#all moral objections are wrong and invalid actually)

[veliseraptor]

Honestly I really feel that by Yi City Xue Yang isn't mad at Song Lan any more. He's moved on from all that arrest and massacre business. If he IS mad it's probably on XXC's behalf, not his own. All this is just going to make Song Lan even more furious, though.

I feel like the arc of Xue Yang's feelings toward Song Lan goes roughly like:

You really pissed me off that one time so I'll remember it forever.

I'm actually more mad at Xiao Xingchen so this isn't really personal but you suffering is a fun bonus

Largely forgetting about his existence for a while

Wow thanks Song Lan for setting things up perfectly so I can move in with Xiao Xingchen, this is great and your contribution is appreciated

Song Lan is so stupid, unbelievable that he ditched Xiao Xingchen, why would you even do that, guess that just goes to show how useless he is

Song Lan, that fucker, how could he ditch Xiao Xingchen and hurt him like that, very rude, 0/10, obviously Xue Yang is better because he will absolutely never do that

SONG LAN RUINED MY LIFE, FIERCE CORPSE JAIL FOR SONG-DAOZHANG, FIERCE CORPSE JAIL FOR ONE THOUSAND YEARS!!!!

This is all Song Lan's fault and a little bit a-Qing's, if he'd just not gotten involved (again) or died faster there wouldn't be a problem now, why does Xiao Xingchen care about him so much anyway, he's boring and the worst

Song Lan is still stupid and still the worst but if Xiao Xingchen comes back he might think about keeping him around if he's so important, probably he can make that work, he just has to figure out the right balance of free will to controllable and he'll make a great bargaining chip to keep Xiao Xingchen from doing anything reckless and regrettable, this is a genius plan

A boy's best friend is his fierce corpse he's controlling and can have one sided conversations with and occasionally cuddle when things are really rough, this is normal behavior and everything is fine.

but yeah, if Song Lan knew how much time Xue Yang spends just straight up not caring about him except as an incidental problem and/or a vaguely fond memory of the nifty two-birds-one-stone temple murder plan, he would be very unhappy about it.

#conversating #anonymous #song lan #xue yang #i can tag this as #songxue #if i want to #aggressively headcanons #the sad queer cultivators show #but yeah i am FASCINATED by their dynamic #because that is the thing! the span of time where xue yang actually actively hates song lan #is pretty short all things considered #mostly song lan is an incidental casualty in his psychological warfare on xxc #up until he very suddenly is much more of a personal problem for xue yang #in an au like ilcbt xy is legitimately kind of like 'why are you even so upset with me' because for him the whole baixue thing #just doesn't register as a major event in and of itself. he's over it so why isn't song lan #weird that he can't just let things go #(and obviously when it comes to the chang clan he was just right so #all moral objections are wrong and invalid actually)

[theloganator101]

I have a thing to say about Bakugo's "apology" that many haven't noticed, or at least I don't see any people discussing it.

You see, not only is his apology backhanded, but it's also...kind of manipulative? We're shown time and time again that Bakugo is intelligent and that he knows how to play mind games. Has anyone stopped to ask why ha was apologizing in front of others? Wh didn't he touch the surface of the bullying he made Izuku go through?

Why, it's to force Izuku into a corner and accept his apology, of course! By leaving out any details about the abuse, Bakugo can brush off any objection from Izuku about him lying. And since Hori likes to warp class 1A's personalities and morals when Bakugo breathes, it puts Izuku into a lose-lose situation.

Does he apologize his abuser and face the fact that no one is going to understand the depths of what happened other than himself? Or is he going to fight back and potentially face judgment from his classmates.

This could've been a great narrative point if canon just ALLOWED Bakugo to be a cunt, making the fans question if he's even capable of becoming a hero. You could even have Izuku struggle to come up with a reply, his thoughts diving back to his traumatic childhood, realizing that either way he's screwed.

What did we get instead? A half-assed apology that Hori haphazardly put together to give Bakugo fans a free pass for his continued abuse.

Gee, great writing amirite?

Yeah it's why I like to call it the Apology-But-Not-Really-Apology.

I think the reason why is because since it's shown Bakugou is kind of a prideful kind of character where he hates it when others are watching him doing something good, that him apologizing in front of them is like him swallowing his pride and actually admitting he was wrong.

But too bad it was all done poorly!

And since the apology itself was vague at best, it's missing the VITAL key points of what he's even apologizing for in the first place! And him saying that nothing much would change just invalidates it all together.

Hori! My guy! Can you PLEASE just acknowledge Bakugou's shitty character and express that in the narrative so Izuku can FINALLY get his say and development he desperately needs!

#bnha critical #mha critical #anti bakugou #anti katsuki bakugou #anti bakugo #izuku deserves better #bakugou critical

[eastgaysian]

do you think that a lot of s4 critique (esp on tumblr) is coming from the tomgreg “field”? bc i mean - they all seem very disappointed with the way this season is playing out and, without meaning to be patronizing, i’d say unmet expectations like that can cloud (or at least colour) one’s general opinion on a piece of media immensely. we’ve all had it happen to us in some way at some point, so i get it but also…don’t shit in everyone’s müsli just bc a specific relationship didn’t happen in the way you’d envisioned :( alsooo tomshiv is much gayer than tomgreg could have ever hoped to be idc idc

it's something i've been avoiding saying directly, because it feels slightly dickish, but We Can All See With Our Eyes that there is a correlation between people heavily invested in tomgreg and people who are expressing dissatisfaction with s4. it's also fairly obvious that i stopped giving a shit about tomgreg over the course of the year+ of getting harrassed and finally getting my blog terminated for expressing mild criticism wrt patterns of misogyny in fandom. which i think entitles me to a little bit of dickishness.

the thing is, you can have whatever opinion on a show you want for whatever reason you want. it's fine to say you're disappointed in the relative lack of tom and greg this season, because that's what you were personally invested in. your emotional response to the season is your emotional response. full stop. a big part of why i've been enjoying this season so much is because i started watching this show after my dad died, and it's very cathartic for me to watch such a realistic and thoughtful depiction of grief in all its messiness and complexity. i'm connecting to these characters more than ever because i've been there. that's personal! that's subjective! that's okay!

what irritates me is: a) being disingenuous about the reason you dislike the season, b) in a way that implies disliking the season is the 'correct' opinion to have, either on a moral basis or because this season is objectively and uniquely bad writing/directing/editing, c) to the extent that it creates a noxious and unpleasant fan environment to participate in.

i understand where the urge comes from to defensively say "no, it's not just about my businessman yaoi, there is actually a high-minded, intellectual reason for me to spend all my time bitching." because yeah, there are people who are delighted to go fuck you anyone who cared about tom and greg, you were watching the show wrong, and that's aggravating.

deliberately misrepresenting your opinion as something with a more "rational" basis doesn't make you any better off, because it's laughably obvious when that's what you're doing, and it undermines your initial position, which was not inherently invalid in the first place. it's fine to be sad that the thing you personally wanted to happen did not happen. you can say that. you can call people dicks for being rude about it. it's fine. it's literally okay. we are all just saying shit online.

but you are just not going to be able to convince me that season 4 is overall badly written, or that it suffers from unique mechanical issues that were not already present throughout the show. it's not going to happen! d*sha redscare was literally in s3! the fact is that in a season where logan dies in episode 3, and if anybody tries to say that was a bad writing decision you know they're pulling it out of their ass, it simply Is Not Possible for tom and greg (who barely had a relationship with logan and so has fuck all to do in the wake of his death) to spend 15 minutes an episode engaging in slapstick routines. is it an awkwardly truncated storyline? maybe! but succession is littered with those, and that's because it makes the choice to prioritize its main story, which in s4 is more focused and thoughtfully written than ever.

i won't even touch on the queerbait discourse because i do not think queerbait has ever been a useful term and the idea of trying to apply that kind of analysis to succession is too idiotic to even bother engaging with. the virgin representationcel vs the chad [i will not talk about my politics on tumblr but i am a trans fag of color deeply disillusioned with most of the discourse on 'representation']. representation win! the chair of fictional fox news cheated on his wife with her cousin #gayrights. Be serious.

