What's your opinion on the shinichiro theory still? Honestly, I still believe it. People are saying that hemorrhagia has " left " because her theory got " disproven" but actually, her account has been like this for atleast a week before shinichiro being a time leaper was even exposed. I've spent so long trying to explain it to someone even today lmao
Hello!
First off, I had no idea there were such things circulating about hemorrhagia supposedly “leaving”. As you said, she hasn't been active since before the “Shin is a time leaper” chapter. And from what I know it is a completely unrelated thing. Don’t people realize others have lives outside of tumblr? Lmao
Although, damn, i wish she was back, i just know the hot takes would be immaculate
As for the theory itself, I don't know really. It seems less and less likely to me. More information got revealed that are kind of conflicting and the theory itself seems like a bit of a stretch now
That’s the short answer for you. But I have much more to say under the cut. Sorry anon, you have opened Pandora's box.
TW: THAT shin theory (i don’t talk about anything explicit), TR spoilers
I feel like there are a couple of things the theory was right about though. Maybe not the main points that were made, but there were several takes that showed the (not so) obvious.
that shin is going to be important some way or another
And, guess what, he totally is. Up until recently he was nothing. He meant nothing and was already dead when the story started. And yet, he was there, always lingering in the background, which was a clue that he had a much bigger role in all this mess than we had originally thought. And, safe to say, I don't think I would pick on that myself so kudos to the author.
that shin is not as good as he is painted
Maybe he is not necessarily a bad guy… but either way he didn’t have much issue with killing a random homeless person. Which is pretty fucked up if you ask me, no matter his reasoning. He didn’t even care to listen to the guy, he just bashed his skull open. It would be easy to give in to all the narration surrounding Shin and portraying him as the kindest human to ever exist. And yet, we found out that he killed a man. Sure, he was losing his mind at this point, he was in so much despair. But grieving people don’t go around killing anyone usually. So again, kudos to the author for questioning the narration and pointing out that we know nothing about that guy aside from all the praises other people were saying about him. And those may not be a reliable source of information.
that there is something icky about the way shinichiro is described vs how he really is
Again, maybe it has nothing to do with the themes that were originally stated in the theory, but hey. We clearly saw the same man that was described as being “a weak king” (if i remember correctly), that always lost and that couldn’t fight… bend a fucking metal post and crack a concrete wall. Not to mention beating the hell out of all these people in the bar. So… what was that all about. Why is he thought to be some kind of a weakling whereas he clearly knew how to fight? The story tells us one thing to then show us another. And kudos for the author again, for telling us way ahead that we shouldn’t take everything that is being said at face value. And to be honest maybe this also applies to Wakasa telling us Shinichiro’s story. Maybe. Who knows at this point.
The theory was thus brilliant at making us question things shown in the manga. And damn it was fun ever since.
And there are still gaps in canon material that the theory was filling so goddamn well. For example:
Shin and Izana relationship still seems wacky as fuck.
Their relationship is fucked up and there is something clearly missing here. Why wouldn’t he tell anyone about Izana - why would it be such a secret, why wouldn’t Shin make it possible for him to meet at least Emma, the girl he grew up with? Furthermore, Izana’s reaction to finding out Shinichiro isn’t blood related to him seems a bit over the top - because why should it matter if Shin was there for him regardless of that, he says that himself even, yet Izana is still unreasonably mad. Just like hemorrhagia stated in the theory:
“I’m sure it might feel crushing to find out you aren’t actually related to your sibling, but Izana already considered Kakucho like a brother to him. So, why is Shinichiro different? Why is Izana so upset? He asks why Shinichiro even came to him.
Shinichiro taught him everything, about bikes, about fashion, how to style his hair, how to fight, how to smile.
Why is all of that null and void now? Is it because his ‘love’ is something bad that Izana could tell himself was okay, because Shinichiro gave him a family (a family of only Shinichiro), but can’t reconcile it if they aren’t even related? Is it because that ‘love’ wasn’t coming from a brother, but just some random guy?”
Why did Izana and Mikey develop a bond so strong to the point that in the Bonten timeline Mikey is literally imitating Izana?
“He basically becomes a clone of Izana in the Bonten timeline, despite their only interactions being Izana going out of his way to completely destroy him. He had Emma murdered.”
The explanation provided by the theory’s framework fit perfectly here. It would be understandable if they bonded so much because they went through similarly traumatic shit. But if we take that out of the equation, we are left with another missing piece.
Why would Mikey develop such a strong bond with Izana over the brief interaction they had during the tenjiku fight? Sure, he thought of Izana as his brother. Yeah, he didn’t care about them not being blood related. Yeah, at this point he had lost all his siblings and was desperate to have a brother, a family of any sort.
But they don’t have any memories together. They didn’t grow close together through years like Mikey did with Emma or any of his friends. And Izana was responsible for murdering Mikey’s sister. Who he cared about. Who he wanted to protect. Izana was responsible for her death. Yet for Mikey this brief encounter they had was enough to forgive him for that. To find understanding and empathy for him. And to decide that he is - in a way - going to carry Izana’s legacy from this point on.
He only emulates people dear to him. Emma, Baji, Draken. And Izana for some reason. It just doesn’t really make sense to me the way it is portrayed as of now. I feel like there is something missing about the bond between Mikey and Izana. I wish it would be addressed in the manga eventually and we wouldn’t be left with just that. The theory explained it well in my opinion. It made Mikey’s actions more understandable for me.
“By the time the conflict with Tenjiku happens, Mikey has already seen the letters Izana wrote, and Izana always knew about Mikey. I think Mikey reaches out to Izana as a brother, not just because Emma has just died and he doesn’t want to lose more family, despite the fact that Izana had her killed, but because of their shared trauma from Shinichiro.
