I'm sure you've already answered this, but how would UF Papyrus react to being rejected?? - The lazy anon😪
Kind of depends on the scenario, honestly
Generally speaking, he doesn’t handle it super well. Like, not “follow you around whining about how you won’t date me” bad, but likely be just a bit of a bitch when he sees you next bad.
Also kind of depends on how long he’s known you. If you’re just someone he met and asked out he’ll likely bluster a bit about how you don’t know what you’re missing but leave you alone. f he’s known you for a while…..honestly, it sounds like a dick thing, but Boss can’t really do “let’s just stay friends.” He takes the rejection personally, because it takes him a long time to warm up to people and even longer to admit to himself he might be having feelings. After all that, to be rejected…..it hurts. What’s wrong with him? How do you not see him the same way? He’s not the type to assume you want to date someone lesser but…..it may take a long time before you’re back to the way you were. As convoluted as it sounds, it feels like a betrayal of trust, and he refuses to slip up again.
I’ve seen quite a few posts about the specific use of the Romeo and Juliet death scene in GMW as foreshadowing regarding Riley’s relationships with Lucas and Farkle, but something occurred me and, quite apart from Riley’s reactions to both boys, the more I think about it the more the whole thing of having Farkle as a spear carrier is just so clever.
At first I just immediately read the fact that he was a spear carrier as a reference to BMW, which obviously on the surface it is. But the idea of a spear carrier makes a lot more sense in ‘The Play’s the Thing’ because they’re doing Hamlet, set at the Danish court at Elsinore where there would be guards and spear carriers. (Admittedly the scene we see Stuart doing at the end is Hamlet’s soliloquy from Act 1, Sc 2 when he should be alone on stage, but the whole cast is still there so you could read that as a directorial decision to have that delivered as though Hamlet’s saying this silently to himself rather than out loud).
But why include a spear carrier in the final scene of Romeo and Juliet? In the death scene of all places?
Now, there is actually a third person in the tomb with Romeo and Juliet in the play … Paris. The other man who wanted to marry Juliet. If this was a straightforward representation of the play it would have made a lot more sense to have Farkle as Paris, because in the text he’s actually there. Yeah, Paris fights Romeo and dies but if Farkle’s going to interrupt the play anyway, why not have him do it as Paris? Have him decide this time Paris gets the girl?
Except Paris is pretty obviously never going to be anything other than a temporary obstacle for Romeo and Juliet. Both of them refuse to let him come between them - Juliet by faking her death, Romeo by actually killing him. I mean, yes, on the surface the tomb scene is the tragic end to what is an ultimately doomed relationship and I think the decision to use that scene is important for that reason. But this is also where Romeo and Juliet choose to be together in death rather than let other people (read: Paris) come between them. So even if Paris did get up again and decide he gets Juliet this time, it wouldn’t mean much because Romeo and Juliet have already chosen each other over Paris.
A spear carrier though? A spear carrier who shouldn’t even be there? I mean, he could feasibly be anything. He could even persuade Juliet to pick him over Romeo when she wakes up. A spear carrier could swoop in and change the entire story. Hell, just having the spear carrier there automatically changes the story because if, theoretically, Juliet and Friar Laurence’s plan hadn’t gone awry, having a spear carrier there to witness the supposedly dead Juliet waking up would have been a little bit inconvenient.
So just the fact that there is a spear carrier should signal that the story is not going to play out as we think. But then, this is a spear carrier that, because of lighting and costume choices, we don’t really notice to begin with.
Kind of, you know, like how we didn’t really notice Farkle at first because he was so clearly the Minkus character who would probably disappear after a while.
Just … I sometimes have issues with what this show does on a micro level episode-to-episode. But on a macro level, they are clearly thinking in painstaking detail and it is so clever.
Every other award show we have watched 1D play musical chairs during the commercial break. That did not happen this time and yet no one reacted cause it is normal for these two to be next to each other. It was abnormal to have them switch every five minutes. People always think we are going to have a freak fest every five minutes (its every two) but the truth is, THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALL ALONG.
hey guys i have no clue how to do one of these but uh yea letsa go
i basically hit like 500 followers and whoa thats crazy, so i mean hey whats up im gonna make one of these after promising so many times, thanks to everyone so much i love you all!!! i’m sorry if you’re not on here, im terrible and forgetful
people i absolutely adore and cherish and love so so much:
Oooooh, I get it now! So BLM people didn't scream "we want dead cops!" on that videos, it was the cops doing that! I get noooow! Thanks! (wow how I looove people ignoring truth and facts! it's my freaking favourite thing) Look. I get it. You think you are doing the right thing. I don't say I don't respect black people (in fact, I don't give a fuck, since I'm not from USA) or I want all muslims dead, I just urge you to check REAL FACTS and not social justice "facts"... My honest advice for you.
It seems that you believe that you’ve got me in a “gotcha!” situation, and somehow proven that I haven’t done my research or homework on BLM (way to ignore 2/3rds of what I had to say in my response, btw).
But I assure you that you haven’t gotten anything, and here is why:
First, you can’t judge an entire movement on the actions of a few. Within every movement, you will have people who disagree on ways to do things, and you’ll get people whose behaviour is not ideal. Just because a few people have done something within BLM that might be iffy in terms of behaviour doesn’t mean the entire movement is violent. To use a similar example, there are shitty people in feminism (terfs, twerfs, white feminists, rad-fems, etc), but that doesn’t mean that the movement that is feminism is necessarily bad.
Second, I don’t consider screaming “we want dead cops” to be violent. Not in the true sense. Them screaming “we want dead cops” doesn’t actually produce dead cops. It’s back to that power structure thing again. They can say that, but it has minimal effect on the people in power, except maybe hurt feelings. WHich is the main difference btwn using a slur and saying something like this. Further, I have seen very little violence come out of BLM as a whole. Most of their protests are peaceful (except when cops start to act out), and the majority of their actions has been non-violent. You pulling one example of people shouting angry things doesn’t really change this. (btw here is a link that talks about this)
Third, you can’t really expect a group of people who is treated like crap and killed regularly with no remorse or justice served to stay calm and PC about it forever. It gets tiresome having society essentially want you out of the picture, or kept as a second-rate citizen for the entirety of your life. You’re going to get mad at some point.
Fourth, our entire society is more or less putting an entire group of people into a double bind. There is no way for them to “properly” protest because society doesn’t actually want them to be equal. It’s called moving the goal posts.
So I would recommend that you also fact check, and look at things within a larger context before posting more facetious comments in my inbox.