>>108336587calling an UNPROMPTED association "abnormal" is still pure psychologizing, you're asserting how people think internally and treating the ABSENCE of other examples as proof of normality, which is just
>argument from silenceover and over again. people make spontaneous associations all the time based on prominence and familiarity, thats basic cognition and NOT pathology. Without evidence of devaluation, ependency, or coercive behavior, labeling a single crossover thought as “accessorization” is just moralizing normal fandom association, you dont really have anything here but your mind-reading assumption of a behavior, you're basically inventing a mental defect to fit your conclusion, and this is NOT how you win an argument