#mingbox #long post

[randomjreader]

Woke up today to see all the shit that happened on hstwt, and can I just say: what the fuck? This whole situation got so goddamn out of hand, and now another cast member has been bullied off a social media platform.

I understand what Bash's comments may have sounded like, and I'm not about to invalidate what SA survivors may have felt when they read that. HOWEVER, why was everyone immediately jumping to the worst conclusions?? Especially given Bash's track record of being a genuinely good person, why was everyone so quick to assume the worst of him? And more importantly, the extreme reactions to what he said? Death threats??? There is a difference between holding someone accountable and being a fucking bully. This applies to literally any case of holding a celebrity accountable: call them out, but do it in a way that's respectful with the intention to actually make them learn from their mistakes, instead of fucking death threats! Like seriously, does this make you a better person than them or something? Are people actually riding on their moral high horse for saying horrible things just because they THINK a celebrity messed up? We as netizens never ever know the full story when it comes to situations like these; words very often get miscommunicated, and we all need to wake up and stop immediately jumping to conclusions and going to extremes. This kind of culture is extremely damaging to so many people, not just the celebrity in question.

I've also heard that apparently, people are still mad even when Bash clarified himself? He literally did what Kit did all those months ago, spoke up and cleared up the misconceptions, and yet people are still finding fault. What more do you want from the man? It was badly phrased and misinterpreted by fans, which was out of Bash's control, and he stepped up and made sure everyone knew what he actually meant. He saw the mistake and corrected it, so what exactly are "fans" still looking for? If this one mistake of bad phrasing is ruining your image of Bash, you are literally disregarding all the good Bash has done, and feeding into the extremely toxic cancel culture that basically pushes the idea that public figures are not actual people, just objects for your own entertainment for you to love and hate as you please.

Finally, let's talk about Joe. OF COURSE Joe is gonna defend Bash, we all know that they're close as hell, and if Bash if being hounded for something that Joe knows was not done with malicious intent, why wouldn't he support him? The fact here is, Joe did nothing wrong, he was sticking up for his friend. And what did toxic hstwt fans do? Bully him off the app. There wasn't even any arguments of substance (not that there would be because he DID NOTHING WRONG), people just immediately took his action as a thinly veiled excuse to bully him on things like his looks. HIS LOOKS. Literally, just say you're a fucking bully and move on, because you're just finding a reason to bully him under the guise of having the moral high ground or some shit. Honestly, I'm GLAD that Joe left twitter, because (and I've said it before) that environment is extremely toxic, and I think he'd be a lot happier getting off an app that constantly targets and hates him. Joe is an incredible Charlie, and it's horrible that he keeps on getting hate for it, despite everything he has done for the community because he plays Charlie.

If you're part of this whole hstwt drama, the people that hated on Joe and Bash for no damn reason, don't call yourself a fan. You're not. You're just giving real heartstopper fans a bad image and bullying the actors who have brought this amazing world to life for us. Do better.

#heartstopper #heartstopper cast #sebastian croft #joe locke #hstwt #please stop being hateful #seriously #its disgusting

[cumbunnywitch]

The internal leftist debate on the best words to use and disregarding the actual debate going on distracts us from affecting real change. Perfection is impossible. So long as the conversation is moving towards progress, we can have the talk about how some words aren't perfect later.

One thing I learned about recently is "high functioning autism" and let me fucking tell you about it. I'm autistic and I'm definitely affected by it in some ways, but I've gone through life without really understanding those difficulties because I didn't know until I was almost 30.

But when I told a friend I was high functioning, the vitriolic debate-baiting I got for it made me question even being friends with this person. Apparently, a phrase I was using to label myself was out of date and harmful and I needed to change the entire way I was thinking and how I perceived myself before they would even consider talking to me about being autistic.

So let me fucking tell you that this debate, that saying someone is completely invalid in their point because they identify some strange way you don't agree with, or because they use outdated language, or because they don't fully understand one specific thing from a week ago that only super-aware expert-level edge of the knife people know about, I complete bullshit and if you do it you need to SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Yea, I'm mean cumbunnywitch now. If you derail a try for progress because you need to make this person be 100% correct to what you think is the most correct language, I have a question for you. Are you the leading authority on this, or are you ready to get off your high fucking horse and help push the cart? Stop letting nazis organize better than us, I will kick you from the discord call so the rest of us can make the progress we need to.

Seriously, someone saying transwoman/man when trans woman/man (enbies sorry this is just the example I had lined up) is more correct? If they're talking about advancing trans rights, maybe instead of going off on them in the moment, let them get their point across and allow for a conversation about the objective, and if it really means something to you, message them politely and have a conversation about in private to inform them and let them know that you appreciate their support anyway.

Because you know what? This whole "oh you said something the wrong way" shit? It's because of narcissists and alt-right trolls have figured out how to cause infighting. The right doesn't care about getting the right words because if it's one racist to another, they can let the little stuff slide while hating the same groups of people.

These people can easily climb to the top of the left's influence sources because they understand that by being the authority on what's acceptable, people pay attention to them. People look to them to be better. And all of the sudden they can cause infighting and install moral speed bumps and slow our march towards equality and equity while the nazis and racists and homophobes continue on tirelessly towards their shitty goals, outpacing our movements.

TL;DR stop getting caught up trying to make everyone as perfect as you and derailing whole conversations.

Yes this post is related to maia arson crimew.

#maia #punch nazis out of leftist debate spaces #stop infighting you fucking idiots #im too old to be polite about this #trans

[adventures-in-moderating]

I really enjoyed the THIS IS IT arc and the optimistic nihilism it left the characters in, but I'm curious how we're meant to feel about Phonograph? I feel like he was a bit demonized for actually wanting things to be better. But I also understand that often in Don't Hug Me I'm Scared you can't take the presented narrative at face value, everything's buried under a few layers of social commentary so not sure where you stand or what you intended.

Oh god I wrote way too long an answer for this

Okay, so if I'm being frank about my intentions, Phonograph is meant to be a flawed but tragic character. I view him as entirely correct that the current way they teach is probably entirely unhelpful and bad for their students, he's correct that things need to change and things probably used to be a little better. But his flaw is that he's a little bit pompous. He has this self-importance about being the first teacher ever created, and he refuses to see the inherent flaws in the system that have always been there. He just can't believe that he might be wrong sometimes as well, and can't accept the reality that Rosalyn was disappointed with him and her other creations (while we're here, Rosalyn also isn't as terrible as everyone in the story thinks she was). Phonograph's style of teaching is also commentary on how some children's shows push this idea that "you can do ANYTHING you put your mind to!" when that just isn't applicable to everyone, as everyone has their own limitations for their own reasons. While not at all insidious, probably not a realistic expectation. But he's not supposed to be a bad person, he's just trying to have morals in a place that had a very different philosophy from him, and he's become frustrated and occasionally hostile.

The real issue though is that THIS IS IT is the result of me accidently building up a lot of lore that I felt I needed to deliver on, and is probably very flawed. It's probably way too mean, and if I ever feel like drawing all 100 pages, I will probably reword some dialogue. It's difficult to write satisfying character arcs for these awful talking objects. That's why I kind of wanted to start all over with the Clayhill stuff where the rules are off, basically. No more threats of deletion, everyone get along with each other. Web series canon is over, I can write whatever elaborate fanfiction I want and not worry about it getting invalidated later (I don't know why I worry about this). It's going to be a bit more positive and less melodramatic, and have more straight-forward character arcs, but I don't want to talk about that until I've released more.

#answered ask

[hussyknee]

Reminder that trigger warnings are an act of courtesy rather than an obligation.

