#oh anons

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

So people who don't want to eat the fatty skin of the chicken or cakes are 'disordered' and there should be grave concern about them, but chainsmoking and drinking vodka every day is fine and should never be commented on? I don't understand this blog.

Anon 2: What makes me so angry about this formulation in this case - is how transparent the moralism and selectivity . It's only ever 'I want someone to live so they shouldn't do this thing that I've decided with bad'. ///

But today you're very upset by Harry's choices of food, which you've decided are bad and evidence of an eating disorder?

Anon 3: So it's okay to worry that Harry might have an eating disorder because Niall said he didn't eat chicken skin or cakes in 1d, but not okay to worry about Louis' heavy smoking because we shouldn't be policing an individual's choices? I'm lost.

********

Oh anons. You're wrong about what I've said about eating disorders and you're wrong about what I've said about drugs and alcohol.

I haven't made any comment today about the likelihood of Harry having an eating disorder (yet - I'm about to in a few paragraphs). I certainly haven't described anything that Harry's doing as bad or expressed grave concern. I'm really fucking careful about how I talk about eating disorders on here.

You're also at the wrong blog if you think I don't want vodka and other substance use commented on. I talk about drugs and alcohol within 1D quite a lot - and always have. I'm quite committed to breaking the shame and silence that has been quite common. What I object to is treating use of substances as evidence of addiction.

The irony is that my thoughts about boyband members and eating disorders are the same as my thoughts about boyband members and addiciton. We know that boyband members are at high risk for eating disorders and addiction, so I think it's important to hold those possibilities in our minds

Or to put it more succinctly - I do think both Harry and Louis might be dealing with eating disorders and addiction but that's because they're in a boyband and both are really common among boyband members. Not because of anything Niall said or anything that's happened on stage. With both addiction and eating disorders I'm also going to be very careful about how I talk about them.

There's nothing wrong with worrying about them, because of the risks they face with their lives. There is a problem with expressing that worry with false certainty and judgement, or acting as if the fact that you're worried should matter to them, or to anyone else.

[applesfallingfromblondehair]

Don't you have a job or something?

I sure do. Do you? 🤔

[were-cheetah-stiles]

lol remember that time in July

when i first started out and some anon said that i only liked baseball because Dylan did. 

that was funny. 

[sweariwouldnt]

Harry: Ah, that classless Louis, yuck. How insulting to be mentioned in the same sentence.

Harry as well: But that person sending anonymous hate messages about my band mate sure does deserve my appreciation. Nice humaning, classy anonymous hater. *sips champers*

[sqoiler]

I followed you because you supported my catwoman in the hat memes when nobody else would

i’m fairly sure we were already mutuals, strange human i don’t know, but this was definitely our first conversation, person-i’ve-never-had-a-conversation-with

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

I'm really struggling to make sense of Larry at the moment because if Harry really was Louis' long term partner, he would have leveraged his considerable clout to ensure that Radio 1 did play Louis' music. And yet, nothing.

Anon - my first suggestion is to look for any evidence of one artist leveraging their clout to get another artist played on Radio 1. It is always wise to make sure something is common, before you make a great meaning of its absence in a particular circumstance.

If you get bored of that question maybe try and answer the question I ended my last anon with: "Why at this stage of his career, would Radio 1 be Louis’ priority, let alone yours?"

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

The England football team and the inanimate flag are clearly both innocent so what's your point? It's what the flag and the team represent that matters - England as a colonial power.

Oh anon - I disagree with so much of this - history, sports and symbols.

The seeds of what would become the empire were planted by James I & IV - the King who united England and Scotland under one kingdom. There's a reason the first British colony was called Jamestown. The plantation of Ulster began under King James' rule - and when he made it official he did so uniting Scotland and England in the project. The ruling class in Scotland were a foundational and necessary part of the empire and erasing that only obscures really important truths (just go to Glasgow - look at the wealth you can still see in Merchant City and ask yourself 'I wonder what they were were merchanting?).

*********

I find the idea at symbols could be either innocent or guilty a really basic and uncurious way of understanding symbols. The only meaning of a flag is that it represents that nation state.

*********

I have a lot of thoughts about the relationship and sports teams and states. But the idea that a sports team is the same as a nation state or that it's a symbol that only represents the nation state - is a deeply unserious one that engages with none of the issues.

I would never wear an All Blacks jersey (for many reasons - including that it is a symbol of an organisation that actively support apartheid), but it's certainly not the same thing as waving a NZ flag.

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

You must be fun at parties

I am - I go to parties with people who are interested in the same things I am.