Talk:Bullshit 2.0
Full disclosure: I updated the first paragraph and added a second paragraph here that I hope is not controversial. However, the whole page will need to be reworked because the next paragraph already sets up the context as larries see it, not what the immediate context actually is. I don't think we need to throw stuff out, just give it more context. Stuff that one direction band members do in public is noted and reported on on a daily basis. This sentence is an implicit larrie analysis connecting two separate events: After Harry said in an interview that being female was "not that important" for a romantic interest and Louis wore an Apple t-shirt with a vintage logo,. Note that the original version of the page said rainbow logo, but an anti-larrie changed it. Part of the issue is that larries see Louis's t-shirt as gay pride because of the rainbow logo, but anti-larries pointed out that that was just a vintage Apple logo and could instead be evidence that Louis is a hipster. (I'm not sure that this was discussed at the time, but another factor is that larries might be on average young enough not to be familiar with Apple's old logo, so they might be forgiven for misunderstanding its meaning. But maybe this too was hashed out.) It would be better to have a section that explains the immediate sequence events including the quote, then another section explaining the larrie interpretation, then another section on the debunking/anti analysis. --aethel (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Whoops, I have now read the Fanlore article more closely and realized that the newspaper article itself was the one associating the t-shirt with Harry's comments and claiming that wearing an Apple logo was LGBT support. I created a new section and laid out the sequence of events so it's more clear. I also removed the paraphrasing of the reporter's response because this speaks to a major point of contention; what was the motive of publishing that article. Some fans take her word for it, but others do not. When I look at the Independent article, I see an attempt to capitalize on popular google search topics: Harry Styles, Harry's gender comments, Louis Tomlinson, Apple, Tim Cook. The article itself is a pretty random bit of speculation about Louis's intentions based on a single photo. Looks like clickbait to me.
- The Fan Reaction section needs a lot of work and may need to be broken out into who reacted in what way. For example, which parts of fandom were saying his tweets were homophobic? Was it just larries, or did non-larries complain as well? Then there's a random sentence thrown in straight out of a tinhat masterpost with no context here: For many fans, this was done as an attempt to send a message to Sony and 1DHQ, not necessarily to punish Louis himself. This sentence tells me that conspiracy theorists had competing explanations for the tweets, but I can't figure out more from just this sentence, which seems to be out of place. It is my understanding that in general larries believe that Harry and Louis do not want to be closeted and will occasionally "act out" in subtle ways that larries pick up on and then management notices that the larries noticed and will "punish" Harry and Louis by forcing them to engage in "stunts" meant to show that they are heterosexual. So in this case larries must have taken the article's speculation about Louis showing LGBT support as the gospel truth and assumed that Louis's tweet criticizing the article was the stunt.--aethel (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Replying to myself again. I did some googling and reread the Fan Reaction section and asked twitter and have now revised the section with the goal of being more neutral, accurate, and clear. I realized Chlorineandink's edit removed some Larry theory context that is useful so I put it in the fan reaction section. I also figured out (I think) the context of the sentence I was complaining about before. Still needs research: the one example of fans calling for a boycott was a larrie--were there other fans calling for a boycott? was it only larries?
- I removed this sentence because it didn't seem like it had anything to do with 2014 drama and would open up a can of worms:
As of 2019, LGBTQ+ Directioners may make up a significant proportion of his fanbase.
Another question: I found an article in Yahoo Lifestyle that seemed to take the same view as larries, but I googled her name and it seems there was also speculation that she was in fact a larrie: 1D'S LOUIS HITS BACK AT JOURNO IN ANGRY TWITTER RANT: 'I'M STRAIGHT' by Stephanie Soteriou, Yahoo! Lifestyle, 11 November 2014. Need more media reports on the fan reaction to link.--aethel (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether or how to fit it on the page, but Louis "wearing rainbows" seems to be a big deal to Larries. [1][2][3][4][5] --aethel (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)