Forum: Author Hangout

The writers of the show have repeatedly said in interviews that this isn't true. That the show is not based on particular true story.

What you have repeated here is a twitter conspiracy theory by supporters of Andrew Tate aimed at lessening the difficult subject matter of the show

Do you have any thoughts on the show itself? Have you watched it?

https://variety.com/2025/tv/global/adolescence-writer-rejects-race-swap-theory-elon-musk-1236352337/

Interestingly, the people behind the podcast linked to above are *exactly* the type of online influencers that the central criticism 'Adolescence' makes is aimed at.

Naturally, they are going to bite back and try to say the show isn't valid because otherwise, they may have to examine their own choices and the effect that they are having on our young people.

And they're not about to do that.

But even if the writers *had* "race-swapped" the central character (which they haven't), would that make the central premise of the show -- that online influencers are having a disturbing, detrimental effect on our adolescent boys -- any less valid?

Honestly, if you're the kind of person who thinks that the colour of a person's skin makes their crimes worse (or, indeed, less bad), then you probably need to have a very long, very difficult conversation with yourself.

From a personal perspective, my son came *very* close to falling down the Andrew Tate rabbit hole. Thankfully, my relationship with him is such that we are able to speak candidly about most topics -- although that may be just as much luck as good parenting on my part -- so I was able to get him to think a bit more carefully about what the sleazebag was saying.

If I were religious, which I'm not, I'd thank God every day that he's now a well-rounded, sensible, level-headed young man. I've been very lucky. That's why I'm putting off watching the final episode of the show, to be honest.

But even if the writers *had* "race-swapped" the central character (which they haven't), would that make the central premise of the show -- that online influencers are having a disturbing, detrimental effect on our adolescent boys -- any less valid?

There is a sizeable subset of people who believe this - that any race-swapping that makes any white person anywhere, real or fictional, look bad automatically discredits and renders invalid the entire work, and that anyone who decries that race-swapping is automatically valid and virtuous.

I could probably extend that and say that any race-swapping that makes any non-white person anywhere, real or fictional, look good is also automatically discrediting, because I've seen that argument far too often, too.

It's very disheartening, but that's the world we live in.

I have not watched the show, but I get the picture enough.

I have not watched the show, but I get the picture enough.

Do give it a go if you get the chance. It's disturbing, eye opening, worrying and thought provoking - everything a good drama should be. Tough, tough watch, but well worth it if you can spare the time.

backing it up with factual details.

What factual details?

Marc Nobbs made a statement, but he cited no source. Of course, it is not that difficult to Google the event and learn the sources of statements.

https://variety.com/2025/tv/global/adolescence-writer-rejects-race-swap-theory-elon-musk-1236352337/

Did you not see the link to the interview where the writers deny the accusation?

Maybe a link to a podcast where he's actually says that would be better?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=220Y-eFmY5s

I mean, if the actual writer of the show is saying it isn't based on a real crime, I'm inclined to listen to what he's saying and take it as true over some random podcast presenters.

No. The previous paragraph was about watching the podcast. The link's location in the post resulted in my impression that the link was related to watching the podcast, not the writer's statement about the show (Adolescence). So, I didn't waste my time reading the link. Placement of links are important. I typically see links placed after the paragraphs the links are supporting.

I am not interested in podcasts for most that I have watched provide no factual information. They usually provide the host's opinion of what they have seen in the news or social media. Those opinions are typically presented as fact. The host's sources, if provided, are often biased, lies, or misrepresentations.

No. The previous paragraph wThe link appeared to be related to watching the show, not the writer's statement. So I didn't waste my time reading it.

That's on me. I probably should have placed the link after the first paragraph of my reply. I'll be more careful next time.

That said, the actual link itself kind of tells you what it's about. And had you "wasted your time" reading it then you would not have made a statement that, I'm afraid, made you look a little bit silly.

(BTW, the podcast I linked to is an interview with the show's writer - it's about as "reliable" a source as you can get for his motivations behind writing it). As @solreader50 said, it's straight from the horse's mouth.