#can be dismissed as fandom hate that shouldn't be discussed

[spider-xan]

In other Spider-Man adaptations that are either good or at least have decent interpretations of some characters even if the work itself is a mixed bag, yeah, the 'tried to fix my disability' trope will usually still be there for the origin story and rarely has the same trauma and loss linked to identity context that is there in the comics, but Connors is otherwise a well-rounded heroic character who is visibly disabled, but has a personality, interests, and research projects outside of his disability, relationships with his family and Peter, and gets to be involved in other plots and doesn't act like being disabled is a fate comparable to terminal illness and some kind of weakness of humanity that must be forcibly eradicated for 'equality', even before becoming a supervillain.

Meanwhile, in the TASM film, he's a eugenicist making speeches that would not be out of place at a fascist rally about 'degenerates' weakening the gene pool, but this is framed as a sympathetic and noble bc it's couched in language about how it will bring 'equality' for disabled people, and since that kind of condescending ableism is acceptable in society, most people agree and nod along instead of being like, hey, it's fucked up the writers thought this was an appropriate way to write a disabled character, especially when none of this eugenics garbage is in the source material, and even if it was, it would still be wrong to include it and should be changed to be less ableist.

#xan's spidey meta #curt connors #you know what sure i will tag this #it's actually ridiculous that calling out ableism in how a disabled character is written by able bodied writers #can be dismissed as fandom hate that shouldn't be discussed #tasm #the lizard

[mckinlily]

Um, okay this is a loaded question, and if you want to play it safe, you can answer me in DMs, but...I personally feel that there's something wrong about how VLD placed Keith in the lead. In a way, I can see him becoming Black Paladin, but Shiro...it feels more natural to me, it feels right that Shiro is Black Paladin. I'm not into VLD beyond Shiro, Keith's parents, and the Lions personally, but I know someone who loves it and makes good points about Keith as a leader, but something just isn't aligning for me. Maybe it's because Shiro and Keith are two radically different archetypes, and they got swapped when they shouldn't have, I don't know.

I came here because I saw one of your post S2 rewrites, and I appreciated it. So, again, feel free to answer me in DMs (if you have problems DM-ing me, let me know and I'll fix it for you) if you don't mind discussing this with me.

As a final note, I'm not trying to hate any particular character. They're all fine on their own, and I don't want to treat one as worse than the other. I just want to figure out this problem I'm having with Shiro and Keith.

Thank you for reading this, and take care.

You came to the right blog! Because I adore Keith and believe he certainly has qualities that could make him a good leader—and absolutely hate him as the Black Paladin.

The thing I never understood about Voltron fandom debates about who should be the Black Paladin is that they always seem based in the idea that because Shiro is a leader and the Black Paladin, that means the Black Paladin is the ONLY leader on the team.

It is worth noting that that premise was disproven in episode one. It was Allura who made the final call on whether the paladins should run or stay and fight Sendak, and Shiro explicitly bowed to her authority. From then on, Shiro and Allura both lead Team Voltron until the show decided to destroy their characters, accepting influence and trading responsibilities depending on which one of them fit the situation at hand. Typically, Allura functions more in a commander and diplomat role and Shiro is more of a field officer, but they both pick up the lead where needed.

I know you didn't bring up Allura, but I think it is vital she is included in any conversation about leadership in Voltron. She is introduced as THE princess of an entire planet, she has more knowledge and experience of the intergalactic landscape than any of the other characters, she's been set up to be a leader since birth, and she IS the leader of Team Voltron for two whole seasons. Shiro makes it VERY clear he considers her to outrank him.

So the question you have to ask any time you consider replacing Shiro as Black Paladin: why NOT Allura? If the Black Paladin is the "best leader", why are you skipping over the one character already established and thriving in a leadership role? (And then you have to ask yourself if that character being a Black woman has anything do with that.)

Now I do think there are ways narratively you could answer that question. For instance, if you keep the Lions as sentient beings, that means they can make choices—including wrong ones. For instance, for a time when I believed anything might be salvaged after season 3, my head canon for Black choosing Keith was that Keith was the one missing Shiro as intensely and desperately as Black in that moment. Therefore, the choice was not about Keith being "better" but rather them being at the same place emotionally and that allowing the bond. The major problem with the Lion swap in canon is that we're given NO reason for Keith to be Black Paladin besides "plot device said so". Especially when we have Allura right there. It's just bad writing.

(By the way, you don't have to be pro-Black Paladin Allura. There's nuance to be had, and I personally am actually more One True Black Paladin!Shiro. But you can't just dismiss her--a capable and proven leader--from the conversation. Erasing her character is not the answer.)

