Basic rules for analysing fiction, an incomprehensive list jotted down in a hurry:
The protagonist isn’t always right
The protagonist isn’t always good
The protagonist isn’t always written to be relatable or likeable
The narrator isn’t always right
The narrator isn’t always good
The narrator isn’t always telling the truth
The narrator isn’t always the author
The protagonist’s moral compass, the narrator’s moral compass and the author’s moral compass are three entirely different things that only occasionally overlap
Pay attention to what characters do and not just what they say
Pay special attention when what the characters do is at odds with what they say
A lot of the time the curtains are blue for a reason. If they aren’t, you should read better books
So many times I have seen people apparently just … forget that it’s possible for fictional characters to be (a) mistaken or (b) lying, and say things like “we know this to be true because [character] said so here” (or, worse, “this fact is canon because [character] said it”).
The antagonist isn’t always telling the truth, the protagonist isn’t always telling the truth, the secondary and minor characters aren’t always telling the truth, the narrator may be telling the truth but if the narrator is also a character in the story then don’t count on it.
#oh no my creation isn’t as pretty as I thought it would be #better go take a nap and be sad about it #meanwhile jekyll’s just like #wonder what this will do?#*chugs his chemical mixture*
anyway my hot take is that the modern night-of live reporting model is bad and probably should be illegal. democracy is not a spectator sport and the fact that news outlets are allowed to exploit partial vote counts for ratings is ghoulish. there is nothing you can learn the night of a major election that has greater value than waiting the several days to a week that it will take, and always has taken, for the final vote totals to be established
if you’re dating cis people you should not be worrying about enforcing boundaries or saying no to anything for fear of offending them. if you’re dating trans people you should not have to worry about lateral aggression- it’s ok to experience gender and sexuality different from your partner, even if you’re both trans women. you are just as allowed to be uncomfortable with things as anyone else.
you are not alone. many girls, cis and trans, feel like they’re on their own when dating and things are just always gonna be bad. they don’t have to be.
I don't know if it's because I'm autistic, I'm not American or because there's a special gun telepathy... But I don't understand how mirroring would infer you're a liar here?
Okay, so this is a very particular Thing that happens largely in the American south. It's the shotgun wielding dad "what are your intentions with my daughter touch her and I kill you I'm the head of the household" trope irl. My father has never actually done it, but he was given a gun by another man when my sister and I were very small to be prepared.
So to the dad, anon just challenged his authority and his manhood. Dad is already threatened by his daughter having a boyfriend (and potentially eventually moving out due to that boyfriend/marriage), now anon is saying "I don't give a shit about you or your threat" as far as the dad is concerned. So anon saying he didn't mean it that way is what's triggering the "liar" comment.
It's a very patriarchal woman as property thing that crops up especially among white Southern Christians. I would lay money based on this story and my own experiences that anon is the girl's first boyfriend and that she's in the kind of family environment where she will live with her parents until marriage, a very literal dad giving daughter away at the altar situation.
Anon probably does not have sisters and didn't have all of this subtext made text constantly throughout his life, even though him carrying on a daily basis suggests some level of immersion in gun culture
Tl: Dr the American south is a very weird place, he's violating some established power lines and then "acting clueless" when the dad reacts to the social transgression
Dad shows gun = "If you hurt her, I will kill you."
Boyfriend shows gun as well = "I also suspect you of being capable of hurting her and anticipate having to defend her."
And "hurt" in a dating context (or at least this specific gun related one) usually just means heartbreak, but "hurt" in a father/daughter context would more often be abuse.
So there's an implicit accusation he could read into it that turns the conversation into:
Dad: I think this relationship might not work out, and you will hurt my daughter's feelings.
Boyfriend: Well, I think you are physically harming your daughter, and brought this gun to show you I mean to rescue her.
Dad: How dare you! At least accuse me outright, for such a strong claim as this.
Boyfriend: I shall never say it outright, and therefore you have no evidence against me to use to kick me out right now.
Dad: So you plan to play ignorant if I bring your accusations to my daughter, and make me look crazy?
The fact that you can’t raise taxes on billionaires even slightly without them pouring money into fascist political movements is, of itself, evidence that billionaires as a class shouldn’t be allowed to exist in the first place.
I’d just like to point out that every single thing that has happened in the 6 years since I created this post has only reinscribed its absolute moral correctness in my mind.