That nobody else is responsible for your triggers, and if something triggers you that you can't manage to avoid, it's your responsibility to leave that space no matter how much you want to be in it.

That triggers are value negative, i.e it's not shameful to be triggered, but it being a trigger also doesn't mean it's objectively bad or immoral, or that other people should also avoid it if it triggers enough people.

That if something objectively bad triggers you, the pain you're experiencing by being triggered has little to do with its actual capacity to harm you.

That you can't make objective assessments or moral judgements from a place of trauma, because it obliterates distance. The only thing you can do with triggers is either work on them or avoid them.

That treating trauma as a sacrosanct thing that should never disturbed or questioned makes it worse and can turn you toxic.

That the whole point of PTSD is that it's an irrational and disproportionate reaction to stimuli, because your brain is hyperaroused and vanishes emotional, physical and temporal distance whenever it thinks it sees a pattern. That it sucks and hurts like a bitch but you are not in active danger by internetrando69 with a wrong opinion. PTSD is a mental illness, which by definition means that your very real pain is the result of your brain is lying to you.

That, while you deserve empathy and accomodation for your disability, you're still responsible for your actions. That trauma does not give you license to hurt people, not even yourself.

That understanding all of these things does not invalidate your pain or what happened to you, but is essential to helping manage it and heal from it.

#mental health #PTSD #Cptsd #Accessibility #social justice #Tumblr wankery #disability #neurodivergence #mental illness #trigger warnings #knee of Huss

[perpetual-fool]

-

Morality is built on a fallacy. I dunno what you'd call it. It's not quite the is-ought problem but it's very similar.

I was thinking through how you'd define a morality. Fundamentally, the only thing it could be is that it's based on how you feel. And there's no way to go from a personal feeling to some universal mandate. Like, there's no valid logical connection that can take you from "snickerdoodles are my favorite cookie" to "snickerdoodles are (objectively) the best cookie". And to say something is right or is wrong you'd have to be doing just that.

So about my 'being a bad person', that's entirely manipulation and the whole concept is horseshit?

I'm inclined to ask for confirmation, as if I need permission. But that would be missing the point. Tangent, I think this should illustrate why this is difficult. Like, I've decided morality is invalid, as a concept. It seems like I must be stupid or crazy. Or conversely, I'd have to be some kind of genius? Regardless, I am so far out of sync with humanity that no real connection is possible. Like, if someone tells me they like [game], and I ask "what about [game] do you like?", they cannot explain to the depth necessary for it to be meaningful to me. I don't want this.

So anyway, the question that set all this off was "why do anything?" And I think the answer is "I don't know". As I've mentioned, the only real joy I've had was that one time when I was in love. Else, everything is a mess, and I'm not proficient enough to sort things out myself. The obvious course of action is that I just need to become proficient. I suppose I could focus more on actually completing tasks. Say, my ocarina is still only half-tuned, and I do have the tools for it now. I really don't like going in blind, but there's no helping it. I mean, even if someone could explain how some hobby brings meaning to their life, I wouldn't have the context to understand it.

- Aside about whatever little adventures I may partake in, it seems like it'd be a waste to not share. Like, I'm gonna do all this work to find out something like: the ideal ratio for an ice cream recipe is (by weight) 1 part sugar, 2 parts milk, 3 parts cream. And if I don't write that down I'm gonna forget it. And I'm really gonna forget minutiae, like that it has to be milk, you can't substitute for a different 'basically water' liquid else the cream makes it feel greasy. And I'm gonna forget the methodology (and how sound my information is), like that I'm just assuming that milk will take away the greasiness and all my testing was actually done with water. And I guess I like the idea that it might be useful.

Although, any attempts at creative work would just be annoying, wouldn't it? What would be the point of sharing a writing exercise or something? I wouldn't know. I'd have to try it out I guess.

[overatlas99]

Jordan Peterson & Environmentalism

Jordan Peterson & Environmentalism

Listening to academics discuss topics can be done while not becoming part of their 'thought cult' - Jordan Peterson is a great example Jordan Peterson has been a rather contrarian figure to discuss online. Regardless of who you're talking to about Joran Peterson, you either associate with certain groups, or get associated with groups. As in all things, there's a middle you should strive for. Appreciating somebody's work academically and their intelligence should not have to be to directly associated to any political commitment. Everyone has something to teach, an qualified individual such as Jordan Peterson especially so. His discussions related to Clinical Psychology, the field he is academically certified for, are quite informative. He particularly focuses on men's psychology but also discusses woman's psychology & general life. His talks are quite helpful for everyone, particularly young males. Just listening with an open mind may surprise you how well he puts feelings into ideas. Another topic that he has talked about a more recently is environmentalism. An interesting note, he is not a fan of the current environmental movement's ethics, but is very much a left-wing individual. Most of his arguments are against, not the movement itself, but of the morals/ethics behind the actions. A thought experiment is the contrast of developing nations and pushing for environmentalism. Before reaching our current understanding of pollution, every single major nation used mass industrialization creating mass environmental pollution, the rates of some being higher than a lot of current developing countries. Is it fair ethically and morally, to go to a country that is trying to escape poverty - where most of the population doesn't have jobs and cannot feed themselves - and say "you are not allowed to industrialize using the methods and everyone else did"? "You are not allowed to use the known cheap effective means to become a Modern Nation and improve your standard of living that we already used because know that it's bad for the world!". An interesting dilemma. A lot of Jordan's work is less about the actual actions to help the planet, and more focusing on the "anti-human sentiment" prevailing in environments academics. Overpopulation, something that I have been thinking over more recently, is another popular subject of Jordan's'. He addresses the idea of saying humans should not continue to grow as a rather strange ethical argument. Saying that the value of life is worthless and arguing about limiting the population to help the planet, is inherently anti-human. This topic became predominant around the 1960s, and many of their predictions believed there would be world wide hunger famine in the year 2000. Humans are smart, they figure out how to survive. Whether you want to argue the reasons for developing, humans will find a way forward. Regardless of political labels, everyone can still discuss logic. Regardless of whether you agree with everything, a failure of understanding on a subject does not result in everything else they discuss being automatically invalid. Whether subjectively or objectively wrong, people develop through learning from mistakes. "What is a bad man but a good (sage's) man's student?" Marking one question incorrectly does not invalidate your entire test score. Look for discussion where you go to grow and develop as a human being. Being in an echo-chamber will only hinder you ability to think & act Read the full article

#Learning #listening #politics #Speaking

[nicolelindsay]

ambivalence as one of my problems

“If you were to rate [redacted], on a scale of 1-10, 10 as the highest, how will you rate him?” (Non-verbatim).

I remember when I was interviewed after passing the qualification exam for correspondents, of our university student publication. In return, I asked about the remaining years that [redacted] has. He said “3 more years,” I told him “uhmmm okay, five?” I had miscalculations cause what I really wanted to say was 2. He failed to fulfill half–actually, most of his promises. While for his remaining years, he can still acquire a maximum of 5 points.

Most of the time, I am ambivalent. I have doubts about my own beliefs and will always care too much about what other people will think or say about me, but the interviewer’s previous question was, would I rather be objective or subjective as a writer. I thought, of course we wanted to be objective, but we should always choose our own people, we should be subjective, in favor of the masses.

Last Monday, I had a conversation with my mother’s friend and although we have, not necessarily parallel information, but similar beliefs at least, e.g. oligarchy is one of those that causes socio-economic differences or disparity, we both didn’t go against the idea of [redacted] cutting ties with US etc.

One of the differences is, he doesn’t seem to care about what we can refer to as collateral damages. Even if the intention of a certain implementation is good, if you know that there are people, mostly poor people who’ll suffer, you should acknowledge it as a problem.

I am not the type of person who‘ll say “oust this guy,” because it won’t even stop some people who benefit most, from other people’s misery, but we also shouldn’t tolerate incompetence.

