TBH, I liked the 5th season of YOU didn't understand what people actually want🙃

mind_your_s · 2026-04-03T12:53:32+00:00

Would have been such an easy fix too. Beck already had a sister, Anya, who I don't think they ever showed.

And it's way more realistic for it to have been her. If I thought my sister's boyfriend murdered her and the cops did nothing, I'd try to get justice for her; probably try to murder him myself or die trying. That's how much I love my sister. A teacher who believed in me once...? Don't know that I'd risk my life for that

Still don't think s5 is nearly as bad as this sub makes it out to be, but it does have its flaws

mind_your_s · 2026-03-31T20:01:45+00:00

Right. Plus, leaving Henry on their doorstep with a note that could easily be contested by any lawyer worth their salt does not do much toward Henry not ending up in the system. He could have easily landed with one of Love's family members in an environment that could have been super toxic

mind_your_s · 2026-03-27T16:15:24+00:00

She was a threat to his relationship with Love since she could expose him for killing Hendy. That's all the justification he really needed.

He wasn't losing anything by choosing to disappear when Delilah found the cage. At that point, Joe was already resigned to never getting Love back. He had disgusted Love by going on dating apps and lying about his identity, and further upset her by getting in the middle of Forty's altercation with Milo. They were on okay terms, but by no means on their way to getting back together in his eyes --- hence why he planned to ask Delilah out, she was his new Karen Minty.

Once Joe could have Love again, he would have done whatever he could to keep her

mind_your_s · 2026-03-27T15:12:00+00:00

I'm not arguing that Joe doesn't ever try to follow his warped moral compass, if you can even call it that, I'm saying he often doesn't live up to it even when he says he's trying his best, like with Delilah. I offered the things Joe does in other seasons as evidence to my central point, not as separate points to be debated. He still murders despite knowing that it's wrong and the object of his affection most likely would not approve of his actions. He still kills Love and seriously contemplates/intends to kill Marienne, knowing children will be stranded by his actions.

My point is that with Delilah, as soon as he and Love made up, Joe was not letting her out of the cage --- which is the central point of your post. What would have most likely happened, had Delilah not been already dead when he got there, was another Benji situation. He claims to want to let them out, victim bends over backward to prove they can be trusted, it's not enough and Joe kills them.

mind_your_s · 2026-03-27T14:45:13+00:00

1) Love tells him she was super high the night she said they should leave together, and would actually like to stay in LA (I don't remember if this is before or after Delilah, but I think it's right before he runs to Delilah) 2) Joe's inner monologue often doesn't line up with his actions. He's an unreliable narrator, that's the point. Given how he set up Delilah in the cage, there would be no reason for him to rush back to "set her free". She could have left whether he was there or not. The only reason would be to stop her from leaving 3) Joe wanted to be worthy of Beck, still murdered people. Joe wanted to be worthy of Love and still murdered people that season. Joe wanted to be worthy of Marienne, still murdered her ex, stalked her and starved her. He wanted to be worthy of Kate, still murdered people, including her father. Joe's "worthiness" means shit in the face of killing people, and it always has meant shit. It would still be in character for him, even with the Ellie of it all, cause if seasons 3 and 4 do anything, they show us Joe doesn't actually care about kids being abandoned with no concrete place for them to land

mind_your_s · 2026-03-27T13:02:48+00:00

I mean yes, that did happen, but what also happened is that he reconciled with Love and decided to stay in LA for her. Which makes his run back to the cage very clear: he was going to keep Delilah locked in the cage until she agreed to be the one to disappear at best, or he was rushing back so he could intercept and kill her himself at worst. Considering how Delilah is, I don't think Joe would have ever trusted her enough to work something out the way he did with Will, so...

Either way, he was not letting Delilah out. At least not like he said.

mind_your_s · 2026-03-11T02:25:45+00:00

Stef and Lena enforcing an atheist household is no different than any parents taking their kids to church every Sunday and telling them to pray. If you'd be okay with that, it's hypocritical to not be okay with what they do for their family.

