Untitled

The song “Ordinary-ish People” by AJR featuring the Blue Man Group is an anthem for those who don’t feel like they fit in anywhere. It delivers a seemingly straightforward message about being unique in spite of pressures to conform to the crowd. However, a closer look at the lyrics reveals a more complex examination of how one’s sense of self is shaped by social relationships. Though it begins with a rather individualistic view on the nature of identity, this later gives rise to a tension between two different perspectives on what it means to be someone that lacks a definitive conclusion.

At first glance, “Ordinary-ish People” is written to appeal to a view of the self that prioritizes uniqueness and nonconformity as the most authentic expressions of one’s identity. Its verses describe a person who doesn’t quite fit in with any particular group: too sad for happy people but too happy for sad people; too hippie for the workplace but too much of a square for hippies; and so on. In the chorus, they bid goodbye to the “ordinary-ish people” who surround them and assert that “you’ve gotta be somebody sometimes.” This paints a portrait of a person who stays true to who they are rather than following the crowd, even though their peers try to pressure them to be a certain way. To be “someone” is to resist the urge to “fit in” when doing so means changing who you are.

One of the most evocative expressions of nonconformity within the song occurs during the bridge when the singer instructs the listener to “please yell if you’re paying attention.” This line conjures an image of a person among a group of friends - perhaps they are riding in a car, with two people in the front seat engaged in a conversation while the friend in the back stares out the window. “Ordinary-ish People” captures the strange feeling of alienation they are experiencing, and so they are paying attention, even though the others are barely listening. Then, the singer gives them this command to break free from social convention and assert oneself as an individual by screaming. What will our listener do?

At live AJR concerts, the fans scream when it gets to this part of the song and the Blue Man Group starts playing. They do so as part of a larger whole: as AJR fans, united by the fact that songs like these resonate with them. But in the backseat of their not-so-close friends’ car, when the song tells them to yell, they stay completely silent. Why? Because in that awkward, cringey, isolating moment, they would rather disappear into the background.

This raises an alternative view of the character described in the song. They struggle to find community because they lack a clear personality or distinctive traits. In the chorus, the narrator begins by saying goodbye to ordinary-ish people, only to immediately walk back his statement by saying “I don’t want to pack up and leave though / when you’re nobody, then nobody minds.” Is he a brave nonconformist, or rather a fence-sitting wallflower? Because of his lack of individuality, he is able to blend in anywhere, though he is unable to develop truly meaningful connections. If he were to embrace anything fully, there is no doubt that he would be able to find other people with the same traits and interests, but his desire to please everyone causes him to become a nobody in the end. 

The video "I QUIT BEING QUEER" (2025) shows beloved genderqueer YouTube celebrity Zender moving to France - the end of a brief, yet intense YouTube career built upon deception and greed. But how did we get here? In this post, I will argue that Zender represents the online persona of a shady individual , Clay Black, who is focused on popularity at any cost, and the most recent video depicts their cancellation after their rise to fame.

As I established in my post "WTF is Human Butter?", I believe that one of the overarching themes of Fils D Frank's channel is the ubiquity of online slop content designed to feed virality algorithms. The Peanut Butter Man was the originator of this slop, as he invented human butter. Perhaps human butter is not content in itself, but rather a method of creating content - similar to generative AI such as ChatGPT and Midjourney. Either way, human butter is shown to represent low-quality brainrot. This theory will build heavily on the groundwork established in that post.

Shortly after the creation of human butter, as depicted in "HUMAN BUTTER," there is a video titled "if questionable youtubers had a job interview" (and its sequel, "if questionable youtubers had a job interview (pt 2)"). In these two videos, an unknown individual is asked a series of questions such as "do you like children?" and "do you have problems?". The interviewer, Fils, suggests that they "talk about nothing and make that something" and "do things to do, say things to say, use things to use," highlighting that the YouTuber's content is vacuous and exists only for the sake of obtaining views. The interviewee is offered the job, showing that they have met all of the requirements.

It seems likely that the interviewee is Clay Black. In "It's 3 AM In The Morning," a mysterious log-in screen is shown, with the password visible and the username hidden. As Discord user .tronkat (Velvet) points out, the username has the same number of characters as "clayblack." Additionally, there is a screen saying "Welcome Back, Black." in a different video, which seems as though it could be a welcome screen he would see after logging in.

Clay Black's channel produces low-quality content from the beginning. Even the earliest videos make clear use of AI, and there are several attempts to cash in on popular trends such as Jake Paul's PRIME ("CRIME"), Jojo Siwa's "Karma" music video ("Nono Siwa"), and even the 2024 presidential election ("Burdened By What Has Been"). These videos, however, reveal more about their creator than the topics they are ostensibly about - they are critical without being constructive, they are made with AI, and they come across as nonsensical.

It takes a while for Clay's channel to take off; these initial videos don't have many views. As he is producing these videos, he is feeding off of audience suggestions. For example, after a commenter asks whether there is a jelly counterpart to the Peanut Butter Man, Zender appears for the first time in "I'm Having A Sexual Attraction." However, it is not until Zender's big hit "WHERE IS MY GENDER?" that the channel really gains traction. Clay capitalizes on this immediately, creating several more videos about Zender's gender and giving them a backstory with abusive family members and a romantic subplot with the Peanut Butter Man. Zender is implied to be a trans woman, but Clay intentionally avoids giving clear answers, which keeps the viewers engaged and speculating over a question that ultimately has little importance.

As foreshadowed in "if questionable youtubers had a job interview," Clay's videos begin to take on strange sexual connotations. For example, "I'm Having A Sexual Attraction" depicts an unsettling sexual relationship between Zender and Ms. More, with lyrics suggesting a degree of coercion. Similar themes appear in the subplot between Ms. More and Mama Zen, Papa Zen's backstory, and Zender & Peanut Butter Man's relationship. Behind the scenes, there is something off about Clay Black, which occasionally comes through in his work.