I only share what I feel when I’ve had enough and most of the time, people disagree and it’s because of their fanaticism or maybe pride. I always try my best to understand and there is also the importance of context. As much as possible, when there's discourse, I want to know where a person is coming from, and understand our differences. We cannot go against something or someone without a clear understanding of what they chose to believe or stand for.

Most people consider lack of discipline as the no. 1 problem, but fail to check their own privileges. I think we can relate it to the nature vs. nurture debate. I somehow also had this... I can say a healthy argument with one of my profs. While I was discussing about factors affecting children’s

moral and behavioral development. When it comes to the neighborhood or community, just to avoid stereotypes against people living in urban poor communities, I asserted that not all are rude– that sometimes, it’s because of the upbringing.

My prof then said that some people are rude only because they have to, the environment they are living in, made them the way they are. As an example, she said if I’m waiting in line and someone cut in, of course I have to call them out. At that time I didn’t get it because she proceeded to point out that I’m too modest, that I’m always choosing my words to be polite. I’m aware of my tactfulness, but maybe, it was also her way of saying, I have my own privileges. Unlike her example, I don’t even have to fall in line, just to get water from a poso, therefore, I won’t appear rude for calling someone out. “It’s survival of the fittest,” she said.

It’s the same thing about asking for alternative plans or even subsidies. We shouldn’t invalidate other people’s struggle in the time of pandemic, some people didn’t even have a choice, but to go out. It wasn’t a matter of having or lacking discipline.

We can always cooperate, but it doesn’t mean that people can no longer give constructive criticism. If there are problems, we should speak out and the people in power, whoever it is, when challenged, should prove us wrong, by listening; especially to those that were greatly affected.

[olderthannetfic]

I try to be pro freedom of fiction, but there's one genre I find hard to swallow where I find that the anti arguments often make more sense to me than the pro arguments, and that's RPF. It's fiction, I know that, but I wouldn't want anyone to write smut about me either, especially not me as a kid, so it sits wrong with me as a genre. It just feels repulsive and intrusive to treat real people as fictional characters. Any idea on where I can find more nuanced takes on this subject?

RPF anon, I'm not sending this in to admonish anyone for writing it or to tell them to stop doing it, and I'm never gonna interact with that content anyway, but it does elicit a reaction of "Ew, oh God why" in me and I was curious to know what makes this type of content fine to write about real people. Looking to learn, not change anyone's mind.

--

Well...

First of all, disgust is not a moral compass. Sometimes, what we find disgusting does line up well with things we think are logically unethical, but sometimes, it's just a visceral reaction based on personal taste or learned hatred. So we'll set that part aside for now.

Now, on to your real point, which is that RPF could upset its subjects. That does make logical sense on the surface. I can see why it's an attractive argument.

Here is the problem I have with it:

1. Yes, you would not like RPF written about you, but how do you know that this applies to other people? Every time this topic comes up, somebody asks me "How would you like it if someone nonconsensually wrote RPF about you?" and my answer is that this has happened to me. I felt slightly weird about it, but I didn't ask them to stop. We're still friends 20 years later.

We have examples of celebrities who were flattered or amused. We have examples of celebrities who asked people not to do specific things like shipping them with their ex but who did not care if people wrote violent porn about them.

It is simply untrue that everyone objects to RPF, even pornographic and squicky RPF, about themselves. I am not a celeb, but I genuinely do not care if someone writes graphic pedo fic about me as a child. I don't even care if they jerk it to photographs of me as a child. As long as they aren't fucking actual kids or sending their fic to me, I don't care what they do.

Your next point is going to be something like "Okay, but what about a celeb who has said they hate it?" My answer there is that many individual fans will not want to write fic under those circumstances, and I get why. However, the second problem I have with anti-RPF arguments is:

2. What makes RPF so special? Plenty of actors identify very closely with a character they play and object strenuously to fic about that character, especially anything they find gross or creepy... and yes, historically, this has meant m/m more than it has meant death or rapefic.

Why should an actor's genuine feelings of disgust and hurt be invalid when a fic is about a character they play rather than their public persona? What gives them the right to tell fans how to fantasize in either case?

Authors are even more notorious for freaking out about fic of their work. They've thrown hissy fits likening it to cheating with their spouse, to rape, and to white slavery. (Fuck you, Diana Gabaldon. Never forget!) I know fans who think fanfic of books in general is an invasion and that only fic of tv/film is normal and okay.

Fic can cause genuine hurt feelings, yes, but all fic can do this.

--

Those are my logical arguments for why all RPF is acceptable--or at least no different from other fic. But I also think it's important to recognize how RPF operates in practice.

In this era of youtube celebrities, we are seeing a bit more RPF of people who are relatively accessible and maybe not that famous. However, most RPF is still about the public personas of famous people. It's more likely that a rando will have a boundary-tresspassing friend write them into an original novel than that they'll get RPF written about them in a fandom context.

Typical RPF looks more like some AU where fanon personalities and faces of BTS are grafted onto a bunch of wizards running a magic shop. This is so unbelievably fake I don't even know where to start. Even if it isn't an AU, idol groups are some of the fakest celebrities there are. Their images are heavily manufactured. The people being written about might as well be characters they play.

Moreover, their images are manufactured to make fans fantasize.

Music groups have always done this. It has been normal since way, way back to have fan magazines with stories about "You win a date with [guy]". The only difference is that people now write a fair amount of m/m in addition to m/ofc.

I just don't think it's reasonable to tell fans how to fantasize or to ask your audience not to have an imagination. Fic on AO3 is far more boundary-respecting than people gushing over their crushes on twitter, a site plenty of celebs actually use, but they're both okay as long as people aren't rubbing the subject's face in their fantasy life.

Even the favorite example of Dan and Phil is complicated. Yes, fans were pushy and obnoxious at them--directly at them--but they also stoked the fires of shipping because it was good for clicks. They rode that type of fan fantasy to stardom. People writing fic are at least engaging in overt fiction and fantasy, unlike the people harassing the actual dudes for info about their personal lives.

Anti-RPF rants tend to treat this as some innocent passerby minding their own business and then some pervert jumping out of the bushes to tell them about their wank fantasies, but that's just not the reality of most RPF writing. It's generally inspired by people who seek fame through encouraging that kind of fantasy. It's not RPF that invades celebs' space: it's people demanding a stop to RPF who are invading fans' space.

And there's a special circle of hell for those pathetic suckups who show other people's fic to their faves hoping to get their fandom enemies in trouble and curry favor with their idols. Those are the people with no boundaries who deserve our wrath.

--

Original writing is full of RPF, from basically all historical novels to ripped from the headlines stuff speculating about celebrities. I find some of this tasteless or Too Soon, but it is seen as completely normal by society. Most 'young woman meets her male celeb crush' stuff is normalized.

The reason RPF comes under fire is that the less socially acceptable sexual fantasies of young women are always under fire.

I absolutely do think there are issues with teenagers seeking internet fame and finding it's more than they bargained for. If you object to fanfic about teenage youtubers, you should object to there being teenage youtubers.

I also think there are issues with child stars. But is somebody's Stranger Things fanfic on AO3 really more of a problem than all the things that went on on set? Than the epic quantities of creepy fanmail? Ultimately, if you're bothered by RPF of underage actors, you should be against underage people being in movies at all. The biggest sources of harm aren't coming from fic.

[iamanartichoke]

This isn't aimed specifically at you, more a general question, but do you think some people have a hard time distinguishing between bad writing vs rather it just wasn't what they personally wanted/to their taste? There were things I wanted in the series that weren't included, but overall I think it was a well made series. Whereas I sometimes think people's disappointment makes them think it must be a universal experience.

Any anon: *sends an ask*

Me: *one eternity later* so here's about 5000 words on this general topic that may or may not answer the question you asked in the first place.