ANYWAY. Back to Keith. Or rather, leadership on Team Voltron. Thing is, there are many different WAYS to be a leader. We already touched on the differences between Allura and Shiro. Keith does a good job of making split second decisions in battle or calling shots if Shiro is incapacitated or somehow separated. If you're in the middle of a fight, the plan has gone to shit, and the team just got separated, Keith is great at telling people what to do and mobilizing because something needs to get done NOW.

But that's not the only way to lead. Keith, for instance, is terrible at pep talks. He misses a lot of the nuances going on between him and his teammates off the battlefield. He doesn't plan ahead, like, ever. Sure he's great at making up stuff on the fly, but sometimes you need a plan.

But it's not just Keith. For instance, when Shiro, Lance, and Pidge go on the mission to rescue Slav, it's Pidge who calls all the shots. Is that not leadership? Pidge is often the one telling people what they need to do to solve technical problems. She's a center for information, typically the one collecting it, organizing and interrupting it, and then instruction others based on her conclusions. We see her take point on a mission, give orders to her teammates, coordinate efforts, problem solve in real time and relay a new plan in order to navigate unexpected challenges. Why not argue PIDGE should be the leader?

And there's when they freed the Balmera and Hunk took the lead. That mission was more challenging, but I'd argue in that arc, Hunk's leadership mattered less in terms of orders and more in terms of determining what type of team they'd be. Hunk was ADAMANT they free the Balmerans and set a tone for the team where they didn't leave suffering people behind. Hunk set up a moral imperative for the team that they'd be lesser without.

And Lance! There's actually lots to say about Lance and his strengths and types of leadership. But it's easy to point out that Lance is the one initiating fun and team bonding outside of battle. And when you're operating a giant robot held together by emotion connection, that's pretty dang important!

Point is, they're ALL leaders. They all have the capability to take point when needed. We SEE them all take charge at different points of the show.

So what's the Black Paladin then? If Shiro's The Leader then what does that mean? And this is the cool part! Because you know what Shiro is really really good? Know who else to put in charge. He's the one who first acknowledges Allura as an authority because he sees she has knowledge and experience he and the others do not. He selects which paladins to go together on which missions based on their strengths and the situations. He steps back and lets Pidge or Lance or Hunk call the shots if they're in an area of their expertise. Shiro's job isn't to tell people what to do. It's to decide who to put in charge of what and place them in best position for success.

There's another aspect of Shiro's leadership that is supporting his teammates, offering comfort, teaching, and giving the kids something solid they can believe in so they don't have to care the full weight of the war. But like letting others take charge where they shine, Shiro's leadership is all about enabling those he leads. One of my favorite Shiro lines is "It's too dangerous—I'm coming with you." Shiro's goal is never control. He is support. He leads the paladins because he sees the best in them and helps them reach it.

Narratively, also, Shiro is just set up to be the Black Paladin. The parallels between himself and the Black Lion are too obvious. From both being controlled and abused by Zarkon to Shiro's missing arm and Black's mission bayard. It's a kid's show. The symbolism isn't all that subtle. And if that weren't enough, we literally get an entire episode A plot in Space Mall about it where Shiro literally fist fights Zarkon for the Black Lion and in the end, he wins because he makes it clear it's the Black Lion's choice and trust.

Remember when I said the problem with Keith in the Black Lion in canon is that we're never given an explanation beyond "because I said so"? We're shown repeatedly why the Black Lion chooses Shiro. Even before we meet most the Lions, the other paladins themselves choose Shiro as their leader when Lance asks him if they should go through the wormhole. We repeatedly see Shiro seek to understand the Black Lion better, and Black responding. We see the similarities between their situations and backstories. We see them bond.

And I think this is really important because when Shiro is in the Black Lion, it's not about him being "in charge." It's about his relationship with the Black Lion. Yeah, of course, the other paladins are leaders! And they should be! But none of them have Shiro's relationship with the Black Lion. In this narrative, the Black Lion isn't a prize to be won but a relationship to nurture, and Shiro has put in the work for that relationship.

Which is really important because it means the Lions aren't a hierarchy. The Black Paladin is one role, an important role in Voltron, but no more important than any of the others. "The Leader" is not the most important person in the room. Instead, Shiro is a facilitator who enables all the others to perform their roles better.

Also can I just remind everyone just how well the Red Lion fits Keith? The paladin who keeps throwing himself out airlocks get the Lion most likely to go AWOL and fly off to save him. Keith defends his friends and team by attacking first and asking questions later, and Red started destroying a planetary body to get to Keith. The kid with abandonment issues gets the Lion who doesn't hesitate a second to go after him. And even the way they're shown to bond—that it's so physical and based in action rather than words—it's so Keith. I freaking love Keith as the Red Paladin. He gets to be as chaotic and free as he was always meant to be and gets a Lion who meets him every step of the way.