In another life, Taiju says that Mikey trusted Izana more than anyone, more than Draken. The question is posed, ‘Why would Mikey trust Izana so much, what happened?’ I think they shared the same secret.”
Maybe, possibly, most likely the theory is horseshit. But still there has to be something more to this bond Mikey and Izana shared. I hope there is. Because the way their relationship is portrayed as of now is not convincing enough for me. Its superficial.
We still have no idea what made Mikey hurt Haruchiyo in such horrible way
We have seen this scene from like three angles by now (at this point i just wait for Baji to be resurrected just to tell the same story once again and then die) AND WE STILL DON’T KNOW SHIT
Just that Mikey didn’t know why he did that and that he suddenly found himself already having hurt Haru. But then what provoked him? The fact that Senju told him that it was Sanzu who destroyed his toy plane? Really? I think that if there is one thing the whole fandom can agree upon (other than the Haitanis being hot) it is that it couldn’t be just about the plane. And even if it was Dark Impulsivity, whatever that may be (because we still don’t know anything about that…) it doesn’t explain shit, because even when DI is involved, there always (i think) is a reason for Mikey to act out.
It was shown to us that Mikey doesn’t care about his possessions. He busted his own scooter because he cared more about Baji (and we coincidentally are reminded of this situation in the recent chapters 272 and 273, right after we saw the plane incident yet again). I mean he could have grown up to be like that, it could be the lesson he learned from the situation with Sanzu. But still, it’s so unlikely that it would all be just about the toy fucking plane… There must be something missing here for fuck’s sake.
Why on earth shinichiro knows Inui and why does he hang out with a kid 10 or so years younger than him?
We still didn’t get an answer to that! Should I just take it as it is and convince myself it’s normal? My sister is 10 years younger than me. I can’t fathom the idea of hanging out with her friends, let alone a random child her age. But I mean maybe, maybe if I squint real hard… Inui was going through some tough shit back then. Maybe he found comfort around Shin and the first gen BD’s. Maybe Shin was taking care of him when nobody else would. But fuck, its still icky and I don’t like it at all. Found family is an awesome thing but not when one person is 12 or something, an impressionable little kid with little to no support system (apparently), and the other is an adult. There is so much room for abuse of power here and I don’t like it.
“It’s not weird to have an older mentor, but there has to be something connecting you to that person, like a sibling, or a social program, or a family connection, but there’s just nothing connecting them, and that’s weird.“
And why would Shin (supposedly) call for Mikey to get to the shop at 3 am? Still it doesn't make sense no matter how you put it lmao
Mikey changing clothes suddenly doesn't make sense as well as other weird things that are happening to his memory. Him not remembering Izana or remembering things differently to other people or bikes disappearing from his memories. There is a big emphasis on memories in this manga and how different people may remember things differently. So I can’t imagine it all being mistakes when at the same time in the same manga we have Hakkai situation. If we analyze what is happening when hakkai tells Michi his version of the story, we can actually pick up that he is lying based on the background not making sense in relation to what he is saying.
(there was this post somewhere about that but i can't find it hhhhhhhhhhhhhh if anyone got it please feel free to send me the link)
So, concluding this unnecessary rambling
The theory itself might not be true. Maybe some of the points don’t hold up anymore, given the newest information we got. Maybe the main bit about Shin being the bad guy doing that specific thing is not that plausible anymore since we got to know more about him, but there still were very good observations made that still hold true and I think the author should have been given credit for that.
It also points out several questions we still didn’t get a coherent answer for. And… to be frank, I don’t think we ever will given that we supposedly have only five chapters left. And that makes me sad. But it also will leave room for further interpretation, when the manga inevitably concludes and I don’t think it’s such a bad thing after all (although damn i'm going to be so disappointed)
I just wish we would be answered in the canon material. But, well. We will see how it goes.
Concluding the conclusion: I don’t think it's plausible anymore, but I still think there is a value in that theory.
What are your thoughts on this, anon? Hope I didn’t bore you to death ♥
47 notes
·
View notes
I don't mean to be rude, but the conclusion of Hbomberguy's video goes into why your idea wouldn't work. People still plagiarized in the early days of youtube, it just was motivated by clout instead of money. They did it a lot too! The only way to stop them is to either give creators more tools to more easily find copycats or make it easier to fact-check video essays by making the sources to their topics widely available to all. If monetization goes away, new plagiarists will just pop up motivated by fame, just like it was in "the good ol' days".
Not rude at all! I did forget that section of the video, it was very long and I went straight into Todd's video after.
It is true, it was done for clout as well. As they say, "was it ever really the Good ol days?" (I don't remember the real quote and I am more tired than I thought). Personally, I do wonder if more people would copy or lie just for clout/fame, and not for the financial compensation but that would require a study and I don't even know how you would test it.
I would love to see an actual fact-checker on videos on all platforms. Misinformation is a huge problem that I would like solved in my life time...wouldnt hold my breath, but would be nice. I worry about copyright strikes being used improperly or to bully, but maybe that could be solved to? Unsure
The only other thought I have here, if anyone is curious (which...doubt, but I can dream): I don't think videos with children should be monetized. I think it's hard to prove a child can benefit from their lives constantly played online, and we don't have a financial way like Coogan Laws for child actors. [This may seem out of nowhere, but this was actually an argument I've been making for the last...three years or so for a paper]
So yeah...that's my mini secondary rant that I probably could've answered shorter but yeah, thanks for asking!
5 notes
·
View notes