That said, this is a really good question and I've been thinking about it for a few days, bc I don't think that there's actually an answer. I mean, on the one hand, it's not for me to say whether someone else's judge of good writing is objective enough, but at the same time, the fact is that it is extremely hard to not let subjectivity cloud your opinion on good vs bad writing. And to be completely fair, I think that people criticizing the show get more flack for it but it absolutely goes the other way as well - that is, people who enjoyed the show seem to believe that the writing is good because it is to their taste and/or they did get what they wanted. I mean, for example, back when the show first started airing and the whole "Loki is ooc" wank started really gaining ground, some people's reasoning behind their "no he's definitely ic" was "well I write him this way, so I see nothing wrong with this portrayal." Which is like a 10/10 on the subjective reasoning scale, so yknow.

(Incidentally, I do think that inconsistency in Loki's characterization can be proven objectively, just by looking at previous canon and identifying the differences in the portrayals, but I mean, there are still people who will look at that kind of evidence and tell you you're cherry-picking to support your argument or you interpreted the first one wrong or whatever so, like, it's moot at this point. Some people don't want to somehow invalidate themselves or their fan-ness by liking the "wrong" Loki, so they'll twist themselves into pretzels to insist he's been the same all this time, when the reality is that there isn't a right or a wrong Loki but there are two versions within the story, and ymmv on which one you prefer, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. But I digress.)

Another example is the handling of Loki's storylines - for as many people who dislike the series bc it didn't include or address any of Loki's trauma, for example, there are just as many people who like it because it didn't address the trauma. They don't want to watch a depressing storyline about Thanos and Loki's suffering. They don't want to sit through objectively "darker" content. They wanted to see Loki redeemed and to find worth in himself and to find people who loved him, and they feel that they got it. Other people who wanted to see those same exact things feel that they absolutely did not get it. The former group thinks the writing was great; the latter group think it's shit. It literally is just all subjective.

I think that the subjectivity of it is what causes there to be so many fucking problems when it comes to wank and ~the discourse~ and people aligning themselves with one side or another. Both sides want to be right and neither of them are, and that's because everyone's, like, "litmus test" of what made the series good or bad writing is coming from not only what they perceive is good writing (or not) but also their own biases, their own experiences, and their own perspectives of how the world works. (Not to mention their own sense of morality and how it should be portrayed in fiction, which is how you end up with purity culture and censorship fuckery, but that's another topic tbh.)

For example, on the issue of trauma, there was some really obnoxious wank posted awhile back wherein some people on the positive-side started saying that the people who didn't like the Loki series just haven't dealt with their own trauma and/or were not in a place of recovery, which caused them to view the series through a biased lens of wanting Loki to remain as traumatized and/or mentally ill as they personally were. And the people who came up with this argument made it a point to be like, "I have trauma/mental illness too and I had no issue with how the topic was treated, but I am in a better place than I have been in the past, and I can therefore appreciate Loki being in a better place, too." Understandably, people were offended by this bc, yknow, who is anyone to determine or judge how anyone else is engaging with fiction or why they feel the way they do and also the audacity, but for another thing, the people making this argument are being just as biased as they're accusing the antis of being, they're just framing it as a good thing. "I can see clearly now the rain is gone" and everything. And it just - it doesn't work that way. It's obnoxious to try and psychoanalyze people based on their responses to fiction, yes, but also you can't use someone else's (perceived or not) bias against the Thing as proof that it's actually good. That doesn't prove anything except that their biases are different than yours. (Relatedly, I also disagree with people who argue that if one doesn't see Loki's handling of trauma as a bad thing that they don't know anything about trauma bc, again, a lot of people who have trauma of their own had no issues and being on the positive side doesn't make their personal traumas or struggles invalid. Again, I digress.)

And lest this sound like I'm attacking the positive-side, I'm really not, bc it truly does work both ways - that is, I've seen (much more recently, which has made me feel some kinda way) some pretty blatant toxicity from the antis, too, including believing that those who liked the series or ship Sylki or Lokius or whatever are, like, abuse apologists or transphobic or just plain too dumb to understand why the writing isn't good, and that's not fair or right, either. But they feel just as justified in their view as the positives feel in theirs, yet neither side can come up with any reason for why they are correct that doesn't somehow tie into "this is good because I like it" or "this is bad because I don't like it."

Not to blow smoke up my own ass, but though I'm often self-deprecating about my comptency as a writer, I think that I do actually have some idea of what I'm talking about when it comes to this type of thing. I have an MFA from a really good school that focuses on the arts, and I learned from very accomplished writers, and I like to think that this gives me a smidgen of credibility when it comes to my own perception of what good writing is and isn't. Please don't mistake this as me saying that I alone am valid in literary critique irt the Loki series; quite the opposite - I'm saying that I know, objectively, what makes writing good because I spent a lot of time and money learning it, and yet my view of the series is just as subjective as everyone else's. I admit that sometimes I get really baffled at some of the positive arguments I see bc the person will be like, omg this was such good writing! and I'll be like, are you serious right now how do you not see everything that's wrong with it? but to be completely fair, I also get really baffled at some of the anti takes where the person will be like, this was so awful bc of xyz and I'll be like, I don't know wtf you're talking about did you hurt yourself with that reach or.

Anyway, my point is that as a fan and a consumer of fiction/media in general, my opinion is subjective along with everyone else's and I'm not above calling something shitty bc it's not what I wanted, and as a person who went to school for this sort of thing, all I can say is that the only way to get some measure of objectivity in determining whether or not a story (or writing in general) is good is to consider it based on what are generally considered the essential elements of fiction: characters, setting, plot, conflict, and theme.

The first question is, obviously, does the Thing have each of these elements? Loki does. The second question is, was the Thing successful in how it handled each of these elements? Were the characters thoroughly developed and did they serve their purpose in the narrative? Is the plot structured so that there's a beginning, middle, and end? Were the themes recognizable?

I think that you can objectively answer these questions in a yes/no sense - the characters showed some development and served a purpose in the story, there was a narrative arc of beginning, middle, and end (a cliffhanger end does still count as an ending, in that each character came to the end of their particular journey in this story with the cliffhanger leaving them on the precipice of a new story), the themes were established, etc. But as soon as you go further in-depth with your answers - well, there was some character development but this felt rushed or that wasn't believable or this thing was completely overlooked; or - this character showed really great growth between point A here and point B there and the theme of XYZ was handled really well, this or that was foreshadowed or paid off nicely, etc.

And neither side is wrong, but that also means neither side is right, and ideally this is what can spawn some really great literary discussions, if one is in an environment that is not tumblr dot com. The most beautiful thing about fiction is that it can mean whatever you want it to mean, and you can interpret it however you want to, and whether you're "right" or not, if your interpretation makes the Thing more meaningful to you and gives you something to think about and evokes an emotional and intellectual response, then you do you, boo. Yknow?

... So the very long, rambly answer to your question, nonny, is that yes, I do think that the lack of ability to distinguish "bad writing" from "I didn't like this" is a thing, but it goes both ways and one can never be truly, 100% objective in their media consumption and honestly, if we could all just get the fuck over our egos and the need to be right, we'd probably all be having a much better time in fandom. Which, to your second point about people thinking their experience is universal, I do think that that happens and I wish it didn't - I don't want anyone to speak for me and my experience of the show, for example, and neither does anyone else, so I don't know why so many people insist on doing it.

