the Archivist.

I have concern that I may still be technically zionist despite claiming to be pro-palestine. This is because I knew very little about Palestine when October 7th happened, so in the time since I have been reluctant to have a stance on a two-state or one-Palestinian-state solution. I know now that almost all of Isreal is stolen land and recognize Isreal only exists due to colonialism, it took me a long time to learn that but I know it now. Before I knew that, I knew that regardless of the prior history that in current day Palestine is being subjected to a genocide. However, I struggle with politics and therefore struggle with understanding how a one-Palestinian-state could be achieved and have concern about what would happen to any genuinely innocent people who live in Isreal. To be clear, Isreal as a whole is guilty and I just have concern about what will happen to the portion of people in Isreal who are just as horrified as the rest of the world at what their government is doing. I do not personally know any Palestinians, so I have not known who to talk to about this especially since I do not want to overstep in any way. Theres more context I could provide but I wont because this is roughly the gist of where I am currently at when it comes to my concerns about whether or not I am still zionist. Do you have any reccomendations as to what I can do about my concerns? I am not sure whether or not I am overstepping right now by asking you this, but I do not know any other Palestians on a personal level that I can go to.

hey thanks for sending this in. i think we all have zionist biases that we have to unlearn, even i catch myself falling for it sometimes. so it's not necessarily a moral failing if you're trying to undo the zionism you've been taught. thanks for trying to undo it!

i do want to correct you a bit thought, in that *all* of israel is stolen land because israel is a settler colonial society. until it is relabeled as "Palestine" it can't not be stolen land.

I guess my advice is that you read scholarship and perspectives on palestinian thought and heritage. i can't tell you what a free palestine will look like but i can tell you what i imagine it to be. but what i can tell you is that the state of israel is fully intent on erasing all traces of palestinian life no matter what.

i guess i can tell you why "two state solutions" don't really work because there is no.... prevention of settlement building in the west bank and they'll never really promote *not* settling in the west bank. like i really cannot imagine a world where there aren't settlers on palestinian land no matter the case. and that's even not allowing palestinians the right of return to their homes and expecting them to give up what they dedicated their lives to. many palestinians in the west bank and gaza are themselves refugees because they were displaced in '48. so no matter what, palestinians will always get the short end of the stick and told to "just deal with it."

plus, why are we concerned with the supposed future danger towards israelis when the current, very real danger towards palestinians exists? shouldn't we prioritize actual events over hypothetical ones? why should we concern ourselves with the future when for palestinians its not a guarantee? i have no idea what's going to happen to gaza, for example.... shouldn't we prioritize that gaza lives on today?

i think i would question why you think israelis are inherently in danger in a one state solution? like do you assume that palestinians will all universally commit violence on all israelis? is it because you believe that hamas wants to kill every single israeli jew no matter what? if so, i think that's where your problem lies — in the assumption that peace can only be achieved through segregation just in a lighter form (because the state of israel relies on segregation as a principal of its existence as a jewish state). what about the palestinians who fear living side by side with the same people who raped, tortured, and murdered them for 75 years, or advocated for their deaths? aren't they inherently in more danger?

i mean palestinians have consistently been painted as the villains for more than 75 years. like in every aspect. i think to really truly be antizionist you need to prioritize palestinian concerns and worries over israeli ones because of how.... unwilling much of the world is to even consider them.

approaching zionism from an idea of an inequality structure is also necessary — rather than assuming its a one off system, we examine it as a perpetuation of multiple types of systems of inequality embedded into one. i recommend the institute for the critical study of zionism (click) for more information on this. There's also this book by Ismail Zayid written in the 80's (click) about the longtime violence the ideology of zionism has done to multiple communities, not just palestinians.

Here's a great reading list by palipunk about different aspects of palestinian thought and culture (click). i suggest looking through them to help decolonize our way of thought.

i might add on to this later if i think of something else to say.

So if you follow me (and aren't just stopping by because you saw one of my funney viralposts), you probably know that I've been writing a bunch of fanfiction for Stranger Things, which is set in rural Indiana in the early- to mid-eighties. I've been working on an AU where (among other things) Robin, a character confirmed queer in canon, gets integrated into a friend group made up of a number of main characters. And I got a comment that has been following me around in the back of my mind for a while. Amidst fairly usual talk about the show and the AU and what happens next, the commenter asked, apparently in genuine confusion, "why wouldn't Robin just come out to the rest of the group yet? They would be okay with it."

I did kind of assume, for a second or two, that this was a classic case of somebody confusing what the character knows with what the author/audience knows. But the more I think about it, the more I feel like it embodies a real generational shift in thinking that I hadn't even managed to fully comprehend until this comment threw it into sharp perspective.

Because, my knee-jerk reaction was to reply to the comment, "She hasn't come out to these people she's only sort-of known for less than a year because it's rural Indiana. In the nineteen-eighties." and let that speak for itself. Because for me and my peers, that would speak for itself. That would be an easy and obvious leap of logic. Because I grew up in a world where you assumed, until proven otherwise, that the general society and everyone around you was homophobic. That it was unsafe to be known to be queer, and to deliberately out yourself required intention and forethought and courage, because you would get negative reactions and you had to be prepared for the fallout. Not from everybody! There were always exceptions! But they were exceptions. And this wasn't something you consciously decided, it wasn't an individual choice, it wasn't an individual response to trauma, it wasn't individual. It was everybody. It was baked in, and you didn't question it because it was so inherently, demonstrably obvious. It was Just The Way The World Is. Everybody can safely be assumed to be homophobic until proven otherwise.

And what this comment really clarified for me, but I've seen in a million tiny clashing assumptions and disconnects and confusions I've run into with The Kids These Days, is that a lot of them have grown up into a world that is...the opposite. There are a lot of queer kids out there who are assuming, by default, that everybody is not homophobic, until proven otherwise. And by and large, the world is not punishing them harshly for making that assumption, the way it once would have.

The whole entire world I knew changed, somehow, very slowly and then all at once. And yes, it does make me feel like a complete space alien just arrived to Earth some days. But also, it makes me feel very hopeful. This is what we wanted for ourselves when we were young and raw and angrily shoving ourselves in everyone's faces to dare them to prove themselves the exception, and this is what I want for The Kids These Days.

(But also please, please, Kids These Days, do try to remember that it has only been this way since extremely recently, and no it is not crazy or pathetic or irrational or whatever to still want to protect yourself and be choosy about who you share important parts of yourself with.)