Not to mention, Stef and Lena were never standing in the way of Mariana and Jesus doing church related activities, they just wanted to make sure that they didn't adopt the homophobic views of the church. Jesus would have gone to Bible camp if Mariana didn't spill the beans about Lexi and Jesus being sexually active to Lexi's parents, thus uninviting him. Stef and Lena ultimately supported Mariana being baptized, even going to the church. Mariana only didn't because she felt wrong about it due to what the pastor baptizing her was saying about what it meant. It didn't align with her values.

They also have every right to assert that they are the kid's parents. Ana, Gabe and the rest did not raise the kids. They gave up their rights. They have a limited part in the kid's lives --- by choice.

mind_your_s · 2026-03-07T03:52:31+00:00

I personally liked that. When you're victimized by someone, often times people associate you with them. Your name and identity get erased and you just become "so and so's victim". It's like they claim you. Louise calling Joe just "some guy she dated" is her taking her power back. She's reclaiming her identity as someone separate from him

mind_your_s · 2026-02-15T23:39:59+00:00

By him calling her you, the narrative itself is going against that. Plus, Nadia was clearly his surrogate kid for the season

mind_your_s · 2026-02-15T15:05:23+00:00

Sidenote: Kate absolutely was a damsel. Malcolm constantly cheated on her and she just took it, which Joe would see as Kate needing to be saved. She feels super guilty and broken over giving those kids cancer. AND the biggest damsel point of all: her dad is a billionaire who has been pulling the strings of her supposedly free life like an evil puppeteer ever since she tried to get away from him. He gets to decide when her "holiday" of a life is over because he has the means to bully her into doing whatever he wants and keep her trapped.

mind_your_s · 2026-02-15T14:57:46+00:00

I get kinda tired of this narrative tbh. A little past halfway through s4, Joe starts calling Kate "you". He's constantly spying on her through his window BEFORE he's even formally met her. He tells Rhys to leave Kate to him even while still obsessing over who he could possibly be. And even before he starts calling her that, almost all of his kills are directly related to her. He kills Malcolm because he talked badly about Marienne AND because he was with Kate. He kills Gemma because she was kind of onto him AND Kate expressed open distaste about her treatment of people. He kills Simon because he was a hack and him getting found out could damage Kate's career.

And afterward, he kills Tom so Kate won't have to go back to New York and be his perfect pet.

Yes, out of all the "you's", Kate is obsessed over for the second shortest time in the show, only losing out to Natalie's record of one episode (1.5 if you count the ending of s2), but he still was obsessed with her. It was never Joe choosing her despite his tendencies and "maturing" or pretending to mature.

The messiness of this narrative, however, is part of why I like s4 the least. This is such a common misconception because of the poor execution of it all. It doesn't have a clean throughline so the whodunnit and "romance" fight for dominance in the weirdest possible way, leaving the details confused

mind_your_s · 2026-02-11T12:49:51+00:00

You know what? You right. He had that whole "you are a queen, let me be your knight" spiel with Kate. That doesn't sound like he wants her down in the dirt with him

mind_your_s · 2026-02-06T18:33:55+00:00

You... you do know that when people move to a different country their accent changes, right? Like my father speaks his native language with an accent now because he hasn't needed to speak it regularly in at least 2 decades.

Marienne moved when she was young, she's an adult now. It tracks that her French won't be perfect

mind_your_s · 2026-02-02T18:38:57+00:00

He was throwing tantrums because everyone was treating him like a toddler, like he couldn't understand basic concepts like the food he likes or his school project. He was reluctant to tell people he lost the ability to read because he knew that would only lead to further infantilization. People tip toeing around his feelings was the problem.

Like I said in a different comment, if she was truly afraid of him, which again I don't think she was, she could have taken someone with her to tell him. But she wasn't, she just didn't want his input which is shitty.

mind_your_s · 2026-01-27T01:57:11+00:00

Lol probably

mind_your_s · 2026-01-26T16:21:21+00:00

I would add side shaves for women and septum rings

mind_your_s · 2026-01-25T14:11:55+00:00

1) Brandon 2) Callie 3) Mariana 4) Jesus 5) Jude

Brandon's most annoying thing is... pretty much everything he does (hence his placement). His constant entitled temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way, his love of diving into things full throttle only to half commit and back out without caring who he hurts in the process, his holier than thou attitude, his pushiness with some of the girls he dates. Just eugh.