#asks #a nonny mouse #charlotte replies #loki series #long post #mood gif

[dragon-ball-meta]

Yes, a Reddit post. I’m sure so many of you are shocked that our colossally bad take came from there, (and probably from Toyotaro’s burner account lol), but nevertheless, here it is. How to even begin to unpack this... Okay, here we go: 1. Goku’s was hardly the only one who didn’t want to stop Gero. Vegeta literally threatened to KILL anyone who DID try to stop them. Tien wanted to fight them to test his limits. Goku’s desire was to fight them, yes, hello, this is Goku, But he also refused to just find and straight-up kill Gero when he TECHNICALLY hadn’t done anything to warrant it yet. And, as we actually came to see, that’s not an entirely unwarranted stance; things changed between these two timelines even without direct intervention. Unlikely as it was, it was possible that Gero may not have gone through with it. There have been entire books and films on this topic.. 2. This stupid claim just refuses to die. At what point in any part of the fight with Goku and Cell was it even IMPLIED that Goku could have won? Goku stated he’d been going all-out in his fight with Cell, when the Cell Jrs arrived and started attacking, Goku was getting bodied even though they were only about as strong as Vegeta or Trunks, who were both far below him when at full power. Goku could not have beaten Cell. ONLY Gohan could. The boy even said that he’d thought Goku and Cell were both not fighting seriously because they looked to be moving slowly to him. Gohan was already stronger than Goku, before he ever turned SSJ2. Period. And for the love of GOD, STOP with this “severe emotional trauma” nonsense! Gohan had been watching people die, his friends no less, since he was FIVE. In fact, seeing that at FIVE is FAR more likely to have given him any severe and lasting emotional trauma. PICCOLO is more likely to have caused this than Goku. Yes, the Piccolo the OP even then tries to claim is the paragon of fatherhood. Gohan was already afraid of his own anger, he always had a dislike of fighting and hurting people. The thing that shook the boy the most was watching his dad die and knowing it was partly his fault. Even then, he grew up into a healthy, well-adjusted man with his dream job and a family. Just STOP pushing your headcanons onto him for two seconds! 3. THINKS he could have killed Buu. Opted to try to teach those still alive a technique that would enable THEM to kill Buu and keep protecting the Earth even after he was gone. Could have killed Vegeta, yes, and sent him to hell and left Bulma and Trunks broken-hearted. Instead opted to try to reason with him first and allow him to think he’d finally caught up to him so he’d stop obsessing over their power gap to the point of SELLING HIS SOUL TO AN EVIL WIZARD TO GET THE EDGE.. And now, for the completely asinine reasons Goku is eeeeevil: 1. You’re acting as if this isn’t just Goku. That is LITERALLY Goku. Always HAS been Goku. He treats EVERYNE as a peer and potential friend and ADORES the idea of trying to fight strong people. Note that he also ASKED for a spar, didn’t just “attack” or something. This also has nothing to do with a thirst for “power”, it has to do with Goku trying to test himself and push himself to be the greatest warrior it’s possible for him to be. This is the same mentality that had Goku excited for the Tenkaichi Budokai, that had him excited to face Vegeta, that had him spare Piccolo and Vegeta for the sake of  rematch against such a great opponent someday. This is not some sort of development that happened post-Namek, and it’s by no means Evil. Also, how tf did VEGETA supposedly warn him when Vegeta was back on Earth and nowhere to be found?  2. Again... this is just Goku. This is how he is. That doesn’t mean he didn’t care about the plight of others though; Goku doesn’t just sit back and ignore suffering he’s been made aware of, and he helps his friends. But yes, the idea of facing HIMSELF was exciting to him; possibly his ONLY chance to compare his progress to another “version” of himself.  And... I’m sorry, but Goku erupting into a fit of rage over his family’s murder is invalidated because he was mad it used HIS body? Really? NO KIDDING I’d be extra pissed if some psychopath took over my body and murdered my wife and little boy! Who WOULDN’T be pissed about that? The last thing his wife saw was her husband’s face grinning as he cut through her and their son. The last thing Goten saw was his daddy GLEEFULLY murdering him. The fact that he flew into the biggest rage he’d ever had since he first fought FREEZA over this shows how much that hurt him. The fact that you think it was entirely about the use of his body and not their deaths shows a piss-poor ability to analyze what you see on screen, ESPECIALLY as he was upset but mostly indifferent hearing how Zamasu stole his body UNTIL he told Goku he murdered his family too. THEN he flew into a rage. This is also going to invalidate an upcoming point, so pin this.

3. Aaaand... we’re right back to the Tournament of Power itself. The Tournament that literally no one foresaw as having those results. The one that as stated to actually buy one universe that was gonna be wiped anyways a fighting chance to survive, and later turned out to be a massive morality test to allow ALL of said universes to survive. Nevermind that though, this OP here asserts that Goku KNEW it would result in that, was TOLD it would even (he literally was not I am so sick of that claim), and didn’t even KNOW they COULD undo it and STILL wanted it! This is easily the most hardcore anti-Goku stance I have ever seen on this topic This isn’t just chiding him for being ignorant or not listening to warnings (again, not applicable), it’s accusing him of KNOWING Genocide would happen and actually WATING that in the name of a few fights.  This being his stance is further illustrated by his assertion that Goku is indisputably a sociopath. Let’s look at the definition of a sociopath, shall we? “A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.” This is not Goku. OBJECTIVELY not Goku. Goku is far from anti-social, and very much has a strong sense of right and wrong, hence his desire to intervene when he comes across people suffering. Hence why he sought justice for the murder of Upa’s father. Hence why he felt IMMEDIATE REGRET after hearing what the consequences would be for the losers of the ToP, and WHY HE FLEW INTO A RAGE OVER THE MURDER OF HIS WIFE AND SON. Goku is capable of sympathy, empathy, and grasps the concepts of right and wrong. A sociopath he is not. And, of course, the stupid assertion that Goku is a bad father and Piccolo and Vegeta are the REAL examples of fatherhood... which is also erasure of Gohan and Krillin, neither of whom assaulted their daughters, tossed them into the wilderness to fend for themselves, forced them to be fighters and face homicidal aliens at age 5,or nearly let them and their mothers fall to their deaths because they were too absorbed with finding and killing an enemy to prove their superiority. To cap it off, Vegeta and Piccolo have somehow inexplicably become the “symbols of hope” in the series, trying to stop an evil, unhinged Goku from annihilating them all, and he asserts that Vegeta became the REAL hero during... the Cell Saga? The arc where Vegeta literally helped Cell become perfect? And was the hero in the arc where he sold his soul to Babidi, helped resurrect Buu, AND murdered hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people JUST to make Goku mad enough to fight him because he refused to? You know, the thing you actually used as a point of criticism for... GOKU, and are clearly abdicating Vegeta of any and all responsibility for?  Folks, I’ve seen some bad takes in my day, but it’s very, VERY rare to find one this unhinged and frankly inept in one place. This is nuclear levels of Bad Takes here. Just... wow. 

#Goku #Son Goku #Fandom #Fandumb #dbz reddit #why #Vegeta worship #Goku hate #Dragon Ball #Dragon Ball Z #Dragon Ball Super #DB #DBZ #DBS #Dragonball #Dragonball Z

[magicwithineleteo]

ok so below the cut is me addressing my feelings about the “drama” in the fandom. i would just like to mention that i am hesitant to post this out of fear of receiving backlash and being attacked/harassed by those who disagree. if you are as mature as you believe yourself to be, then please act as such and try to have a healthy discussion instead of just jumping on me for speaking up.

tw: pedophilia, bullying, swearing

i honestly don't have words for what’s happening in the fandom. i joined this fandom out of love for an amazing show, and was pleased to find a community of like-minded people who enjoy it just as much as i do. but i was not expecting this toxic element. i agree with the fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and they are free to ship whatever they want to. usually, i wouldn't give a fuck. but i do care when the ships are morally wrong. to reiterate, this is NOT a matter of opinion, this is a matter of MORALITY, which if someone wants to go ahead and say is subjective, at the end of the day, there are basic definitions of what is morally right and wrong. these ships are gababel and esteomi. (i am against cedfia too, however i’m not in the sofia the first fandom. only the eoa fandom so this is primarily about these ships.) i do not understand how one can comfortably ship these ships. at the beginning of the show, naomi is 15 and esteban is in his mid 50s. i don’t get how so many people don’t see the issue with that??? and at the beginning of the show, isabel is 10 and gabe is 18. again, a big issue. there is only one context in which esteban and naomi would morally work, if naomi was around pre-amulet. so by the time elena is freed, naomi is a similar age to esteban. but she’s not. regarding gababel, i don’t see how aging up isabel makes it any more acceptable. gabe has known isa since she was 10, i don’t think he’s just gonna immediately get feelings for her when she turns 18. that just sounds like a bunch of bs. other excuses for these ships are also a bunch of bs. dang, i didn’t know that not shipping gababel was because i’m not imaginative enough to think about the future of that ship. at least i'm imaginative enough to see that it's not even worth imagining because why would anyone even want to picture it? 

