u/Susodudidodnsmwlwidb

im a chappell fan but we need to be honest with ourselves when defending her if we want people to take us seriously. this is a very parasocial and delusional thing to say, its also insensitive to the victims of the files.

i havent heard of this, does anyone know about this?
original video if you wanna check it out: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8G8uNoq/

this seems odd to me, they didnt ask for your input, why give it if you werent asked? "you get it or you dont" that gives cult im sorry

First of all, this screenshot is an extremely concerning argument/defense. not only do they claim that "nobody brings it up" which first off is objectively false but secondly theres PHOTO EVIDENCE of inappropriate photoshoots in diapers and baby items! But no! When Melanie says something, everyone (by everyone i mean fans to be clear) believes it! Forget all the proof and screenshots, Melanie's word is all we need! Am I the only one who finds that extremely strange and concerning?

Second, I personally believe that the 17-19 age range is still considered a child but also old enough to know better. Minors can still be predators. Period, done, the end. Even if that did matter, she still took the infamous diaper photoshoot AFTER the album came out. I'm not sure of the exact year they were taken but 17-19 is definitely old enough to know not to do that?? She was 17-19, not five years old. SHE is responsible for HER OWN ACTIONS and the consequences that come with them. If it wasn't meant to be weird, why did she have her privates out? I have already seen the argument that theyre bloomer shorts, however, that actually doesn't make it any better at all. Her choice of white bloomers specifically can make us believe it’s a diaper. Gonna make it clear: bloomers are not a part of ageplay usually but with what we already know from Melanie's aesthetic we can really question whether it's bloomers or "aesthetically pleasing" or a more socially acceptable way of wearing diapers. Bloomers were also typically worn by little girls.. jeez Louise.. (more explanation in picture 3)

Third, more concerning defenses, yay! Im sorry, but what context could possibly make this better? Why are you making justifications in your head for a character who's supposed to be a child flashing another child character? If it really were innocent you wouldn't need to be trying so hard to defend it. It doesnt even look like she's showing it in a negative light like OP claims she is. Where's the negativity?? she doesn't criticize it in any way, she just shows it happening, honestly, i would even go as far as to say that that's romanticizing it. if that truly were the case, she would CRITICIZE it. But no, she spends the whole song talking down on that character, her name is "Basic Bitch" for god's sake!

Fourth, I genuinely don't even have anything to say about that except for... what logic is that? you can write a character and it can still be problematic. By this logic, villian characters are not evil because theyre just written by people.

Finally, mind you, the following are words directly from Melanie's mouth, "Crybaby is a child who experiences adult things". So that doesn't even work. You can go on tumblr TODAY and find a few posts of Melanie confirming this Were they even paying attention to the lore? Did they watch it with their eyes closed? The movie shows Crybaby growing up, and some songs from K-12 show them in school (class fight for example). Melanie's never once claimed that Crybaby is an adult. They do realize that they're calling Melanie a liar by claiming this, right?

Thank you for coming to my TED talk 😊

if it is i am SO EXCITED to slap the stans in the face with it