But if you say, no, Keith should be the Black Paladin. Well. What about Red wasn't working? Why was that role not one Keith fit in? Because from my reading of canon, Keith was thriving in Red. He got a secure attachment to his favorite person in the world, he gets the freedom to fly while also being part of something bigger, and he's making friends. It's still in its beginning stages, but he's figuring out how to bond with Lance, Hunk, and Pidge and you get the sense these are a kind of friendships he's never experienced before. But you know what could kill that really fast? Making him The Leader, a position that inherently sets him apart from the rest.

This is actually a problem twice over for Keith because unlike Shiro, who is shown to be given his role voluntarily by everyone around him and repeatedly shows he's earned that trust and respect, Keith is basically thrown into the Plot Device Machine and gets a t-shirt that says YOU'RE THE LEADER NOW. And we never get a reason beyond that.

This is actually my biggest problem season 3 and the Lion Swap. Because as soon as they made that choice, the Lions became a hierarchy. But what other explanation do we have? Keith won Favorite Character status got "prompted" to Black Paladin. But as soon as Black Paladin is a promotion, that makes the other paladin roles inferior. Red becomes the "second in command". So Lance get prompted but can never be equal to Keith. Allura gets the "Training Wheels" Lion/Blue, and they didn't have to write that as a massive demotion, but they sure did anyway. Hunk and Pidge are no longer leaders because they aren't in the "Leader" Lions.

It makes me so mad. One of the things I loved first about Voltron was the message of equality and servant leadership. The idea that a leader (represented by Shiro) is someone who elevates and enables everyone else. A recognition for the more "feminine" types of leadership—nurturing, compassion, emotional support. Which support roles are seen as vital and just as if not more important than being the "boss."

But we only got two seasons of that before they pulled the rug out and said, "Nope. We're returning back to patriarchy." Suddenly the Lions were in a strict chain of command, one character was the boss and the rest were his subordinates. There was a top position and a bottom position, and the characters were all fighting over each other. Perhaps most damningly, the Lion lost all personality and agency and become trophies to symbolize a character's power. And I'm not saying they're an accidental representation of how women are treated in Western media but I MEAN. It's right there.

My response when anyone says "[X] character should be the Black Paladin!" is—Why? Is their connection with the Black Lion deeper than Shiro's? Do they have more in common with Black than Shiro does? What could they achieve or obtain as the Black Paladin that they couldn't where they currently are?

And, though I don't think most of us realize it, the answer to that last one is power. Because we're soaked in patriarchy and a certain portrayal of "leadership (derogatory)" that many fans automatically assumed the Black Paladin HAD to be in control of and have power over the other paladins. So of course you want your favorite character to be the Black Paladin! You don't want your self-insert to be inferior!

But that's all the patriarchy talking. The other paladins are NOT inferior. There is NOT a hierarchy of types of people. Keith doesn't have to have Shiro's role because he's already equal as Keith.

Keiths look different from Shiros, but they're all equal and valuable as they are. Same goes for Lances, Hunks, Pidges, and Alluras. The whole point is they're stronger together. Their differences make them BETTER.

So yeah. Of course, Keith has some good leadership qualities. There's plenty of situations where it only makes sense for him to take the lead. But why on earth does he need to be the Black Paladin to do that? He's already Keith!

#voltron: the legendary salt mine #thanks for the ask! #oh gosh this got so long #would you believe this is the SHORT version? #I have a LOT of feelings about leadership and patriarchy and how it shows up in voltron #i didn't even get to go into hunk and lance's roles #and how they deserve so much more respect and appreciation than they receive #hunk especially #if you're somehow not sick of me and want to chat more feel free to dm #or hit my inbox and i'll answer with another monster probably #mckinlily writes #long post #could i use a read more? yes #will i? unfortunately for everyone no

[lunar-years]

3, 6, 8, 13

not even bothering with anon idgaf I love to be a hater 🔥🔥🔥

we can be proud haters together since i'm over here happily typing out my answers lmao. putting most of this under a cut because of length.

3. screenshot or description of the worst take you've seen on tumblr

no idea if these were ever on tumblr, probably it was twitter, all the worst takes i've seen come from twitter, but the top two contenders battling it out for Worst Ever have got to be:

One) Henry should've moved to London because he "hates the political climate of his own country" Henry is like, what, NINE? absolutely a wild take, worsened by, "And having a premier league coach as his dad is way cooler than having a dad who coaches his pee wee league" or whatever like. Again, the boy is nine. I think Henry cares more about having a Dad who's present in his life than he does about how "cool" his dad's occupation is.

Two) "Zava was actually way more disciplined than Jamie because he has fantastic habits, whereas Jamie is the type to just give up and go on a reality show." ohhh don't even get me started lmao. i was fuming for days.

6. which ship fans are most annoying?

lol. do i even need to say. specifically the twitter breed of them & no hate to the ship on the whole, just the portion of shippers that are cuckoo bananas about it and target the show creators. An extremely close second for me is the portion of r/k shippers who loathe Jamie for "getting in the way" because I take that personally 😭. Like I'm sorry your endgame didn't happen but please leave him out of this. it's not his fault they had problems the entire time they were dating, lmao. ugh.