treating people with kindness and living by the golden rule means a lot to me. that people should be nice to each other, no matter if their beliefs clash or not. so why is it that when a young minor calls out these morally wrong ships, they are targeted? once again, this is a young MINOR. A CHILD. and not to mention, they were targeted by a bunch of adults. this child has called out something that’s morally wrong and adults came for them. i feel like these adults were aware that they are a child, but only to a certain point. they used the fact that they are a child to prove the point that they don’t know what bullying is, or that you were once in their shoes, an opinionated teenager. didn't know having an opinion was exclusive to teenagers, but i digress. however, a lot of you failed to recall that this is an actual child. not to mention, a handicapped child who has expressed time and time again how negative criticism affects them. at the end of the day, this context shouldn't even matter, because no one should be treated like that anyway. this child was bullied. this child felt invalidated and hurt. i don’t care what you think the definition of bullying is. they were bullied. imagine you’re in their place. a young (at the time 14 year old) who is receiving replies from  several adults telling them that they are wrong about pedophilia. you wouldn’t feel so nice either. their mental health went down because of this. you all failed to realize that this is a child, and that you need to be respectful to them. they are an equal member of the fandom, and they deserve several apologies. 

going along with this whole dialogue of age, i would like to point out that your age has nothing to do with your level of maturity, understanding, or comprehensibility of matters. just because someone is younger than you doesn't mean that automatically you are more correct or have the upper hand or whatever it may be simply due to your age. sure you may have more life experience, but what about your level of decency? empathy? awareness? sense of morality? these matter just as much, if not more. you can be 15 and wise and be 80 and be less knowledgeable. your actions and character display these things, not your age.

also with the whole “woke/woke teenager” thing. it's funny how it was said that buzzwords are being thrown around yet here we are, throwing this word around too. anyways, being “woke” is about being aware, having an open mind, and being able to not only recognize when something/someone is wrong, but being able to shed light on it and call it out. if you think i’m “woke” for calling out your pedophilic fantasies (which yes it is pedophilic i don’t think i need to explain to adults how that is so; and no, just because you aGe tHEm uP in yOuR hEad doesn't make it okay) then i’m damn proud to call out your shit. and i'll be damned if one of my friends or i get scrutinized for standing up and doing the right thing. no one deserves to get attacked for this, especially not with superficial strawman arguments that go after the person themselves rather than their “argument”/point of view. you can do all the name calling you want to, that does nothing to enhance your argument. all it does is shine a bright light on your character. and thank you for that, so we can see what kind of people we have in this community. it’s not about being sensitive or “woke” or whatever useless argument you want to use to steer away from the fact that you are MORALLY WRONG. i would understand if this discussion was about something lighter but this is so much deeper. this is not about “not being able to imagine/not being creative enough to imagine” i mean seriously? is that the argument here? that would be laughable if it wasn't as sad. what a substanceless argument that shows there is no viable justification for these ships. and it is not just about these pedophilic ships; it's also about how people are getting treated, specifically how adults on a power trip are attacking younger members of the fandom (wrongfully) with their petty posse of people. i mean seriously? can none of you (just a one on one not one of us versus your gang) have a decent conversation without needing your other friends to attack along with you? just childish honestly. and i wouldn't even say that because children aren't low enough to act like that. they are aware enough of others' feelings and know how to solve problems without hurting each other.

the fact that this is being deemed as “policing” and “telling the fandom at large what to do” is just ridiculous. first of all, no one is forcing our stances down people’s throats. second of all, who said you suck? you said it, not me. third of all, think of it like this. we have laws, yes? sure, the laws are written and yet some people still choose to break them. the law is enforced but yet still people have the option to follow it or not (even though they should follow it, duh). now say someone is breaking the law. would law enforcement be wrong to call them out on it? would they be wrong for charging them? no, because your actions have consequences. someone can “believe” they were not breaking the law but if their “belief” is objectively illegal and morally wrong, then by all means they should be called out on it. just because *you* personally don't find you shipping a 10 year old with an 18 year old (a fifth grader and high school senior for context) doesn't mean it's not problematic. and it doesn't matter if you're aging them up, it's still weird like why? it’s like you’re trying to justify pedophilia? and then you have the nerve to collectively attack ONE younger person who called out your foolery? this analogy was not to make it seem like we are the police of the fandom and are high and mighty or whatever, but simply to try and get across the point that just because *you* think it's not wrong, does not absolve you of it actually just being wrong. 

the way this matter has been addressed (and i wouldn't even say that because it is more like a one sided conversation/scolding where the opposite side of the discourse is either silenced because of fear or silenced after being attacked) has been absolutely petty, snarky, condescending, and catty; you really give yourself a sense of superiority over people because you are older and therefore more mature and more able to understand things on a deeper level? then understand this. handle this discussion in a more mature way. allow others who disagree with you to at least come to the table and share their feelings and see from their perspective. do not immediately pounce on them with your similarly-aged clique like this is some early 2000’s high school movie. it's funny because you are invalidating us by belittling us as just “high schoolers”, but if anything you guys are the ones acting like what you are projecting on us. literally bullying children. how depraved do you have to be to sit here and behave like this with actual children. it's funny because some of you actually have children and here you are, being a keyboard warrior for a pedophilic ship. is that the hill you are choosing to die on? at least try to open your eyes and see why we are addressing this. to your point, yes, you are adults. ADULTS. so act like it.

i would also like to mention that there is a big difference between notps and morally wrong ships. notps are ships that you do not ship because that’s just not what you like. an example of that for me is elenaomi. i don’t ship them like that, that’s one of my notps, and that’s okay. however when there are ships like esteomi and gababel, those are more than notps. those are morally wrong ships because they are pedophilic. i am not gonna call these my nOtPs; these are HELL NOTPS.

some of you are also big hypocrites. you say to scroll on, and to ignore it if you don’t like it. yet you feel the need to respond to things you don’t agree with. yes, it’s your blog, but if you’re not going to practice what you preach then, what’s the point? this reminds of the whole dialogue surrounding “if you don't like it here (your country), then leave.” this phrase is used to invalidate people who call out issues within their country, whether it be the societal structure as a whole, or the government etc. it's like you are only patriotic if you have 0 complaints and love everything about your country. you don't care if things are ruined; it's your country so you love it. in my eyes, true patriotism is when you are able to recognize and not be in denial about issues in your country; you are willing to not only acknowledge them as a problem, but are actively trying to address and fix it. similarly, i believe that you shouldn't have to just scroll on or leave the community because you are uncomfortable because of a genuine problem. why should we just be silent and accept what's going on? us scrolling on while recognizing the problem and not saying anything, letting it thrive, is being complicit. it's like being a bystander, and we are not going to do that. we want this community to be a great place for all of us to get along because of our shared interest of eoa. but that doesn't mean that these things should be excused or ignored. if you are having an issue with people calling this out, if the shoe fits, that's your problem, and moreover, you are part of the problem. i am not calling out specific names in this, so if you have an issue with it, then….hate to break it to you.

i understand that i’m usually a lot nicer on my page. however, i feel that i have been silent for too long. but i’m not a hypocrite and i know that i’m right. how people respond to this just reflects their character more than mine. i am a 13 year old child, and i am hesitant to discuss this because you guys did not hold back at a 14 now 15 year old. that is not okay, especially when this is supposed to be a loving community about a show that is aimed at children. that was all. please have some empathy, understanding, and especially respect.

