soupery:

scribefindegil:

soupery:

someone explain the g4g discourse to me im fairly new to the gravy falls fandom by general standards

Okay. So.

It was a good theory at one point with a fair amount of evidence. I never liked it for various reasons but it seemed probable for a while. The problem was that some of its supporters were extremely aggressive and would attack people for not agreeing with them. By no means all g4g theorists were like this, but there were some extremely vocal leaders who insulted the intelligence of anyone who tried to argue with them. It made fandom space really toxic and divisive. 

By the time the theory was debunked, many people were so fed with with the hardcore theorists that there was a lot of gloating and personal attacks leveled at the supporters. Some supporters of the theory also REFUSED to believe when it was debunked (there may … still be some people like this? I saw people arguing for it when I was going through the gf tag for Power of Mabel Week back in August). They’d staked so much effort into the theory that they wouldn’t accept it even when Alex flat-out said “Stan never had a kid.”

Basically, as with a lot of fandom things: A few people were mean, other people were mean back at them, it got kind of out of control as people piled on and got more aggressive on both sides, and you should be glad you missed it.

a h h oh gosh :0

but thank you for explaining !

But what was the theory itself?