8. common fandom opinion that everyone is wrong about

so many. here's a running list.

Roy and Keeley shouldn't have broken up and/or should have gotten back together in the finale.

Roy was OOC when he asked Keeley who the tape was for.

Ted shouldn't have gone home to his son

Matthijs was inherently "creepy" for inviting Rebecca back to his boathouse to get cleaned up after she plummeted into the canal right in front of him. (have you guys never taken a risk ever in your lives?)

Nate didn't deserve redemption

Jamie was CLEARLY completely over Keeley by season 3 (as evidenced by...what exactly?) and it ~came out of nowhere~ to dredge up the "dead" love triangle

I could go on....

13. worst blorbofication

to me the crime is less blorbifying them (because I consider them my blorbos too <3) but I definitely dislike the way some people blorbify Roy and Jamie. Roy for reasons previously discussed and Jamie because there's definitely been a pattern of woobifying him to the extent of like, taking away his agency, dismissing all of his mistakes, and treating him almost like he's weak and constantly needing to be protected when he's absolutely none of those things. Idk. What appeals to me about Jamie is not how "soft" he is it's how relentlessly brave he is. Anyway. They're both my blorbos and i love putting them through the ringer and watching them scramble to pick up the pieces as much as everyone else, but i also think it's important to recognize they're both very much grown adults with asshole tendencies and a large capacity for cruelty who have made plenty of mistakes yet still are deserving of love. what happened to nuance. it's funner to make blorbos out of complex characters you view complexly. anyway.

#ted lasso #asks #ask games #ship post

[kerrikins]

It's hard for me to tell at the moment whether I can't see anything in the Build tag because of the massive amounts of spam or if it's just that people aren't saying anything, but I guess that is neither here nor there, other than that if nobody is saying anything after the last week it leaves me a bit ??

I last posted about this whole topic back in July - if I remember it was right at the start of the July 17th leaks, though at this point I'll admit that it's all become a bit of a blur. We've had what, now, five leaks since May? Yeah.

I've thought a lot about whether or not to post again since then. I had a friend visiting from out of the country at the time, and between that and the insanity that is my workplace at the moment, I quite frankly did not have the time or the brain space to actually work through my thoughts and put them down on paper, so to speak. When I did have some more time things had quieted down again, and I thought - well, no use dredging it up again, since I'd already laid out a lot of my thoughts here and then on twitter, too. There was also the unspoken fact that I didn't know whether or not there would be another leak, of course.

So here we are a month later coming off of another round, and after the last week I feel the need to finally get some things off my chest.

First of all, I've done some poking around and I'm disappointed but unsurprised to see that as usual, there is very little discussion outside of pro-Build spaces about how disturbing and obsessive all this is. The campaign of hate, bullying, harassment, coercion and blackmail continues and by and large people are happy to participate in it because apparently those things become okay when they are dealing with someone they view as a bad person as long as they pay lip service to 'well they're both bad people', which does not even come close to being an actual criticism of what she's doing. As always, there's also little discussion of the clear fact that she obviously doesn't care who she hurts during this process, even if it's the faves of the same fans participating in the hate campaign.

None of this aligns with my moral code. It never will. I think it's disgusting and I think that the people participating in it should be ashamed of themselves, though I know that they never will be.

I've gone into detail on all of this before, however, so I don't see the point in going into it again. I will simply state that yes, I do still believe in second chances and opportunities for redemption for anyone, regardless of what they have done. So I will always say that people should give Build the chance to try and be a better person, and that they shouldn't try to dictate to others whether or not they support him.

However (you knew that was coming, right?) - what's in those messages doesn't align with my moral code either. And yeah, I do feel like I need to say it, partly because I feel like the bubble/byl fandom at large is being a bit too dismissive of it.

I get it. I laid out up above why I think what is being done to Build is wrong. I haven't changed my mind on that. People feel so strongly that what is being done to him is wrong that it makes them extremely defensive of him.

But this situation isn't black and white and never has been, and multiple things can be true.

Example A: Some people who hate Build are guilty of behaving extremely badly and contributing to the harassment and bullying and blackmail.

On the flip side: some people who support him are guilty of hating on the other cast members in spite of the fact that there's no evidence of them doing anything. Some are also guilty of willfully turning a blind eye to the fact that he has admitted the messages are his and has apologized for them - which means that as of today the current evidence we have says that they are his, they're not fake, and he is taking responsibility for them.

Example B: His ex is clearly mentally unwell, a narcissist who is obsessed with revenge and is conducting a hate campaign to turpedo his life and career while benefiting her own.

On the flip side: it seems clear that Build is guilty of awful behaviour, of saying horrible things about people who were seemingly nothing but kind to him, of being homophobic, racist and sexist. (I'm not going to touch on the abuse allegations here because I've discussed those previously.)