Eventually, Clay Black's actions catch back up to him. In "I QUIT BEING QUEER," a headline saying "Man Arrested For Everything" is shown, and there is a trial. This represents his online cancellation. The video begins with Zender boarding a train at the "Misinformation Station," an allusion to Colleen Ballinger's infamous song "Toxic Gossip Train." Ballinger's song was released in response to sexual assault allegations, which she dismissed as misinformation. Similarly, Zender's departure to Paris could represent a temporary hiatus. Having them claim that they are leaving because they quit being queer because it is too hard is a way for Clay Black to shift the focus away from his own actions. He instead claims that it was homophobia, not sexual assault allegations, that drove him (and by extension Zender, who is something of a mascot of the channel) away. This could also be the reason for the sudden disappearance of certain videos from the channel - Clay is trying to hide evidence of his past wrongdoing.

Fils D Frank's channel seems to follow two separate storylines: Zender's struggles with gender identity, and the Peanut Butter Man's descent into Human Butter Man. It's been a while now since we have seen any new videos about the Peanut Butter Man, but in this post I am going to offer an interpretation of his story based on the older videos. Ultimately, I think PB Man's storyline is a metaphor for content creation and losing a part of one's self in the process.

Firstly, let's examine PB Man's origins. In "HE SHOULD'VE ATE ME," we see the Human Mind Diner, a restaurant that creates bizarre food that resembles American classics with some human characteristics: the Brain Burger is covered in eyes, and the Finger Fries include human fingers. We find out in a comment from Fils that this is also where peanut butter & jelly sandwiches come from. It is therefore likely that this is where the Peanut Butter Man was created, and it also seems as though he was at one point connected to Zender.

After his creation, it seems that he is quickly consumed by Fils. We see this happen in "I'm More Than Just A Slice of Bread," which begins with Fils saying, "let's go back in time to when the Peanut Butter Man was an itty bitty baby." The Peanut Butter Man insists that he is more than a slice of bread, but Fils and a character with heterochromia and a top hat insist that he is not. After being consumed, the Peanut Butter Man appears in an office, where his boss, "Mr. Pop," shows him around. There are multiple dead bodies on the floor, and he emphasizes that this job offers "low expectations" and "only frustrations." The Peanut Butter Man then states that he hates his job and wants to escape.

I believe that this video represents the business of creating content online. Firstly, the word "consume" is often used to refer to the way people engage with online content, so it makes sense that the content creators would be portrayed as food. When the Peanut Butter Man was created in the Human Mind Diner, that was the creation of his YouTube brand. After his channel starts to gain traction - he is "consumed" by Fils - he starts to realize that life as a content creator is not what he had hoped. He wanted to be creative and original, represented by his dancing and his insisting that he is more than a slice of bread. However, he is quickly met with the demand to "lose [his] face and become like paste" and told that he is replaceable - just like the rest of the loaf - by a character who I believe represents capitalism. The character has a top hat and animal-like features which are reminiscent of this cartoon often used to represent the bourgeoisie:

Mr. Pop, his boss, perhaps is a characterization of popularity. As an online creator, it is necessary to be popular so that your videos are recommended by the algorithm. Although PB Man originally wanted to create "peanut butter," original content that shows his personality, he quickly realizes that he must instead make artistic compromises to maintain his popularity. We can see attempts to capitalize on trends in videos such as "CRIME," which is ostensibly a review of the popular drink "PRIME;" "CEASTABLES," which parodies Mr. Beast's "Feastables;" and "LUNCH," which is clearly based on the infamous "Lunchly."

Eventually, Peanut Butter Man's capitulation to the demands of the algorithm corrupts him and turns him into Human Butter Man. Our first introduction to this is in "Human Butter," in which he declared that he is now the Human Butter Man, and we see a jar of the titular substance for the first time. It is a grotesque and horrifying mixture of human parts. This content is literally brainrot: in several videos, such as "I Know Who I Am," we see the image of a brain with large missing chunks. However, the Human Butter Man aggressively markets his product, even going so far as to interrupt other videos such as "Lobotomy Anatomy" to do so. This symbolizes the ways in which the desire for popularity and profit in the entertainment industry destroy the quality of art and force creators to give up a part of themselves to remain relevant.

There is, undoubtedly, a political element to the Human Butter turn as well. There are several references to the economy in these videos and the desire to escape poverty. For instance, in "Lobotomy Anatomy," the Human Butter Man claims that his product will help its consumers become rich and avoid poverty. The most overtly political video is "The Hypocrisy of Democracy," which starts off with the line "power to the people, but the people don't have power." Mr. Pop is shown packaged in plastic, and the singer repeatedly says "please don't hate me." I admittedly may be extrapolating a lot based on my prior interpretation of the Peanut Butter Man's arc, but I believe the central critique of the video is that the economic situation in America makes it impossible for the people to have a voice. If Mr. Pop represents popularity, then him being wrapped up in plastic suggests that popularity is a commodity to be bought and sold. The rich and powerful have a large sway in politics, as they control the media. After all, Mr. Pop isn't really the one who runs things - the true boss is Reality. The reality of the American economy is that some people control the majority of the wealth, and they can control what media everyone else is exposed to, influencing the outcome of elections. We see this happen in "Burdened By What Has Been," which satirizes "Hahala." The media has a clear political agenda, and as a result those who control the media also control politics.

