- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
Chris seems like someone who people can only safely do documentaries or studies on when he’s dead, at least those in academia or professional documentary makers.This entirely correct. I do not understand why mainstream academia are not doing articles, dissertations, and whole journals on Chris. He's relevant to psychology of course, but also anthropology, sociology, history, medicine, philosophy, religious studies, and even literature scholars would enjoy unpacking Sonichu.
Chris is without exaggeration an extremely valuable resource into documentation and research of social sciences and humanities generally. I don't mean social science and humanities in the obese blue-haired lesbian sense, I mean as serious fields of study. Academia ignores him to its own detriment. It baffles me that he's as well-documented as he is, and yet we have yet to see so much as a master's thesis about him, let alone peer-reviewed articles. If a bunch of spergs online could get as much as we have, imagine the work real experts could do on him regarding modern society, pop culture, and mental health.
As that Warhol book guy found out Chris is very unpredictable and always manages to ruin his reputation even when you think he can’t go any further and as well as that he’s trans and autistic so they’d have to portray Chris in a positive way and/or as a victim or they’d be a backlash which is nearly impossible to do unless you just focus on his trolling since he’s a walking caricature of everything those critical of trans people make fun of.
For example everyone knows there’s a high percentage of autistic people who troon out compared to non autistic people but nobody seems to want to do any serious research as to why that is the case since the findings would likely delegitimise autistic trans people and show it’s wrong to be pushing it on autistic kids which isn’t the message those in academia want.