Again: yes, I do think he should be given the chance to start over and redeem himself and I like to think he's capable of it, but fans really should be acknowledging what he's redeeming himself FROM.

From what I've witnessed in a lot of spaces - that's not happening. I've seen a lot of denial, I've seen a lot of handwaving and glossing over the situation. I've seen some insane claims, too. Some fans are going so far as to say that they think that his show was never going to happen, that the messages are all doctored and this is all a plot between the company, his ex and his former co-stars. (Which is just - ??? I don't even know where to start.)

Some are simply refusing to read the messages (how can a person defend him if they don't know what they're defending? I don't quite understand) while others simultaneously claim that the translations out there are misleading - but refuse to share 'acceptable' translations because that's privacy invasion. Again - ???

It's insane and downright exhausting and I am just... done. I speak up for what I think is right and call out what I think is wrong, and I while I think the handling of this is horrendous and has been from the start, I also think it's wrong to minimize and downplay what he's done. In his apology he's holding himself accountable for what he did, why won't some of his fandom? How can people argue for him to get a second chance if they won't even admit what he did that he needs a second chance for? Technically this is a third chance, I might add, because some of those messages are from after his scandal last summer.

I want to reiterate here that I don't hate Build. It seems like so often any criticism of his behaviour at all means that suddenly you're an anti or that you hate him or you're against him. I'm not going to suddenly go on diatribes about how he's a horrible person. I think it's likely that there's a lot more going on here than what meets the eye, particularly since there are people who are still well liked by most of the fandom who have stood by him until July (a certain picture that was posted with a filter comes to mind, as does someone who liked every single one of his posts since his return until they were mentioned in one of the leaked messages).

What I mean here is simply this: I don't think Build is a cartoon villain, I think he's a whole person capable of a variety of things, both good and bad.

I also want to make it clear here that I'm not here to hate on people in the fandom. I mean - glass house, stones, all that. But also I think we've had enough of that. This fandom is one of the most polarized I've ever been in and the vitriol is off the charts, I'm not going to contribute to it.

I guess my hope is just that people will think about why and how they're choosing to come to his defense, if for no other reason than the fact that in my opinon and experience, the more extreme fan claims are making it worse for him, not better. I've said this on twitter and I'll say it here - when people are confronted with attempts to downplay things, it makes them more intent on proving the opposite. If you acknowledge them then you change the footing and the conversation can move on to other things.

As I said, this is a complex situation. It's okay to acknowledge that. Things don't have to be black and white. A lot of fans are in echo chambers right now on both sides of the aisle.

Anyway. I truly hope that this will be the last post that I ever have to make on this subject. For now, at least, I've said my piece and addressed what I need to in order to feel comfortable and not just like I'm avoiding talking about the topic.

In the meantime I've turned my attention to Bible and the rest of the cast because I always have and continue to adore them and I feel like I've neglected them over the last six months (as much as a fan can neglect celebrities, of course). For all my issues with the company, I've always loved the cast.

I'm more active on Twitter than here, but I do go back and forth between the two sites.

Take care. 💗

#build jakapan

[beautifulpersonpeach]

Oh, if people are still submitting their toxic Tae asks, I actually do think he might occasionally purposefully rile shippers (not every time or even most of the time he’s accused, just sometimes, and I think he might do it with other members too, he even riles jkkrs up by posting jkk sometimes) but I don’t think he’s malicious about it or trying to incite the really hardcore truthers. I don’t think it’s that deep, and clearly it doesn’t hurt or bother any of the other members because they’re all obviously on good terms + you would have to accuse some of the others of doing the same thing sometimes, like JK was clearly in on that FaceTime photo being posted, some of Namjoon’s comments on JKs lives, and Jimin posted tkk hugging with their cheeks smushed so… Plus, tkk have undoubtedly become very good friends and spent a lot of time together this year, so it’s just obvious he would post and talk about him more than other members. But I do think there might have been a handful of times where Tae purposefully riled up his shippers a bit (I think he knows ARMYs like hearing about other members and doesn’t always know what to talk about on lives too, so he's more likely to mention others), but I don’t really think it’s a big deal, and I think he’s obviously just kind chaotic about other things as well when he’s in the mood. Probably toxic and a hot take because I see people either thinking he’s completely innocent and oblivious or 100% manipulative evil about it.

*

Ask 2:

It boggles my mind how people can watch Taehyung during his solo career so far and think he doesn't care about Yeontan because he didn't post a picture before his enlistment. This man put Tannie on his cds, on his merch, in his music videos, and in his promo.