The Human Butter Man's large platform puts him in a position to take advantage of others. We first see Zender in "Human Butter Mukbang," which suggests that they are a fan of the Human Butter Man's content. "I'm Having A Sexual Attraction" and depicts Human Butter Man inviting Zender to come to his laboratory so that he can "fix" them. In the following video, ominously titled "It's Just A Slice Of Bread," the Human Butter Man takes a bite out of Zender. After this, he questions, "what have I become?" and seems to have doubts about being the Human Butter Man. We see him in a laboratory accompanied by the text "The Peanut Butter Man doing Human Butter work." This shows that he regrets his departure from his original identity as the Peanut Butter Man and does not believe the Human Butter Man is who he truly wants to be. However, the damage has already been done. We see in "I Made This For You, And This Is What You Do?" That the Peanut Butter Man has exploited Zender's attraction to him and forced them to create the Strawberry Gender Jelly, only to take a bite of them.

This theory does leave a few lingering questions, which I will list here:

1. What does eating represent? If it originally refers to the consumption of content, what does it mean for the Peanut Butter Man or Papa Zen to eat Zender? Presumably they are not merely consuming Zender's content, as the videos heavily imply this suggests some form of physical or sexual abuse. That then raises the question of why Fils would say that their boss at the Human Mind Diner should have ate them, as presumably they did not want to be abused.

2. What is Zender's origin? If they were originally part of the same sandwich as the Peanut Butter Man, why did they separate, and what exactly is the connection between them? This is further complicated by the fact that Zender has a mother and father, which suggests that Zender has a life before they met the Peanut Butter Man. Does the Peanut Butter Man have a family as well?

3. Why does Fils tell the Peanut Butter Man that he needs to find "that gelatinous jelly" to escape in "HE SHOULD'VE ATE ME"? Presumably, this refers to Zender. However, the consistent use of he/him pronouns indicates that there is a possibility it refers to Papa Zen or Mr. Gellyayegay. Either way, it's not clear what role these characters play in PB Man's escape from the system.

4. What is the significance of eyes? Clearly they are an important part of the story, as references to eyes appear in most of the videos. Additionally, the color of the eyes is likely to represent something as well, since most characters' eye colors change. For instance, the Peanut Butter Man sometimes has two brown eyes, and other times he has one green and one brown eye, which matches the capitalism man and a mysterious blonde woman shown very briefly in a couple of videos. I'm not sure what to make of this yet.

One of the most entertaining, yet mysterious, recurring characters within the Fils D Frank universe is Mr. Gellyayegay, a blob of grape jelly with mismatched eyes and funky dance moves. Though little is known about this character so far, he seems to play an important role in the story of Zender. Despite this, he appears to have been intentionally excluded and sidelined in the videos, so in this post I will explore what is already known about Mr. Gellyayegay and attempt to explain why he is out of bounds.

Our first introduction to Mr. Gellyayegay is in "Why aren't you gay?", a short clip which later appears in "WHERE IS MY GENDER?". In this video, Mr. Gellyayegay asks Zender why they are not gay, insisting that there may be a "delay" and that Zender should "give it 1, 2, 3." He then begins to talk about his electrons and says, "I'm out of bounds / I don't know how / so let me in hey hey hey!" This raises the question of Mr. Gellyayegay's relationship to Zender as well as why he seems to have been banished from the realm Zender inhabits. In response, I will offer two opposite interpretations and examine the evidence for each.

#1: Mr. Gellyayegay Represents Zender's Homophobic Father

The first theory I will discuss is that Mr. Gellyayegay is a representation of Papa Zen, whose memory has been suppressed by Zender. The first and most obvious piece of evidence for this is that Mr. Gellyayegay and Papa Zen are the same purple color, suggesting that both are grape jelly. This parallel between them is emphasized in "Now I'm A Homeless Homosexual" when both characters are shown side by side with the text "Notice any similarities?" Furthermore, he is seen physically pushing Zender into the closet in "NOW IM GAY," which could be intended to show that he is unaccepting of Zender's sexuality.

This raises the question of why he insists that Zender is gay in "WHERE IS MY GENDER?" I propose that this questioning could be interpreted as denial about Zender being trans. People who are ignorant about trans issues often tell people who are trans that they should "just be gay" instead of trying to physically change to a different gender. Mr. Gellyayegay could be trying to persuade Zender to stop questioning their gender and just accept being gay because he is even less accepting of them being trans than he is of their homosexuality. This is further represented by the fact that even after Zender goes into the closet in "NOW IM GAY," Mr. Gellyayegay is shown inside with the door open and text that reads "I KNOW," potentially indicating that he still mistreats Zender even after they started concealing their queerness because he knows their secret.

Perhaps as a result of this bigotry, Mr. Gellyayegay is shown behind a door that has "This Door Leads Nowhere" written on it in several videos, including "THEY TOOK MY GENDER" and "NOW IM GAY" accompanied with the caption "but even knowhere is somewhere." It is likely that Zender is the one who wrote the caption on the door as a way of suppressing the memory of their homophobic father, who they no longer maintain contact with. Despite Zender's attempts to forget and move on with their life, Mr. Gellyayegay is still buried in their subconscious.

Zender's decision to cut off Papa Zen has caused him to feel some regret, as we see in "AND SO I DEVOURED HER." He feels lonely n after isolating himself from his family and says "I want my son back," which could be the reason why Mr. Gellyayegay insists that Zender lets him in. He represents Papa Zen's desire to reconnect with his child, even though he is still homophobic and unaccepting of Zender's gender.

#2: Mr. Gellyayegay is Zender's Subconscious

Although it contradicts the theory outlined above, I believe there is also the possibility that Mr. Gellyayegay represents Zender's "true" or inner self. He seems to have clarity on Zender's identity even when they are unsure, but his attempts to confront them directly resulted only in suppression - either on the part of Zender or by some other force, perhaps the Machine.

Firstly, it seems as though Mr. Gellyayegay has a unique insight on Zender's sexuality even in the face of confusion and unacceptance. In "WHERE IS MY GENDER?", he directly asks Zender why they are not gay, and later he is vindicated by the video "NOW IM GAY." He seems to know Zender is gay before they admit or accept it, which is why he suggests that there may be a "delay" - in other words, he knew that with time, Zender would discover that he was right all along.

