#clearly)

I wear my nose ring almost every single day. Why aren’t you paying attention to me? I never wear my belly piercing. It feels weird. Maybe I’ll put it back in thoa

Scott tries not to get too attached to people, he tries to see them as temporary and fleeting and his relationships with them the same

Out off everyone, Scott spent so little time with Avid, he barely knew him really, he didnt have time to get attached to him the person

[dbhc flavored] Hermit A Day May ‘25, Day 25: Beefers!!

like, yes i'm happy that even some milkvans are switching up rn. but doesn't this just prove that people can't understand subtext until it's shoved down their throats? (pun unintended)

some people seriously need to go back to middle school lit class and get a reminder of storytelling devices:

1. you do not have a character explicitly say "i'm not gonna fall in love" just for them not to fall in love.

2. you do not acknowledge the fact that a character has never kissed anyone just for them not to kiss anyone.

3. you do not include chekhov's gun (the painting, will's sexuality, will's love for mike) only for it to go unacknowledged and unutilized.

4. you do not seperate the so-called "main couple of the show" for the entirety of three seasons, respectively.

5. you do not have a character be unable to tell his supposed "love of his life" that he loves her, even at a crucial moment when she was begging him to do so.

6. you do not have a character be unable to tell his girlfriend that he loves her for TWO SEASONS.

7. you do not have a character literally save his friends and family TWICE because of his love for another character only for it to be unreciprocated.

i could go on and on, but another thing i want to acknowledge:

milkvans/ga love to say that all of the parallels in the show to other media (et, ghostbusters, it, eyewitness, sex education, dawson's creek, etc...) are unintentional BUT THAT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING.

even if it is unintentional (which it isn't because the duffers know what they're doing), all that proves is that stranger things is using common devices to build up a romantic relationship or break up another one.

milkvans are literally rooting for et x elliot, a child and an alien, because they're too illiterate to recognize an actual romance. you cannot make this up.

another thing that milkvans love to say is that byler proof/anti milkvan proof is "just a coincidence" and "doesn't mean anything". to disprove that point, i would like to share a list of moments in s5 alone in which the show could have easily supported milkvan and disregarded byler, but DIDN'T:

1. having mike and el kiss in their singular s5 vol1 scene together.

2. having mike and el talk specifically about their future together as a couple during the rooftop conversation.

3. having mike and el mention each other when they're seperated.

4. having different characters involved (joyce, robin, lucas, erica) hold hands on the leaky pipe above the tunnel called dick instead of mike and will.

5. having will's flashbacks that help him save everyone include lucas and dustin instead of only his family and mike.

6. having will save mike remotely, like with lucas, murrary, and robin instead of in person where mike is closest to him.