*

Ask 3:

My goodness bpp, the avalanche of tae hate is just crazy,,, kinda tells you the current state of certain sections of the fandom,,, Just makes me sad, ngl

OK, I need to vent, I need to get it out of my system, I have been holding it in and but just can't anymore!!!! I hate Hate HATE Jimin's mullet in Like Crazy!!!!!!!!!! I mean Jimin looks beautiful in mullets. He was fabulous in mullets before! He's gorgeous in anything. He was godsend in Set me free pt2! They have the same base hair! just styled differently!!! why Why WHY did like crazy mullet have that weirdly straight sorta-tapered sorta-not shape around his beautiful neck?!!? The back of the head could've been wavy or curbed out or fuller or shorter or longer! WHY did it have to be THAT specific length and THAT specific shape all immortalized in the MVs for the world to see forever and ever?!?!? This like crazy era hairstyle breaks my heart,,, WHY?????????

*

Ask 4:

BPP how aren't you sick of all the Tae takes yet? It baffles me how people can fixate on the most minute details of Tae's actions FOR MONTHS. Is this normal? Is it mentally healthy? I realize the irony asking you since I'm a joker myself but a lot of people here sound kinda crazy. It can't be healthy to hate Tae so intensely for so long while victimizing Jimin. Just thinking about it makes me itch.

*

Ask 5:

I agree that Jkkrs used to be like the sunny part of this fandom's shipping in comparison to Tkkrs, and I've felt it change in the last year, but tbh it can never be compared to Tkkrs. I saw this when the blurry video of Jk dropped, especially here on tumblr.

I read many rational discussions on the topic and many Jkkrs (me included) accepted the fact that Jikook may not be exclusive/may have had sth in the past but are not together now (I'm of this opinion although the military thing has started my deluluness again and I'm leaning towards the belief that they may be something more than friends even today), and it was a breath of fresh air to see how many Jkkrs didn't just bluntly dismiss it was him (I mean we still don't know for sure if it was or not, but you shouldn't exclude all options bc they don't fit your narratives) - sth I haven't seen with Tkkrs (starting with the Taennie video and then Jk's) - on the contrary, I've seen them become more unhinged than ever.

So there are crazy shippers on both part, as well as the rational ones, but still, whenever I think of Tkk shippers, I get the ick as they give me such cult-like vibes (and this has nothing to do with Tae and Jk themselves).

***

(These asks were buried under an avalanche of other asks hence the delayed posting. These asks are related to the toxic asks series yesterday)

I'm seeing recurring themes in many points made here, some I agree with and others I don't.

#jikook #toxic quick asks

[decepti-thots]

re: meta again (again) - about old fandoms with no/little new input - do you think that there's a point where even though there's kinda more time for meta, the fandom becomes a bit detached from the canon material, maybe partially?

also, you made a really interesting point with developing confidence in one's own taste - I think I (and many others) are used to being graded on media analysis in school, so you'd have to find the 'correct' angle instead of finding the angle that works for you. it feels like it should be obvious that it can be different but I did kinda need you to write it down to get it, so thank you :) also, thank you for the discussion in general - I have actually started to grab screenshots of the comic panels that I've been having thoughts about, but here comes the final boss of writing meta (to me): lack of time, haha

I think it can vary enormously depending on the fandom, honestly. Some fandoms are built up around folks who are there to do textual analysis and as a result, I find that you don't tend to get that kind of "canon drift", because constantly revisiting the text is a large part of the communal fandom experience. (Again I invoke the daddy of all Western acafandoms- book-Tolkien and especially Silmarillion fandom spaces tend to go this way.) They can wind up in their own recursive interpretive bubbles in other ways, mind, but it's in no way a sure thing. I do think fandoms where it is possible to remain engaged without needing to revisit the source material can be prone to it, though. Transformers fandom (including e.g. specifically IDW1 fandom) gives you a lot of avenues for creative fannish outlets that don't need you to revisit the canon material for reference, so it's very possible for fanon environments to... drift away. (I'm thinking of drift here in a way that's a little like semantic drift, honestly.)

I think the idea that it relates to experience with media analysis in school- and I assume you mean school and not higher education here?- is interesting. While my time before dropping out of university wasn't spent in a literature course (I studied linguistics), it was adjacent enough and I spent enough time trying to self-study in it academically that my default understanding of this stuff trends towards my experiences there rather than high school, where I feel like the "right vs wrong" dichotomy is at least less emphasized. But of course those bad educational settings where the idea of "right" analyses are taken for granted bc Teaching To The Test must loom large in most peoples' memories bc it's, you know, the default for most people- like they exist ofc. All I can say to that is that a majority of high school/etc experiences with "media analysis" are so far from what it looks like everywhere else that you deserve to feel comfortable punting it into the fucking sun. Not just in the sense that "academic analysis" doesn't do that in higher education environments (though it shouldn't! i swear to god it shouldn't be like that!!!) but also because so much exciting analysis of art is done fully outside academic environments. ...I just realised that my longstanding investment in artistic analysis of video games as a medium probably helps me here because it ranges from "academic analysis is rejected by the mainstream as Not What Real Games Are About so gamers hate it" to "academic analysis of video games has no room for most indie work and neither does pop culture so it has to exist independently without following convention so academics dismiss it", which means I'm just. Really used to analysis of non-prestigious media that is fully outside "the academy", haha. If you want to get comfortable analysing art when you haven't done it since high school handed you a stupid letter grade, peruse Critical Distance for media analysis that is largely divorced from the idea of consensus among Important People TM, genuinely; critical artistic analysis of video games is a great place to find intelligent, interesting work that ignores a lot of what is conventionally considered "obligatory" for Real Art Criticism TM. (video game crit is like, my default mileau, ngl.)