Another indication that Mr. Gellyayegay is a more authentic representation of Zender is that he appears to be made of grape jelly. In "WHERE IS MY GENDER?", Zender first introduces themself as a "gelatinous jelly," suggesting that it is the jelly and not the bread that defines them. Mr. Gellyayegay is a glob of pure jelly, no bread, and he is also purple. Videos such as "I Made This For You, And This Is What You Do?" and "WHERE IS MY GENDER?" cast doubt on the authenticity of the strawberry gender jelly, and it is revealed in "NOW IM GAY" that it is actually Human Butter. Although the grape jelly remains a mystery, it is possible that it is Zender's true gender.

This makes Mr. Gellyayegay's shoving of Zender into the closet seem rather odd, considering that he is the one who insists that Zender is gay in the first place. However, it can perhaps be understood as his attempt to help them protect their safety in a homophobic household. Because Papa Zen threatens to kick Zender out of his house if they not stop with their "homosexual behavior," Mr. Gellyayegay might be attempting to prevent Zender from becoming homeless. However, the fact that he is shown several times in the closet with "I Know" scrawled above him shows that he is not trying to suppress Zender's sexuality and is still aware that it cannot be changed, even if he is trying to get them to conceal it from Papa Zen.

One complicating detail is that Papa Zen and Mr. Gellyayegay are both purple. Papa Zen is portrayed in a clearly negative light within the series, whereas Mr. Gellyayegay's role is made much more ambiguous. This makes it unclear exactly what similarities the viewer is supposed to notice (except the obvious that both are purple) and leaves it uncertain what the grape jelly actually represents. In the previous section I offered the explanation that both are homophobic, but this is not the only possibility. The grape could simply represent gender (after all, strawberry is considered to be its own gender) and it is about Zender's failure to come to terms with being male. It could also represent family ties, showing that Zender and Papa Zen are still family despite their differences, hinting at a future arc in which they reconnect. Perhaps it indicates something else entirely which has yet to be revealed. Regardless, there is the possibility that the comparison between Papa Zen and Mr. Gellyayegay is not intended to suggest that they are literally the same person.

In this interpretation, Mr. Gellyayegay being out of bounds and asking Zender to let them back in could be emblematic of Zender's true/inner self being repressed due to having an unaccepting environment. Although Zender does not want to accept their sexuality and gender and tries to suppress it for the sake of their father, Mr. Gellyayegay is still somewhere in Zender's subconscious and cannot be hidden away completely.

Conclusion

Since watching "Where's My Gender?" (2025) for the first time a few days ago, I have become obsessed with trying to piece together the story behind Fils D Frank's videos on Youtube. I was shocked to see that nobody was posting any theories online, so I will amend that with this post, in which I will investigate the question of what Zender's gender actually is. I do not have a definitive answer yet, so i will instead discuss several different possibilities.

Zender is nonbinary.

This seems to be the most straightforward interpretation of the video. Zender is shown switching between male and female clothes, seems confused about the question of gender, and is referred to using different (and increasingly non-traditional) pronouns throughout the video. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the video's chaotic and difficult to understand nature is a reflection of Zender's own struggle to fit into either male or female gender roles.

I am inclined to believe that this explanation is too simplistic, though. For one, the chorus refers to Zender as "her" repeatedly, which throws a wrench in the previous theory about the pronouns becoming less and less similar to "she/her" and "he/him." Additionally, the video seems to suggest that Zender's gender confusion is inauthentic, which I will elaborate on later.

Finally, there seems to be a common theme of "transformation" woven throughout Fils D Frank's videos. For example, the Peanut Butter Man's transformation into the Human Butter Man is another big point of emphasis in the story, as well as the death of Sarah and emergence of Fils. The title of "They Took My Gender" suggests that Zender's lack of gender is not voluntary but rather was forced. This claim is further substantiated by the fact that in that video, we see the male version of Zender on an operating table being cut to pieces in a quite literal sense. This suggests that Zender once had a gender, but they lost it for reasons outside of their control.

2. Zender is transfem.

This interpretation also seems highly plausible based on the videos. In "Where's My Gender," Zender starts off male, and the male version of them is seen being wheeled into a hospital on a gurney. "They Took My Gender" shows Zender on an operating table being cut to pieces and afterwards wearing the female clothes, suggesting that they underwent some kind of medical procedure to transition from male to female.

Another piece of evidence for this view is that in earlier videos such as "He Should've Ate Me," Fils appears to have a more masculine body, as they are shown shirtless without their chest being censored. However, in "They Took My Gender," Fils has a more feminine body. They are shown covering their chest and looking down into their underwear, presumably seeing nothing there. I believe that Zender is a representation of Fils due to the fact that they are shown with heterochromia in the beginning of "They Took My Gender," and Fils also has heterochromia. Additionally, Fils' body and movements seem to mirror Zender in both "They Took My Gender" and "Where's My Gender."

Finally, the continued use of she/her pronouns in both videos to refer to Zender suggests that they may have transitioned to female. The chorus of "Where's My Gender" says "gender bender / can't comprehend her / she's a gender bender."

This would also seem to explain the Gelatinous Jelly's question of "Why aren't you gay? Maybe there's a delay." One common response to people who come out as transgender is "why can't you just be gay?". Additionally, many people believe that being transgender is a phase that the person will eventually grow out of, which could be why the Gelatinous Jelly believes there's a "delay" and Zender should "give it 1, 2, 3."