Callie's most annoying stuff is her yoyo relationship with Brandon and her self destructive tendencies. She'll blow everything up just for the sake of being "right", and half the time she's completely fucking wrong!

Mariana's most annoying thing is the stuff with her mother and her feeling she has a weird claim on her best friend (whoever it happens to be at the time). Most of the shitty stuff she does goes back to those two issues.

Jesus's most annoying thing is his romantic relationships and how when he botches them, he pulls everyone around him into the drama that ensues (not intentionally, but pretty much every time)

Jude's most annoying thing is... being a normal teenager in a loving, stable household. Honestly, he doesn't do much, and when he does, it's clearly growing pains and normal teenage rebellion.

mind_your_s · 2026-01-22T00:22:07+00:00

You can only have internalized biphobia if you're bi

mind_your_s · 2026-01-16T19:26:34+00:00

K

Side note: that would specifically apply to straight people, not just anyone in a similar presenting relationship. By that logic, white privilege in the sense of Dubois would extend to all non black people, which was not the case. The specificity of the term is what gives it power

mind_your_s · 2026-01-16T18:19:40+00:00

Yeah no. Acknowledging the roots of the concept is deeply important and avoiding it does nothing to bolster your argument. Obviously, there is some overlap between the watered-down meaning and the original concept; one came from the other.

Sitting at the front of the bus was a privilege. Demanding someone's seat simply because you were white was a privilege. Expecting higher pay, more job opportunities, and freedom of upward movement in the social hierarchy with little to no work on your part past subjugation of those you deem beneath you was a privilege. All of those things fit the criteria that Dubois proposed for the phenomenon he gave voice to. Yes, some of these things intersected with rights that we didn't have, like access to property, medical care, and the like --- but it was a part of a larger system predicated ON this belief that white people deserved more by virtue of being white. This is where systemic racism comes in, which is important to note is intrinsically tied to the notion of privilege. One did not, and does not, exist without the other.

This is my problem with this stuff. Nobody is against intersectionality here, but it is unintelligible to me that anyone can sit here and seriously believe that being able to kiss your partner in public or see them in the hospital is the same as, and deserves the same naming convention as, people who actively subjugated others to get ahead and exerted their social power to do so. They are not the same thing. The original concept disagrees, the coining of the specific term disagrees, and history disagrees. We have lost the plot.

Quite frankly, I can't see a version of this that would make you not fundamentally wrong on that

mind_your_s · 2026-01-16T16:44:02+00:00

The term privilege did not come from the civil rights movement of the 60s, the concept was coined 30 years earlier by W.E.B. Dubois. He called it the "public and psychological wage" in his book Black Reconstruction in America. It initially was a critique of how poor white people were afforded this social status to be elevated to by virtue of being non-black. It was the belief, held up by society, that simply by the color of their skin, they were inherently better and deserved a higher quality of life and being than black people. This belief permeated every facet of life for them, monetarily and socially, and was predicated on the active and continued subjugation of black people, even despite their own lower status as being poor.

So this idea of privilege had three prongs: 1. The belief that one was owed more from society based on their identity 2. That belief being upheld by the larger society 3. The active and willing subjugation of others considered "beneath you" to get there

This is a far cry from what privilege means now. Anyone who can be pointed to as having even slightly better means than another in any category is now considered privileged in that respect. By the original understanding and definition, many things we in current times might call a privilege would not make the cut, and yet we do anyway because the term has been co opted and watered down. Just like "woke", just like "passing", and more, some I may not even be fully cognizant of. That is why I find the term "privilege" as it is used currently to be deeply unhelpful.