As for time, I personally write most of my work while doing time theft (this is why you see me on here less at the weekends), but regardless: recommended post on one (excellent) fandom-writer's process. also, take as long as you need. take months if you have to. it's good and fine. write three words a day. write one post a year. or post seven a day, whatever. i will say that folding meta-writing into my 'reading for fun' time helped me a lot, though- meta as an extension of re-reading for fun, rather than something in addition to it, was very helpful to me! don't re-read in addition to planning meta, basically; try and meld the two into one experience. you aren't doing an academia, and you can go off the cuff as you read! make meta into a liveblog, and get meta out of livetweets! same hat!!! etc. but also it's just fine to. take time. yknow.

[septembersghost]

babes, i hate to say this, but i need you to please not send me negative/toxic discourse that i cannot do anything about. you already know i'm going to agree that it's wrong and i commiserate with why it's upsetting, but there is no power that i, or we, have to change it, and i've learned from my time and various battles in fandom that it simply is not worth it, it only makes you miserable. i know none of you are intending to take anything from me in having these discussions, but it's honestly really stressed me out and taken the edge off what began as just pure happiness and/or interest, and i can't engage with that, i'm trying so hard to do better with my mental health.

i know it sucks when people attack something or someone you enjoy and admire, i know it makes you want to fight back, but it's, to borrow what a friend just said to me, a sisyphean task: "don't waste energy on people you know don't care. your opinion does not have to be validated by the entire internet, especially when ppl have a vested interest in popping off hot takes about things they don't understand bc it gets them Views." you can't ever win with people who won't listen and whose entire goal is to stoke misinformed outrage, you're only going to keep hurting yourself in the process. spending your time engaging with that negative feedback cycle is detrimental and will do nothing but steal your joy. you do not have to fight every war, ESPECIALLY with people who don't know what the fuck they are talking about! let them be performatively angry/dismissive/whatever and ignore their nonsense takes. curate you experience! if this means blocking people, block people. i personally take great care to not see these things, so i wouldn't know a lot of stuff if people didn't bring it to me, and i am always understanding in the feeling of protective defensiveness, but it is ultimately not something i want to engage with and not fun.

if this means your fandom experience becomes you, the thing you love, one trusted friend, a teddy bear, and a corn chip, then that's totally fine! you do not need to prove your own informed opinions or the reasons for your love or constantly be validated by fools frothing at the mouth over the dumbest arguments you've ever heard. let the haters seethe. they are not worth your energy, they don't deserve to get their needles into your spirit.

take the thing you love and hold it close to your heart and look at their cute little pictures (or listen to their songs or watch your favorite episodes, whatever the subject is we're talking about, however you can access that and get that enjoyment from it!), and remember THAT is what matters. what it means to and does to uplift you makes it valuable, and you deserve to engage with that in a passionate way, but it shouldn't be doing you harm. what it provides you is what lasts. that's yours and no one can take it away from you!

#i just think that you are what you love #also on the #you are what you love not who loves you #aspect of that - the things you love are not defined by the people who slander them. it's only defined by you #i'm trying so hard not to get mired in this stuff especially after what i've been through on here like. i just want to cling to joy #please take care of yourselves #fandom discourse #jess.mess

[persuasionstancy]

on the topic of toxicity in fictional relationships and specifically the way it's been associated with steve and nancy in fandom spaces i feel like there's a point to be made with the way the great majority just refuses to have any deeper or more meaningful discussion about these two.

and i'm not going to assume that people don't care about them anymore, because y'all clearly do; it's been months since stranger things 4 came out and i can't go on a day without seeing a bunch of people opening conversations about how much they hate this fictional couple and would rather tear their own arm than see them on screen.

so i think it's safe to say y'all do care. otherwise you wouldn't be sharing these extremely chronically online takes every single day now would you?

people keep bringing the point of nancy and steve being toxic to one another and how their whole character arc is about them growing out one another, so it's pointless to bring them back together now after everything.