Ultimately, though, I still do not think this captures the full picture. The main reason is that the videos suggest that Zender's gender presentation is not authentic. The clearest example of this is that when the "strawberry gender" appears on screen, it is accompanied by text saying "we're not sure that it's really strawberry." Additionally, the chorus in "Where's My Gender?" keeps repeating, "I want to send her out," and in "They Took My Gender," the text on screen says "gender end her end her end her." These lyrics potentially indicate that Zender is not really happy being a woman. Finally, when the surgeons are operating on Zender, they say, "let's break her," and afterwards Zender says, "I think something broke." A trans woman would be happy about having a more feminine body and appearance, but it seems that Zender does not feel that way. This is further supported by the fact that the text "Where is my body?" flashes on screen while Fils is looking down their pants, implying that the changes to Zender's body were unwanted.

3. Zender is transmasc.

This theory uses much of the same evidence as the "Zender is transfem" theory, but reversed. Perhaps the chorus' use of phrases like "end her" and "I want to send her out" indicates that Zender feels uncomfortable with being female. Additionally, when Fils appears in "They Took My Gender" with a more feminine body, they are wearing men's underwear, perhaps indicating that they are trying to present more masculine despite their body. When they look down their pants, perhaps they are experiencing dissatisfaction with the fact that they do not have a penis.

This also offers an alternative perspective on the Gelatinous Jelly. I find it plausible that it represents Zender's "inner self" for a few reasons. Firstly, I have already discussed the fact that Zender is shown with heterochromia, but the Gelatinous Jelly also has heterochromia, which by this theory would suggest that it is also a representation of the same person. Additionally, Zender describes themself as a "gelatinous jelly" several times, suggesting that it is the jelly and not the bread that makes them who they are. We know already that there is something inauthentic about the strawberry jelly they wear, so the fact that the Gelatinous Jelly is purple suggests a different flavor - perhaps one that is more genuine. When it asks "Why aren't you gay?", maybe it is expressing the fact that Zender is internally male and their attraction towards the Peanut Butter Man is not actually heterosexual. Furthermore, its insistence on there being a "delay" may be evidence that Zender still has yet to come to terms with their identity.

One piece of evidence that contradicts this theory is the fact that Fils appears to have a male chest in "He Should Have Ate Me" while wearing a mask of clay. In the next video, "They Took My Gender," Fils is maskless with a female chest. This could mean that Fils was hiding their true identity while living in a male body and the mask could only be removed after transitioning to female, even if this change was somewhat jarring.

4. Zender's gender is immaterial and serves as a metaphor for Fils' creation.

Perhaps fixating on Zender's actual gender is missing the point of the videos in the first place. Transformations of various kinds seem central to the story of Fils D Frank. The channel's description alludes to the death of Sarah and the birth of the alter-ego Fils, and there is a video on the channel about Sarah's death (although the circumstances of it remain unclear). Other videos constantly allude to the idea of identity, so it seems reasonable to infer that one of the main themes of the story is Fils' "rebirth" process.

The Peanut Butter Man's transformation into the Human Butter Man could be one facet of Fils' identity formation, albiet a rather sinister one. There are a number of videos dedicated to the Peanut Butter Man's assimilation into the corporate world and loss of his own sense of self. Most notably, "I'm More Than Just A Slice Of Bread" shows the Peanut Butter Man insisting that he is his own person in the face of demands to "lose your face, become like paste" and repeated insistence that he's "just a slice of bread." In "Human Butter," the next video on the Peanut Butter Man playlist, we see the word "help" on screen as he is quite literally torn to pieces, and then we see the creation of the sinister Human Butter. Then, in "I Know Who I Am," he declares that he is the Human Butter Man, which indicates a shift in his identity.

There is some evidence that the Peanut Butter Man represents a facet of Fils. In "It's Just A Slice of Bread," Fils' voice says, "I'm the Peanut Butter Man, you know?" Additionally, videos such as "You Know, I'm Worried About You" have Fils outright saying to Peanut Butter Man, "You'll always be a part of me." This further supports the idea that the Peanut Butter Man turning into Human Butter Man serves as a metaphor for the Fils' own transformation of identity.

Given this connection between Fils and the Peanut Butter Man, it seems plausible that the same could apply to Zender, who is also a piece of bread and the second half of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Perhaps their confusion over gender represents the broader sense of internal struggle that Fils is going through while trying to find their identity, and the actual gender of Zender is less important than the journey of attempting to discover it.

N.b. The Gender of Peanut Butter Man

One detail worthy of consideration is the gender of the Peanut Butter Man. Although it may seem self-evident that this character is male based on his name, there are a few videos which suggest otherwise. Firstly, in "Where Is My Gender?", we see Zender standing next to the Peanut Butter Man with the text on screen reading, "Oh to be the guy she sees. It's not me. Is it me?" which is also repeated in the video's description. The question arises: who is saying this? The most obvious answer is the Peanut Butter Man, but then that raises the question of who he is instead. The simplest explanation is that he is talking about being the Human Butter Man instead of the Peanut Butter Man, although there is also the possibility that he doesn't feel like a "guy." This may seem like a stretch, but I have a few more details from other videos that increase the likelihood of this interpretation. Alternatively, this line could be said by Zender to the Peanut Butter Man, which would then raise the question of why they refer to this character as "she."

So far in Sanders Sides, we have seen that two of "dark sides" - Virgil and Janus - are just as essential to Thomas as the "light sides." Without Virgil, Thomas has no motivation, and Janus introduces an element of self-preservation that would otherwise be absent. But what about Remus? So far, all we know is that he represents intrusive thougts, but we have not yet seen in what way he helps Thomas. And it's not immediately obvious that he does at all: the two episodes in which he appears as a major character portray him as pathological, focusing on strategies to help Thomas cope with and avoid intrusive thoughts. But I think, given the show's increasing attention to Patton's overly strict ethical rules, Remus will play a key role in helping Thomas accept himself and change his attitude toward morality

In his introductory song, Remus sings a number of lines that relate to morality. He begins with a Biblical allusion, drawing a parallel between Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit and Thomas learning about Remus. He says, "Adam and Eve bought knowledge for the small price of a little sin," framing Thomas' own pursuit of self-knowledge as a transaction that requires him to break his moral rules. Later in the song, he states that "Good and bad are all made up nonsense" and that "everybody cheats, everybody lies, so why deny yourself knowledge?" which attempts to justify Thomas' descent into sin. This is further reinforced by Remus' assertion that "these kinds of things are only thought in the mind of a man whose soul is truly rotten," which is intended to dispel Thomas' self-image as morally righteous. In Remus' view, what is holding Thomas back from understanding himself and reaching his full creative potential is that he is too caught up in false notions of morality, and it is only by dropping these pretenses that he can truly achieve his goals.

