i swear to god if people don't start understanding that responding to doylist critique of a piece of media with watsonian exonerations is not an actual rebuttal
somebody saying "hey i don't like that the only gay man in this story is a weird pervert and it portrays gay sexual promiscuity as a moral failing and character flaw" cannot be rebuked by arguing about how the character's backstory or personality traits explain their behaviour. the choices made by a writer are all fundamentally mutable; somebody saying an author's choices should have been different is not going to be persuaded by an argument that takes those choices as immovable fact
i can't just let this hide in the replies:
"Creators are not infallible gods and their universes aren’t real, their characters are not real and cannot make their own decisions, creators can make shitty decisions that are reflected in fictional work that is entirely influenced by real life people and is subject to their biases and opinions as well. To act otherwise is kind of foolish (<- agreeing with op I hope that’s clear)" — @angelicdevil / Jun 23, 2024


