#elena of avalor #eoa #gababel #esteomi #cedfia #please don't bully me or others for disagreeing with you <3

[princeescaluswords]

Invalidating Interpretations

I’ve been on a tear recently about my view that people’s belief in ‘all interpretations are valid’ not only misrepresents what interpretation means but also serves as a cover for racism, sexism, and other immoralities.  Fandom has lionized the idea that the consumption of media can be solely an emotional exercise which comes with no responsibility whatsoever.  On a certain level that’s true -- when a person sits in their home and thinks ‘wouldn’t it be cool if Stiles Stilinski was actually a god’ it has no consequence beyond their own entertainment.

But the problem is that it doesn’t remain there.  People are shaped by the media they consume, unless you don’t think any politician has allowed media’s representation of life in the 1950s to inform their vision of how the world should be.  I don’t think it would be very hard to find real examples of people’s ideology conforming to a fictional representation.  How many people’s ideas about the colonial-era relationship between European settlers and indigenous natives were formed by the story of the first Thanksgiving?  

We are influenced by the stories we consume, and we influence others by the stories we tell.  That bears with it responsibility, whether the story is on MTV or AO3 or Tumblr or any other public space.   This means that the interpretation of those stories should not simply depend on emotional response.  Anyone can tell canon to go f*ck itself, but that action brings with it commensurate responsibilities depending on what they do afterwards.

Let me give you two examples of what I’m talking about from my own fandom and use it illustrate this. 

Derek Hale held the act of turning someone into the werewolf in high regard -- “The Bite is a gift” -- which made Scott forcing him to Bite Gerard especially heinous.  This interpretation is not only unsupported but it is also used as a cover for racism and abuse apologism.  

The phrase was uttered three times on the show -- once by Derek in Wolf Moon (1x01), once by Peter in Visionary (3x08), and once by Scott in The Benefactor (4x04).  Every single time it was used to manipulate others, and none of them were sincere.  Derek used it to try to get Scott to help him find the person who murdered his sister; Peter used it to get Derek to ask Ennis to bite Paige; and Scott used it to try to repair the damage he did to his and Liam’s relationship by panicking after Biting Liam in Muted (4x03).   None of them meant it.  

Derek did not believe that the Bite was a gift, because his actions didn’t treat it as a gift.  When telling Scott how cool being a werewolf was didn’t make Scott do what he said, he abandoned the gift approach and told Scott how being a werewolf would endanger everyone he cared about.  If the act of the Bite is  something solemn and sacred, why did he charge Jackson like a horror-movie villain and then how did Jackson get in the lake?   When Jackson rejected the Bite on his way to Kanima-dom, why did Derek abandon him?  Why did he not get angry when Scott accused him of Biting Jackson to kill him? Why did he give the Bite to some kid he met in a graveyard when chasing an omega?  Why did Derek not even check on Lydia until Venomous (2x05), six episodes after Peter gave her the gift?  Why did Derek Bite Victoria in the middle of a battle? Derek didn’t treat his betas as if he had given them a gift.  He didn’t object when Peter described the Bite as “increasing his power and numbers?”  There is not a single instance where born-wolf Derek treated the Bite as special.  

Why then is the interpretation that Derek held the Bite as a sacrament so popular?  Because it justifies their racist condemnation of Scott as hero and justifies Peter’s and Derek’s abuse of Scott.  Scott’s antipathy toward lycanthropy is not a reasonable reaction of a teenager who had been told that not only his life is now and will forever be in danger, but he will also become a threat to everyone he cares about, but instead  it becomes ingratitude.  And of course, it allows them to dismiss the reality that Scott had little agency in that scene in Master Plan (2x12), that he was being forced to do Gerard’s bidding, and to concentrate on intensifying the violation of Derek (when they aren’t busy trying to turn it into rape).   

It also a defense for Peter’s and Derek’s abuse of Scott.  Scott’s lycanthropy stops being something horrible that happened to him, and starts being a reciprocal obligation he has to Derek and Peter.  Derek isn’t stalking and manipulating Scott into helping him find Laura’s killer, he’s punishing him for being ungrateful.  Peter didn’t ruin a teenager’s life and then gloat about it; he gave him a gift.   If you treat Scott’s Bite as a “monkey’s paw” scenario -- as one racist anon did -- then he’s simply got what he wanted and is unhappy about it.  Derek and Peter shouldn’t have to waste time being kind to this selfish prick.  Derek lying to Scott about the cure isn’t that bad if Scott insulted the Gift that he no longer wanted.

The above interpretation is unsupported by any actual scene or any actual script excerpt or anything really, but it does serve the purpose of excusing Hale-style abuse and undermining Scott’s position as heroic protagonist.

Scott McCall had a strict no-killing possibility which was a result of his own sense of moral superiority and a black-and-white view of the world.  This interpretation is not only directly contradicted by canon but it is a fundamental aspect of the racist idea of the Left Hand, by which is meant that White Men Can Kill Whomever They Want.  

Scott McCall didn’t have a strict no-killing policy.  Not in Season 1, not in Season 6.  He didn’t get upset at Derek for killing Peter (he got upset because Derek deceived him about the cure) or mourn Kate’s death, in Season 1.  He didn’t stop Derek or Peter from killing Gerard in Season 2.  He did object to Derek executing Lydia and Jackson for things that were beyond their control.  His rise to being a True Alpha in Season 3A wasn’t due to him not being willing to kill; his rise to True Alpha was partly due to his refusal to let others manipulate him into killing.  He was certainly willing to threaten Gerard and Jennifer with death.   He didn’t argue that killing the Oni was wrong in Season 3B; he did argue that killing Stiles was wrong.  He didn’t hold his father in contempt for killing the Chemist, or get upset about dead Berserkers, or tell Satomi, Chris, Derek or Braeden not to use lethal force again the hunters-turned-assassins.  His objection in Season 5 was about -- once again -- killing those taken and turned against their will into monsters.  The show literally addressed this in The Beast of Beacon Hills (5x19):

Scott: Deucalion? You shouldn't trust him. 

Theo: And you're the one who let him live. 

Scott: I'm not a murderer. 

Theo: You still think you're gonna get through all this without killing anyone? 

Scott: I didn't say that.

He didn’t say that.  He never said “no killing, ever.”  Derek had killed.  Chris had killed.  Theo had definitely killed, including him.  Stiles had killed.  He didn’t consign them into the outer dark.  He didn’t refuse to work with them or listen to them.  

This ‘interpretation’ is about nothing less than justifying Peter’s murderous behavior and Derek’s attempted imitation.  By pushing Scott’s moral stance to an unrealistic extreme, they try to demonstrate it as unworkable and arrogant, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.  The problem is that they’re not doing this to ask serious questions about when it is a valid option to kill; they’re doing it to justify Peter’s and Derek’s and Stiles’s supposed (but not real) and Theo’s and sometimes even Deucalion’s casual approach to murder.  They re-interpret a nuanced position about the value of every individual life into a some sort of arrogant white knight platitude.

And they will do this, even if they have to discard 90% of canon, if that is what it takes to enable Sexy White Men (and only Sexy White Men -- they never use this to justify Kali, or Monroe, or Gerard, or the Doctors) to be treated as the heroic protagonist in their tales.   That’s why, mysteriously, in all those Steter fictions where they execute Scott for not being willing to kill (in one of the most ironic tropes in history, which has become quite popular), they never have Stiles or Peter kill police officers for objecting to their murder sprees.  They never have Stiles shoot down deputies saying “you would stop me from protecting who I love, you must die!”  Weird, isn’t it?

It’s not weird at all.  These interpretations are not meant to be serious investigations of the production; they’re meant to serve emotional needs which if they admitted openly might subject them to censure, and rightly so.   In conclusion, not all interpretations are valid.  

#teen wolf meta #teen wolf racism #scott mccall defense squad #teen wolf fandom problems #fandom problems #fandom racism