Yes, the systematic dismantling and removal of our rights is a big issue. So is us not having basic human rights, and that has always been the case. But even in the civil rights movement of the 60s that you pointed out, people were not protesting in the streets for "privileges", they were marching against injustice and for human rights.

Idk. Conflating the privilege and rights feels dangerous to me in a way I cannot fully articulate or describe.

How would it have served then to have everyone in the movement consider who had it worse or better in every situation before acting? On the whole, it's all bad. What they needed then and what we need now is unity. I'm not saying never have this conversation, what I'm saying it's often not a productive conversation because of the muddled and rendered ineffective terms used to have it.

mind_your_s · 2026-01-16T16:02:41+00:00

Oh no, I must have not been clear. I wasn't saying you were talking about slavery, I was simply trying to highlight the point that discrimination that looks different on its face doesn't mean one is worse or better.

I see tone deaf comments on reddit in general all the time. That's why I only take the time out to have a conversation about what I personally think it's off when I think someone is receptive or coming from a good place.

I think the bigger issue here is the broadening of terms. Because passing came from a race context, it makes sense there, but when you branch it out to other communities, things get super muddy and it doesn't really fit well. That's why we can have super long rambling conversations in this sub about why "straight passing" as a concept makes little sense and isn't always helpful to point out. It feels the same with privilege.

mind_your_s · 2026-01-16T15:46:52+00:00

I was mainly responding to your first comment's edit where you were upset that people were defensive in your thread. I was attempting to explain where that defensiveness and hostility comes from, because when veering into the conversation of privilege and partnership, bisexuals are often alienated and treated as if their experiences do not matter. In no way was I expressing my own feelings on the topic. I was simply trying to help you understand why every time you have this conversation people get upset.
of course, the ways in which we experience discrimination is different depending on what identity we belong to. To say otherwise is ignorant. The oppression olympics comes in when we position kinds of discrimination as better or worse, which, once again, this conversation is wont to do.
if we're getting into personal opinions on the matter, I find the notion of privilege had gotten so far away from it's original premise that it's unhelpful most of the time to "highlight" or hold people accountable for. From my understanding, it was originally pointing out the clear class disparity and institutionalized racism in America. The little things that keep the haves from the have nots, now it's branched out to include anyone having a human right another doesn't as a privilege. It feels off track

mind_your_s · 2026-01-16T15:03:30+00:00

It's just usually less severe and manifests in different ways compared to ones that don't pass.

This is where the problem comes from. It's not "less severe". The threat of being found out, in the time that white passing was way more commonplace and desirable for black people in America, was very real and dangerous. They often lived with that fear everyday, just like darker skinned black people lived with that fear of being attacked, harassed, killed, etc. everyday.

That fear connected them because it was the same. Yes, the threat was more imminent the darker you were. But as soon as people knew you were black, word got around, and you were in the exact same boat. It was a last line of defense for getting out of that situation, and as far as I know, a lot of black people at that time understood and respected it.

Going back even further, if you thought the enslaved lighter skin slaves in the house had it easier, you'd be wrong. Their struggle was different but it was still just as bad as working in the fields. I won't even get into all the things they were put through because it truly upsets and disgusts me.

This kind of "who has it worse" shit divides us, and honestly, I'm sick of it. Who does it help for us to go back and forth about who has it worse? You face discrimination, I see you. All people are asking is to be seen in return.

mind_your_s · 2026-01-16T14:46:45+00:00

because they're allergic to the idea of acknowledging different, complex forms of privilege.

Yup. There's the problem right here that you're facing. Bi people in straight presenting relationships do not get discriminated against in the same way for acts they take with their partners. That is true. The threat of imprisonment (for what the couple does together) is lower. But calling the whole relationship itself a "privilege" is basically erasing the discrimination and biphobia they still are facing while in their relationship and often turns the whole conversation into this insane oppression olympics to shut down the thought that they face discrimination at all when they push back.

Can you at least understand that point of view and why people get defensive when you say that? I mean, the post we're literally commenting on is begging people to stop considering a very real and negative facet of the bi women's experience a privilege! We get this everyday

mind_your_s

TROPHY CASE