The focus of this post is the fact that Gina has recently began pushing the morally, medically, scientifically false narrative that being a fan of Louis is the same as being in an abusive relationship dynamic. I have sources to prove her wrong, but common sense also does the trick for those of us who aren't preoccupied with sucking her dick.

Here is her post, the one that prompted my dm, and the one that's been prompting the Gina-related anons I've been recieving lately:

Let's break it down, shall we? Firstly, here is the tweet everyone is losing their goddamn minds over:

Fact: He refers to twitter as a "weird place." He says twitter feels "extra toxic these days."

Fact: Neither of those statements are directed at any particular twitter user, fandom, side of the fandom, or person in general. They are directed at an app on the whole.

Twitter is toxic. It's literally owned by a nazi. Louis is not saying anything that is untrue. In fact, he's putting it very mildly. And I could argue about why I personally don't believe he wrote that tweet, but let's just assume for the sake of discussion that he did. It's not a violent tweet, it isn't calling for violence, it's not derogatory towards any of his fans, and it reads as an offhand observation of how twitter tends to feel more than anything.

If anyone else on the planet earth had made that tweet, even one of the other boys, this overreaction would not be happening.

Now, into Gina's post.

Her anon starts off by stating that twitter is a toxic cesspool, a statement that completely agrees with what Louis' tweet said. So they're in agreement, right? There shouldn't be an issue? Oh, but with Louis haters, there's always an issue.

The anon goes on to say that they believe Louis was tweeting about some sect of his fans because of his instagram post. The instagram post being referenced is his Costa Rica studio pics, the ones captioned "Pura Vida." Nothing to do with twitter, or fans, or toxicity. Just an LT3 update.

"For a while now, his MO seems to be punches followed quickly by soothing pats." Since when? Evidence? Louis has done nothing recently but appear in fan selfies in Costa Rica, tweet hints about his upcoming album, and do whatever contractually obligated stunt bullshit he has to do with Zara. Maybe the anon is an idiot, and is referring to the stunt? That would make sense considering Gina has been pushing the false narrative that Louis is stunting for shits and giggles. If you want my deep dive thoughts on that, check my Mcdumblinson tag, or maybe my Louis Closet tag. Stunting and closeting is not a choice.

"A tongue-lashing on twitter followed by a photo dump." The 'tongue-lashing' being... him saying twitter feels weird lately and more toxic than usual. If that's a 'tongue-lashing' to you, then you've lived a VERY happy life. Hell, even if the anon is referring to some other time when Louis followed a tweet spree with insta photos, in what world is that abusive? Even if the tweets were less-than-positive. The plot has been severely lost.

"or a night out at the bar snapping photos with fans coming on the heels of a fan blocking spree." Louis is allowed to block whoever he wants to on social media, for any reason. You have no idea why he may block someone, even someone who is a fan of his. There are plenty of assholes in this fandom who I have blocked, is that abuse too? Again, these examples the anon is giving to define why they're saying Louis is behaving abusively are factually not abusive. Blocking someone on social media is not abuse, it's a self-curation method that quite literally every single person and every single celebrity on the planet who has a social will utilize at some point.

"It's not dissimilar to the patterns of behavior abusers engage in." Wanna try that one again? Because you are factually incorrect. You are wrong. That is not my opinion, that is a fact. Louis is not your personal friend or relative, he is not personally attacking you in any way. Tweeting about how twitter sucks? Everyone agrees with that, even the anon agrees with that, so why and HOW would that be abusive behavior? Posting studio pics? He's a musician, what are you expecting? Blocking people? Literally a form of self-care and only POTENTIALLY considered emotional abuse if you are someone's personal friend or partner and they are using blocking and unblocking as a guilt tripping technique. Louis blocking random people who he doesn't want to interact with is not that potential case, by any stretch. Familiarize yourself with the false equivalence fallacy, perhaps?

And now onto Gina's response to the anon. Firstly, she agrees with them. Secondly;

"That pattern of behavior goes back to the 1D days, actually. We were always braced for the backlash every time we got something good." This, my friends, is intentionally vague. You know WHY fans in the 1D days were always braced for backlash when something good happened? Because management was even worse than it is now for Harry and Louis, and anytime they tried to be truthful with us or show their love, MANAGEMENT was who dished out backlash to try and discourage and dismantle the Larrie fandom. It wasn't Louis engaging in some intentional cycle- it was Louis and Harry trying to be themselves, and management punishing them AND us alike for it. Do not misattribute the actions of a scummy company to Louis just because it serves your anti-Louis narrative, Gina.

"And you're spot on with it being abusive. And triggering." Nope, you are flat-out wrong. Again, not my opinion, this is a fact. Louis' posts on social media have never violated TOS or incited violence against another person. He is not abusing you, a fan, by saying he feels like twitter is toxic lately. He is not abusing you, a fan, by blocking accounts he dislikes. He is not abusing you. You are not anywhere near close enough to him personally to BE abused by him. The anon's argument relies on the false attribution of irrelevant facts.

As for triggering- if Louis triggers you by simply existing online and saying something negative about a social media app, that is a you problem. Triggers are YOUR responsibility to identify and accommodate yourself for. You cannot expect Louis to change how he tweets because it personally upsets you. He doesn't know you, dude. You don't know him. Gina, you are 57 years old, you are plenty old enough to understand this concept and yet you are intentionally obtuse about it to serve your narrative.

Now that I'm done with Gina's post, let's get into our dms. I've had Gina blocked since around the time I was notified of the defending a child groomer shit, but I unblocked her because my anons had tipped me off about the disgusting things she was saying about Louis being "abusive."

I didn't beat around the bush. I made it clear that, while I don't like her regardless and she knows that, I found this important enough to make reaching out privately worth it. Initially, I didn't intend to share our dms. But after her reply, I really don't fucking care. Let's get into that reply, shall we?