At this point, you should be screaming, "Whoa! That sounds exactly like the philosophy of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900)!" That is precisely because I've described it in a way that is intentionally similar to the philosophy of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900). I think that drawing this parallel will allow us to understand the character's direction. Nietzsche was a highly influential philosopher because of his rejection of most things everyone else - even philosophers - took for granted. His writing is complex and difficult to interpret - likely intentionally so - but one of his most famous ideas is that morality is subjective. He criticized Christian morality as "slave morality", claiming that it celebrates weakness and keeps people from achieving their true potential. Additionally, he believed that the metaphysical claims of Christianity were becoming less and less believable in the face of advancements in science and philosophy, so Christian ethics no longer had any grounding either. Instead, he says, it is up to every individual person to give their life meaning. To him, there is no objective truth, only each person's will to power. In this new world that can no longer find answers in God, everyone must strive toward an ideal known as the ubermensch, or "overman," a person who is able to overcome their own weaknesses, create new things, and affirm all aspects of life.

The similarities between Nietzsche and Remus are clear. Both embrace self-understanding, value creativity, and reject moral systems as barriers to achieving one's goals. Furthermore, they share a particular orientation toward controversy. Nietzsche's work is filled with contradictions, and his style is exaggerated and extreme, suggesting that his writings do not form a logically coherent philosophical system or even necessarily reflect his own beliefs but are rather intended to challenge societal norms and promote critical thinking. In the same way, Remus intentionally gives Thomas uncomfortable and disgusting thoughts which he knows will contradict Thomas' morality in order to force him to question his values and assumptions about himself.

It's been over a year since I actually watched the episode the Puzzle Pieces song comes from, but it came up on my Spotify yesterday, and listening to it again I realized just how messed up it is. I think the song is foreshadowing Roman's break from the group in a big way. Though on a surface level it seems like it reinforces the group's friendship and helps them talk through their problems, a closer reading reveals the cracks beneath the facade and how Roman in particular is being ignored.

To begin with, the song is started off by Roman, who is responding directly to the conflict between himself and Logan. The lyrics are related clearly to the immediate situation before them, and Logan's initial interjection ("Another song? Really?") demonstrates that the conflict between them has not yet been resolved (which is, of course, the purpose of the song). However, Patton and Virgil immediately jump in and start talking about their own problems, distracting from the original conflict and drawing all of the attention to themselves. After each of their verses, Roman gives a spoken expression of pity, showing that the two have successfully deflected the attention to themselves. I'm sure you guys have met those people who have to make every problem pertain to them somehow. If you ever talk about something you've dealt with, they'll start talking about how they had to go through something even worse. That's the vibe I'm getting from this song's structure.

Next, we come to Roman's part, which he prefaces by asking permission to join in. It's his song; he started it to address his own conflict, and the others have completely taken over and made it about them. He then tries (albiet in a tactless manner) to express his frustration with the group "not getting" him, likely a response to the fact that they've commandeered his song and paid little attention to what he was trying to say. Thomas, Virgil, and Patton then start psychoanalyzing him. They blame his feelings on the fact that he is feeling "low" rather than entertaining the possibility that they could be at fault too. This, of course, only serves to exacerbate Roman's frustration. This, too, can be understood more clearly when you think about your own life. Have you ever gotten into an argument with someone and, rather than respond to what you are actually saying, they just start talking about you as a person? We've all met armchair psychologists, and they can be really annoying because they never seem to listen. That's what's going on with Virgil, Patton, and Thomas - they have already decided that Roman's attitudes toward them are a result of some deeper psychological state and not because of their own failure to listen to him.

Finally, I want to address three passive-aggressive remarks from the trio of terror which highlight their devaluation of Roman.

"In almost any case, we embrace you" - The way "almost" is emphasized in this sentence draws attention to the fact that the group's acceptance is conditional, and there are exceptions. If someone said this to me, my first thought would be "almost any case? What does that mean?" Of course, in real life, almost every relationship will be conditional (would you still be friends with someone if they murdered your family?), but you wouldn't feel the need to emphasize that unless you wanted them to watch their behavior. Roman hasn't done anything seriously worthy of scorn, so they mustn't be too concerned with him violating those conditions, unless either they have much more strict & overreaching requirements of Roman than they are suggesting or they simply want him to believe he should not speak out about his feelings.

"No one hates you" - "Not hate" and love are two very different things. It reminds me of when people say "Yeah, I can tolerate your sexuality, but don't do it around me." It has that connotation of grudging pseudo-acceptance. Yeah, Roman, we think you're an annoying sad-sack, but at least we don't hate you.

"Everybody has flaws, but with no you at all, I'm incomplete" - The phrasing of this is ambiguous. Is "everybody" referring to Roman or Thomas? I think the most obvious interpretation is that "everybody has flaws" refers to Roman's supposed negative emotions, but the second half of the sentence is referring to Thomas on the whole, which implies that "everybody" could also be referring to Thomas. If read this way, it seems like a real backhanded compliment, as he is essentially calling Roman a flaw. It's how you'd expect him to talk about the Dark Sides.

