>>3440460Please go back to English classes negro.
spelling it out for you
—
1. "wdym?"
This stands for "What do you mean?" The speaker is responding to someone else's prior comment, which likely seemed to treat "Scully" as a fictional or meme-worthy character. The speaker is shocked or frustrated by that perceived trivialization.
—
2. "you know scully is a real person who raped children?"
- "Scully" here does not refer to Dana Scully from The X-Files. It refers to a real person - likely Michael Scully or another person named Scully convicted of child sexual abuse. A known case: Michael Scully, a former teacher in the UK (or elsewhere), was jailed for raping children. There's also a notorious figure named Scully in true crime contexts, though not globally famous like Epstein.
- The speaker is asserting that the person being discussed is not fictional and that their crime (child rape) is real and severe.
- The speaker is accusing the listener (or the general "you") of forgetting or ignoring this reality, treating a child rapist as a meme.
—
3. "he's not a fictional character to make memes about. like epstein."
- Jeffrey Epstein is a real deceased sex offender, yet internet memes often reference him ironically or humorously (e.g., "Epstein didn't kill himself").
- The speaker argues that real child rapists (Scully, Epstein) shouldn't be meme fodder. But note the complexity: many people do make Epstein memes as a form of dark humor or political commentary. The speaker is rejecting that practice for this person (Scully), perhaps because Scully is less famous and the memes would be purely cruel or trivializing.
- The comparison to Epstein serves to say: "You wouldn't (or shouldn't) treat Epstein as a joke - same for Scully."
—
4. "what's wrong with mentioning him doe."
- The "doe" is a deliberate misspelling of "though" for casual or emphatic tone.
- The speaker is mocking or questioning an implied counterargument: someone might have said "What's wrong with mentioning him?" - i.e., why is it bad to talk about Scully at all?
- The speaker's implied answer: There's nothing wrong with mentioning him if it's serious condemnation. But turning him into a meme or joke is wrong. They're distinguishing between reference and glorification/trivialization.
—
5. "I know 76mango love to worship him but I (obious fucking ly) don't."
- "76mango" appears to be a specific username (likely on Twitter, Reddit, or a forum). This person apparently admires or "worships" the real Scully - possibly ironically, possibly seriously, but the speaker treats it as real worship.
- "obious fucking ly" = "obviously fucking" (typo for "obviously"). The speaker is emphatically distancing themselves from 76mango's position.
- The parenthetical insertion ("obious fucking ly") signals exasperation - as if they're annoyed they even need to clarify that they don't worship a child rapist.
—
The likely broader conversation:
Someone earlier made a meme or joke about "Scully." The speaker snapped: "Scully is a real child rapist - don't make memes about him."
Someone else (or the original joker) then asked: "What's wrong with mentioning him?"
The speaker responded with the sentence you provided: They explain that mentioning is fine, but meme-ing/worship is not. They reference 76mango as an example of someone who does worship him, and then clarify that they (the speaker) obviously don't.
—
Why "over explain"?
Because the sentence is dense with:
- Shifting targets (listener, 76mango, general internet culture)
- Implied moral distinctions (mention vs. meme)
- Emotional tone (anger, sarcasm, frustration)
- Unstated assumptions (that the listener knows who Scully is, that 76mango is a known figure in that subculture)
—
Final critical note:
The speaker is correct that treating real child rapists as meme characters can cause harm (to victims, to public discourse). However, the sentence's aggression and lack of context make it seem like the listener is being accused of something they didn't actually do. The "over-explanation" reveals the speaker is fighting a battle against trivialization but possibly misdirecting it at a less-guilty party.