To start, I'm briefly going to address what she said about the grooming mess. This has been talked about ad nauseum at this point, and it's not the focus of this post, so I'll keep it brief.

"You couldn’t be bothered to do a little detective work to verify whether a horrific accusation was true or false" I did, actually. I read the old posts. I dug up the old posts on YOUR blog, Gina. From the horse's mouth. The fact you are trying to paint me as not having done my due diligence is manipulative from the jump, and we aren't even at the part where you called Louis abusive.

The fact she's even bringing this up when I made it clear that my dm wasn't about that situation is a tactic to distract me- and whoever I show these dms to- from the POINT of this interaction. She's throwing confetti 5 feet to the left in hopes we'll all look over there instead of at the issue at hand. This is the red herring fallacy.

Then her ramble about the victim supposedly lying (evidence?) is a clear example of attempting to poison the well. If she can start off making me sound less credible by bringing up an entirely separate debate and say some nonsense about the victim in that case lying, she can make her actual rebuttal to the "Louis is abusive" debate sound more credible by default.

"You just decided to believe it and to build up a federal case against someone who’s literally done nothing to you, nor to anyone else" This part just pisses me off. Federal case? Who do you think I am, the god damn FBI? I called you out on tumblr, grow up and take accountability maybe instead of acting like I sent a SWAT team to your blog. Anyway, moving on.

"Now, you come here and tell me that you and your “close friends and mutuals” know what abuse is and because you don’t agree with my take, I am therefore doing something hurtful" So right off the bat she's putting my 'close friends and mutuals' in quotation marks to make it sound like mine and the people I know's experiences of abuse are less valid. She's also initializing me a great deal based on age- I'm 19, she's 57. Not a single genuine argument from her to be seen yet.

But the fact is, I do know what abuse is. I've not only experienced abuse, I've studied it. For years. And Louis tweeting and posting to instagram like a normal guy who makes music? Not abuse. Abuse, believe it or not, has a DEFINITION. What is and is not abuse can have some subjectivity to it, but in broad terms it does have to meet certain markers to be considered abuse at all. In this case, the only abuse that could even hypothetically be commited is psychological (commonly known as emotional) abuse, so here's the actual defintion:

A celebrity tweeting something you don't like, and then promoting his music? Not abuse.

A parent telling their child that they're worthless and then giving them a hug? Absolutely abuse.

What Louis has posted online cannot possibly be stretched to fit the definition of abuse. Flat out. That is not how this works. He tweeted about twitter feeling toxic and then promoted his music. That's not abuse. That's him being some guy on the internet and posting pretty normal things. I posted TODAY about twitter being a horrible website and then continued business as usual, akin to how Louis did. Is that abuse? Was I abusing all of you by saying I dislike a social media app, and then DARING to post something positive afterwards on my sideblog?

"I’d like to remind you that you don’t know me. You don’t know my story. You don’t know what I’ve been through." Appeal to emotion, nobody cares about your story. Louis is a public figure, not your close personal friend who hurt you. Everyone can see his tweets and insta posts, everyone hears what he says publicly, and none of it constitutes abuse. Not towards you, and frankly not towards anyone. Your personal history is irrelevant, it's another attempt to distract from the point while also appealing to my empathy.

And before anyone says it- yes, I also brought up my abuse history. In an entirely differnet context. The purpose for me bringing up that I have been abused was to explain why I'm personally upset with Gina's misportrayal of what abuse is. Gina's purpose of bringing up her potential abuse history was to validate her calling Louis abusive for publicly verifiable, factually non-abusive behaviors. Different contexts, different purposes behind a similar talking point.

"I am a lot older than you are, and I have had more than my fair share of experiences. Please don’t come into my DMs and tell me that your interpretation of abuse is the only valid one." You are older, but that does not mean you are smarter, nor does it mean you are correct by default. Your age is irrelevant and you only bring it up to sound like an authority over me, which you are not.

It's not "my interpretation of abuse." It's a fact that Louis is not abusing you, you fucking unlit candle. Abuse has a medical and factual definition, and Louis' tweet and fucking instagram post do not fit that definition. Asserting that the definition of what is and is not abuse if simply 'my interpretation' is a VERY intentional attempt to discredit my words, as well as treating me like I'm stupid.

"I am entitled to feel how I feel. If you don’t like my takes, no one is forcing you to come to my blog and see what I’m saying." Feel however you want, it's still factually not true to assert that Louis is being abusive towards you or fans at large. The matter I dmed you about is not one of feelings or opinions, it is one of facts. You are treating it like a matter of feelings and opinions because that serves you, it makes it easier to discredit and disregard what I am saying without you needing to craft and ACTUAL rebuttal.

"I’m sorry you don’t like me. I can’t do anything about that. But assuming everything you read online to be truth is dangerous." I never asked you to change whether or not I like you. I dmed you because you are asserting a provable lie and it's disgusting. I read YOUR post. Posted today. But again, she's trying to tie it back into the grooming debacle and her narrative on that, which is again distracting from the main point and a lazy attempt at discrediting me with irrelevant arguments.

Gina is a highly manipulative person and she's had a long time to perfect her skills. She, unfortunately for her, falls victim to her ego though. She assumed that I would be easy to manipulate, distract, appeal to my pity, because I'm only 19. Because she's older and has been in the fandom longer. Well, unfortunately for her, I spent the first 18 years of my life learning how to identify manipulation on the fly from my own mother. I clocked her tactics immediately. I cited my sources. I hope she shuts the fuck up about Louis, since she clearly doesn't fucking like him, and all she's doing is actively encouraging the fandom to treat him worse with her bullshit "he's abusing us!" narrative.

Fuck you, mediocre regards,