Now, this more cynical reading of the song is clearly not the interpretation most people (myself included) would have on the first listen. Someone who disagrees with this interpretation could argue that the song really is supposed to be uplifting and resolve some of the tension between the characters. There are a few major points of objection that I anticipate:

The song is not Roman's specifically and was always intended to be about all of the characters. The strongest evidence for this is that at the end of Roman's first verse, he states that "we lash out at our loved ones / disregarding our bond's sanctity", a line which suggests that the song's overall topic is about friendship and working through emotions that may challenge it. Read in this light, it is practically an invitation for the others to chime in with their own verses pertaining to that topic. However, I would point to the centrality of Logan's objections to and within the song (as Logan's conflict with Roman was the original thing that triggered it) as evidence that really it is supposed to be about the direct conflict between Roman and Logan. Furthermore, the fact that Roman is the only character who asks permission to sing is a deliberate detail that demonstrates his own feelings of ostracism, even though he is the one who started singing in the first place.

The other characters are right about the reason behind Roman's lashing out. After all, the beginning verse of the song frames the issue as one that is about "lashing out at loved ones" because "the problems at play are not all plain to see," which encourages a more psychological reading of Roman & Logan's conflict. When he objects to their characterization of his actions as a consequence of his sadness, he responds with typical tough guy responses because he is trying to save face. With that being said, I am still inclined to see it as a way for the others to avoid admitting wrongdoing and sweep his feelings under the rug. It is undoubtedly true that Roman said what he did because he feels bad, but the reason he feels bad is not obscure at all because he says it outright - it is because he feels like the others don't get him. Rather than engage seriously with this point, however, the others immediately become defensive. Though he formulated it in a way that comes across as arrogant ("I'm just too fab for you fools"), what he said is not a grave insult. The other three deliberately focus on the first part rather than his real point ("I feel like you don't get me"). Furthermore, the initial statement that the problems at play are not all plain to see may not refer to the fact that they are not clear to Roman himself, but rather that the rest of the group fails to see them.

The three "passive aggressive" statements are being read uncharitably and are simply responses to what they perceive to be Roman's issue. The others seem to believe that Roman thinks they are out to get him, and that is why they say that they embrace him and no one hates him. The flaw being referred to in the final quote is Roman's flaw of being overly paranoid, and the second part of the lyric is intended to reinforce that Roman is still part of the group. At best, though, this still demonstrates that the others are not listening to Roman. His issue is not that he thinks they hate him, it's that he feels misunderstood, and Virgil, Patton, and Thomas seem to have overreacted. The inclusion of "almost" is still weird. The line could easily have been "No matter what you say, we embrace you" or "No matter what the case, we embrace you." The qualifier of "almost" did not have to feature at all, but the delivery of that lyric places so much emphasis on that particular word.

Over the past couple of Sanders Sides episodes, Patton's morality has been called into serious question. Thomas and the Sides have pointed out that it is too strict, impractical to follow, and potentially damaging to Thomas' mental health. But Patton's morality doesn't come from nowhere. In fact, it is almost identical to the ethical theory of Immanuel Kant. Furthermore, several additional characteristics suggest that Patton may represent Kant, and these clues can give some insight into the ending of the show.

First of all, what is Kant's philosophy? There are two important concepts to remember: the categorical imperative and good will. The categorical imperative is a universal law of reason which Kant states everyone must follow. He expresses it in two ways, which he says are equivalent: firstly, one must only act in a way such that the principle which guides their action is universal (essentially, would you want to live in a world in which everyone followed the same principle?). His second formulation states that one must treat people always as an end and never as a means to an end. Secondly, one must use reason to understand the moral law, and the purpose of reason is to create a "good will." This good will motivates one to follow the moral law for its own sake and for no other reason, regardless of personal desires or potential consequences.

Now, you may remember Kant from the episode "Is Lying Wrong?" in which Janus, disguised as Patton, brings up the famous counterargument about whether it is wrong to lie to an axe murderer. The purpose of this example is to demonstrate the failures in Kant's philosophy so that Thomas will agree to lie, but when Patton reappears, he agrees with Kant's position - that lying is absolutely wrong. However, it is not subjected to the same level of scrutiny at that time, likely more because of who is saying it.

Patton has many similarities to Kant. As revealed in "Putting Others First" and "Selfishness vs Selflessness," his morality is very rigid. It is not enough to do the right thing; you have to do it for the right reasons (the desire to follow the moral law for its own sake rather than to get any personal gain.) His principles are also very absolute, and he does not pay as much attention to the consequences of potential actions as he does to whether or not they follow the universal laws.

Kant is also known famously as the "father of modern ethics." It seems no accident, then, that Patton also assumed the role of a father. But Kant died a virgin and never married. This mirrors Patton's child-like innocence and lack of knowledge about sex.

With the knowledge of these parallels between Patton and Kant, we can now examine the implications. As the other sides become more critical of Patton, leveraging arguments against him that have also been used against Kant, perhaps they will soon realize that his morality is a sham. This would indeed reflect the reality of Kant -- he is a father who has two children, one of them being ethics and one of them being scientific racism. His ideas about race were unique for his time, and his classification of non-whites as subhuman and incapable of reason went above what was typical of the time (which was still undoubtedly racist, but they believed that other races could be "civilized" whereas Kant argued they were made for slavery). Kant's children were not loved equally; the racism was his golden child, and during his life, his lectures and books were primarily focused on anthropology. His moral philosophy was only a side note in his career, never able to escape the shadow of its brother.

In "Dealing With Intrusive Thoughts," it is revealed that Remus is Roman's "dark" counterpart. But who is Janus' "light" counterpart? It is certainly possible that he doesn't have one. But given how much emphasis is put into the symmetry between the "dark" & "light" sides (same number in each, black vs white clothing, etc), as well as the similarities within these groups (the naming conventions, for instance), it seems likely that Janus is somehow connected to one of the others. Following the example of Roman and Remus, both brothers are responsible for creativity, but Roman's creativity is deemed to be good and pure, whereas Remus' creativity is deemed dark and disturbing. Therefore, Janus and his counterpart would likely share the same fundamental trait as well, though their manifestations of it would be different. On this basis, I will argue that Logan and Janus are connected by the trait of reason, and that Janus is a "dark side" because he uses reason in a way that is cynical and self-interested.

