Hello, one of the drivers of the conformitygate bus here. I'm going to explain why the opposing side has a harder time providing compelling arguments for why they are right. Spoiler alert: it is, because the likelihood of them being correct is VERY small.
It's a long, but extremely satisfying read, I promise :) It might be a bit logic-y and math-y. Don't be shy, ask questions.
Consider the hypothesis:
"Season 5 and the finale of Stranger Things, the documentary and other press surrounding it are all part of a larger meta narrative and social experiment."
We prove this hypothesis with what I like to call "the body of evidence". It includes, but is not limited to:
Unanswered questions about the sci-fi elements and the unexplained mysteries surrounding the villain.
Sudden set and prop design changes.
Tragic, incomplete or contradictory character arcs for all the protagonists that neatly fit into the villain's vision of the world.
S5 merch based on nothing from the first 8 episodes.
Unused, but licensed music. Unused, but filmed shots.
References of media with fake finales or alternative timelines inside the show.
Explicit encouragement to not believe in coincidences and discussions on questioning the reality inside the show.
Teasing of meta readings, alternative endings and the villain's victory during the press tour.
Puzzles and radio broadcasts hinting towards a meta reading and alternative ending.
This list is actually only scratching the surface, but this is more than enough for my point. I'll call the points from the body of evidence "inconsistencies" from now on.
Now, we claim that these inconsistencies have been created by the writers of the show intentionally. Intent is at the core of this hypothesis. Intent implies a set-up, and we argue it's for the meta narrative and social experiment. Our critics always try to disprove us by saying ALL of the inconsistencies are just a bunch of coincidences.
They are making a fatal error here! Or rather, this shows exactly why their hypothesis is weaker than ours.
For us,
It's already enough to have one or a couple of the many inconsistencies turn out to be intentional to prove that our hypothesis holds.
For example, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9 are surely intentional and 1, 3, 6 and 7 are likely intentional. You could even assign scores or scales to each and every inconsistency from low to high intentionality, if you so desire. The more "surely intentional" inconsistencies we have, the stronger our case becomes. The "likely intentional" inconsistencies do not prove our hypothesis without a shadow of a doubt, but could move up to "surely intentional" with some substantiation.
On the other hand, our critics have to prove that:
"All of the inconsistencies in the body of evidence are coincidental"
And that, ladies, gentlemen and others, is a very hard threshold! Ask yourself this question:
What's the likelihood that all of the inconsistencies are coincidental?
To put some easy numbers on this, 5 coincidences are likely, 10 less likely, 100 even less likely, etc. The more inconsistencies there are, the less likely it becomes that they were random, accidental, coincidental, pure chance, purely probabilistic!
If even ONE of the inconsistencies is intentional, their claim does NOT hold.
So our critics have worked themselves into a corner. Moreover, the reality is that
The likelihood of ALL or even the majority of the inconcistencies in the body of evidence to be coincidental is VERY small.
They know this intuitively, but they have found a predictable way to circumvent that reality.
- Ad hominem attacks towards us and the writers.
They say we are unable to discern intent or they argue that the writers are unable to make intentional choices. They do not address the actual inconsistencies. They slightly decrease the intentionality scores of some of the inconsistencies in the body of evidence (like 1, 3, 6 and 7). But, they CANNOT prove that ALL or even the majority of the inconsistencies are coincidental this way!
- Blaming outside forces, like Netflix, capitalism, politics.
This is them trying to shift the focus away from the claim they have to prove. Is there a chance that Netflix could interfere at any moment and stop the release of an alternative ending? Yes. That's not what we are debating, though. (This point is mute anyway, because Netflix has been in on it from the start, considering they released the doc and are part of the press tour.) Once again, they CANNOT prove that ALL or even the majority of inconsistencies are coincidental this way!
In conclusion, the hypothesis
"Season 5 and the finale of Stranger Things, the documentary and other press surrounding it are all part of a larger meta narrative and social experiment."
is far more substantiated and easier to prove with the body of evidence, than whatever our critics are trying to accomplish. While we might not have complete certainty that all the inconsistencies are completely intentional, we only need ONE of 100% certainty to prove our claim. I post my personal favorite below. The more the merrier and the stronger our case, of course.
💬 2 🔁 28 ❤️ 167 · Post by @considermeadream12 · 10 images · Anyone who wants simple and strong proof that: Episode 8 is intended to be in
Another example, the dial changing from grey to red is an excellent one, that one is 100% intentional, so it's meant as a set-up. We can debate what it's setting up, but at least both parties have to admit it's intentional. The step from understanding there was intent to understanding the exact intent is a lot easier to make. That's also the far more interesting conversation, but our critics have not come this far yet.
Furthermore, if our hypothesis is true, the likelihood of there being an alternative ending is quite high, if we assume the authors intend to finish the story and Netflix will not interfere, that is (a debate for another time).
tl;dr na na na na na we right.
Small edit: Imagine the scenario they somehow manage to prove that the majority of inconsistencies ARE coincidental (unlikely), they still won't be able to disprove the couple of 100% INTENTIONAL inconsistencies. So, it should have never been a debate about coincidences in the first place, but about intent.
