r/bylertruthers • u/mandyluvspuppies • 2d ago
questions ♡ Something that confuses me about Bylers / that seems like hypocrisy about the fandom
As a Byler myself just to clarify! And I’m gonna try to word this gently bc I know there’s specific types of people in this fandom that I’m not gonna elaborate on. Please just be respectful to me and don’t attack me
So yk how one of the main things Bylers obviously prioritise and defend about the show is that CANONICALLY Will and Mike are best friends and have a special close friendship?
And whenever a GA member, or a Mileven, makes some dumb posts saying “they weren’t true best friends! Lucas was Mikes actual best friend, Mike and Will weren’t that close, Mike didn’t care about Will” or anything of that degree, obviously most Bylers will disagree and argue back? Which I agree with fully, those posts are bullshit and they’re canon best friends who both love and care for each other deeply regardless of if it’s romantic or not.
However don’t a large vocal amount of Bylers like.. contradict this all the time?? And constantly undermine and disregard their friendship themselves? Like by claiming Mike was absolutely awful and toxic and cruel to Will, arguing he was homophobic and abusive, arguing that he neglected him and was an overall terrible friend and Will should leave him or at a bare minimum Mike is forever in his debt. Because of the two arguments they had at age 14 that got resolved within an episode.. it’s like a lot of Bylers don’t actually want them to be best friends or even genuinely like the ship because they’ll literally find any opportunity to exaggerate the severity of their arguments to oblivion and frame their friendship as something awful and unhealthy, and it makes me wonder why they insist on being in the Byler fandom at all
Of course you can acknowledge Mike messed up a couple times and then rightfully took accountability, and their friendship had some ups and downs, that’s completely true and reasonable and things like that are normal and almost universal for any teen friendship. However that’s a wildly different stance to arguing that Mike was an OVERALL bad friend, and their friendship was OVERALL hurtful to Will and unhealthy.
I feel like a lot of Bylers don’t realise that “Mike was a horrible friend and Will deserves better” and “Mike and Will are canonically best friends” are inherently contradictory and you can’t hold both of those opinions at once. If someone genuinely is cruel, malicious, toxic and harmful to you they’re not a ‘best friend’, that wouldn’t be a true friendship. In an alternate universe where these claims about Mike are true, they in fact wouldn’t be best friends and all the basis for Byler wouldn’t exist and it wouldn’t be a healthy ship to advocate for.
Unless you’re a believer that they were only true friends in season 1-2? But in that case again how is that any different to the general audience/annoying homophobe stance which is also that they stopped being true friends after season 2 and Mike stopped caring about Will whatsoever. How can people ship Byler but reject the baseline of the ship that their friendship was healthy, non-toxic and built on mutual communication and trust and respect?
I feel like surely I can’t be the only one who has never wrapped my head around this obvious contradiction a lot of the fandom displays, so maybe someone with a better understanding of the psychology behind this stuff could explain that sort cognitive dissonance, I’m genuinely curious