First, let us compare Logan and Janus' style of argumentation. Logan typically references scientific studies and concepts, such as the Yerkes-Dodson Curve and the statistic about Christmas decorations that appears in "Putting Others First" to name only a few. This demonstrates his highly empirical world view, and from these empirical observations he draws normative conclusions about what Thomas ought to do. One of Logan's biggest emphases is on Thomas's health, as demonstrated in "Why Do We Get Out Of Bed In The Morning?"

On the other hand, Janus focuses on philosophical arguments, referencing Kant, Stirner, and Nietzsche to make his points. Though Janus is less interested in scientific facts, he still demonstrates logic in his own way, as these philosophers all used rational arguments to support their conclusions (note: whether or not you agree with them, what I mean by "rational" is that they applied the rules of logic to their premises to construct their philosophies). Janus has also been described as representing self-preservation, an aim not too dissimilar to Logan's goal of promoting Thomas' health. After all, Janus explicitly argued in favor of Thomas's mental health in "Putting Others First."

With all of this being said, it is worth noting that the flexibility and ambiguity of philosophy allows Janus to use logic as a tool to suit his needs in the moment. To put it in the words of Renee Descartes, "there is nothing so strange and little believable that it has not been said by one of the philosophers." Furthermore, "Selfishness vs Selflessness" draws attention to the contradictions between Stirner's belief in equality and his racism, suggesting that philosophers are often hypocritical and cannot necessarily be trusted. This is what makes Janus a "dark" side - he too has the capability to reason, but rather than pursuing the noble goal of truth, he uses his powers to manipulate others and further his own ends.

Given this reading, it is significant that in "Selfishness vs Selflessness," Logan is the one to mention Peter Singer, a contemporary philosopher. This further reinforces the hidden similarities between the two. Throughout the entire series, the only other side to use philosophical arguments is Janus, so for Logan to reference a philosopher in support of one of his own arguments suggests that he recognizes a certain logic to them as well (even if it is not his default method of logic). Moreover, Janus' adoption of the more science-based mental health rhetoric in the same episode shows that this parallel goes both ways.

This opens up a new avenue for speculation: who is Patton's "dark" counterpart? There are two possibilities: Virgil and the yet-to-be-revealed Orange Side. I will now discuss the evidence and implications of both:

Virgil: It is undeniable that Virgil and Patton share a unique bond. This can be seen throughout the episodes, and it would feed into the idea that Virgil is Patton's (formerly) "dark" counterpart. The trait that both share in common is feelings - while Patton's feelings are generally quite positive with some negative ones slipping through (see Moving on), Virgil is largely negative with a few positive emotions occasionally showing. However, if Virgil is the "dark" side of Patton, it is not clear what it means for him to have joined the "light" sides or what makes him special in that regard. Perhaps it can be explained as a result of Patton's morality -- he is ultimately who dictates which sides are good or bad, so if he took a personal liking to Virgil, he would see Virgil as good and thus Virgil would "become light."

Orange: Fans have speculated rather plausibly that the orange side will represent rage/anger, which would work well with this theory. This would be another instance of emotions "gone wrong" so to speak, as one emotion that Patton (and by extension Thomas) never seems to show is anger. Anger has a certain capacity for destructiveness, so this could be why the orange side is considered "dark." If orange was Patton's counterpart, this would leave Virgil without any counterpart, suggesting that he occupies an unusual role within Thomas' psyche and is perhaps the sole "neutral" side.

There is, of course, a third possibility: that orange & Virgil are counterparts, and that Patton is the one who is exceptional. Maybe Patton's role as the arbiter of morality means that he occupies a privileged position in Thomas's psyche which cannot easily be inverted (after all, what would be the purpose in a side that makes Thomas evil for no reason?)

Hi guys, I'm not exactly an active member in this community, but I was rewatching some Sanders Sides episodes which prompted me to look at some fan theories. One common theme I noticed is that the majority of theories pertain to the dysfunctional relationship between the sides.

Logan: Everyone is talking about how Logan is never listened to, and the others only pay attention to what he says when it supports their arguments.

Roman: There has also been a decent amount of attention paid to the fact that Roman's confidence is being slowly undermined, and in the Puzzle Pieces song he outright says that he doesn't feel like the others "get him."

Patton: The last two episodes have shown that Patton is percieved to be too hard on Thomas and overly controlling, which creates conflict with the other sides.

Virgil: There also seem to be some underlying tensions with Virgil being a former dark side and not knowing where he fits in. There are questions as to whether the "light sides" fully accept him, and the "dark sides" still seem to think he is one of them. After all, he is part of their family, not the light sides, in the 5 year anniversary video.

Janus & Remus: The categorization of these sides as "dark sides" leads to negative judgements from Sanders and the rest. Though this is often valid, it is also clear that the "dark sides" are bothered by this and try to show Thomas that they have positive (or at least neutral) elements as well. It is unclear to what extent Janus and Remus will be able to integrate with the group.

Perhaps this is an unnecessarily cynical view, but it seems like the group is actually rather toxic, and I am not so sure that they will be able to set aside their differences in the finale. All they do is talk to each other about their feelings, and yet it's rare that anything changes. (One notable exception being the acceptance of Virgil, but even this has question marks lingering over it). Though the characters maintain a cheerful facade and constantly reiterate their positive feelings toward the group, something about it feels very artificial, like they are trying to cover up the real problems that lay underneath the surface. It seems doubtful whether these tensions truly can be resolved. After all, Thomas's videos emphasize mental health and putting on one's own oxygen mask first, so I wonder if any of the characters will decide to bail ship.