and i do understand that people in online spaces have taught one another to prioritize and only clap to completely 100% healthy relationships in media, which i'm actually not calling a bad thing and having healthy relationships portrayed properly in fiction is always a welcome thing, but i do worry that it has created this phenomenon where people will see two characters having complicated relationship on screen and immediately dismiss it as something negative and not worthy of any discussion unless it's just to point out how "bad" the said relationship is and how we shouldn't be bothering with it in any possible way

in the case of steve and nancy, people have recognized that they have done some not so good stuff to one another during their dating phase but none of you are willing to go beyond that; not to mention possibly put the whole situation in season 4 stancy perspective and maybe try to realize what are writers trying to do with them now

steve and nancy's relationship is complicated and it does require to be looked at from different perspectives in order to be properly understood.

from a narrative standpoint, it's a relationship which serves as an opening for nancy's upside down arc and is also something which impacts her on an emotional level, considering she has lost her virginity with steve while her best friend was literally dying.

that fact alone puts a lot of interesting dynamic into their relationship, it's not something that can just be brushed off easily between them, it's like this big stone they're carrying no matter where they go in their relationship

it's also something that it's not vastly explored in the show, but for what it has been we've been able to see that it was indeed a struggle, specifically for nancy and it created this seemingly unsolvable problem where neither of them knew how to approach the other in the right way

both traumatized in their own way and both answering to the said trauma in their own way, it created a difference large enough for a break-up

so when y'all say "steve and nancy are so fucking toxic ew" it sounds really tone deaf to the whole situation between them that the show was trying to create. it also paints you as media illiterate but i digress.

what was happening between them wasn't healthy, but it's also stupid to dismiss it as some black and white scenario that isn't even worth further discussion

i don't really give a fuck if you root for these two or you'd rather burn down your house than see it happen, but when y'all continously keep bringing up their 'toxicity' from season 2 and just absolutely refuse to acknowledge the fact that writers are trying to revisit and fix their dynamic in season 4 it really paints a picture of audience who is too dumb or too spiteful to understand what's going on in the show they love to watch and i don't know which one is more tragic.

yeah, steve and nancy have different dreams and aspirations.

no, that doesn't mean you should go around and accuse steve harrington of forcing nancy wheeler to become a baby factory are you a fucking idiot

yeah, they had an unhealthy past.

no, that doesn't mean it would be repeated for the second time. the whole point of them interacting together in season 4 is to show that exact point. it wouldn't be the same. how. the. fuck. did. you. miss. that.

yeah, nancy is indecisive and love triangle trope is annoying

no, that doesn't mean other people are not allowed to enjoy it just for the fun of it. let them be.

so, to come to the conclusion of things, the decision of st fandom to be extremely hostile to stancy and people who enjoy them is getting quite ridiculous and annoying. you don't have an actual reason to act this way. you don't have to personally enjoy them and that could be well enough reason. don't sit in front of your laptop to share your reasons as to why you think they suck anymore, because i am telling you right now they have all been nothing but wrong. it's a completely media illiterate view of things and has no root in what are writers actually trying to accomplish. if you are, however, still obsessed with stancy then maybe try re-watching the show, put your prejudices aside and just watch their relationship for what it is. it's actually quite simple to understand, i promise it's not some shakespearean shit. and so when you pass your understanding of romance and relationships for third graders, you will be able to proudly say stancy sucks without feeling the need to add any made up reasons that make me wanna cry over the fact i'm sharing the same air as you. peace and love

#stancy #steve harrington #nancy wheeler #stranger things

[hamliet]

The main reason I hated villain stans is because I'm a marginalized person. I don't feel validation when a villain kills a lot of people then cries and gets saved and their victim has do all emotional labor is so many privileged people do that. It doesn't help so many fans of those villains are white. I'm not sure i made sense

That makes sense! I don't think anyone has to like any character for any reason whatsoever, and there are valid reasons to feel this way. I imagine it's kind of triggering for you and a reminder of real stuff that's genuinely hurtful, unfair, and unjust. Your anger isn't wrong, because I would guess what you've been through *gestures at the state of the world* is infuriating. People haven't listened for so long.

I also think fandom can come across as dismissive because, well, the internet in general prioritizes individual experiences and extremes and not so much nuance and empathy. I'm sorry if it's felt like people are dismissing you, because your pain is valid. 

Granted, some marginalized people see themselves in villains precisely because they feel like outsiders to society and feel angry at said society. They're not more valid than those who don't, and vice versa, obviously.

When it comes to fandoms, for me at least, I do think pushing for better representation (which just means more diverse, because good characters shouldn't be perfect), examining microaggressions and biases, and a good dose of empathy and humility, are all good things to wrestle with. I know this blog only reflects small facets of what I actually think/discussions I've had! I also think what connects us to characters is very complicated and deeply, deeply personal. Self-perception is complicated and painful for a lot of us.

I'd also fully admit that my background and experiences, some of which include privilege, probably does affect my tastes. But I'm also just a person trying to make it through life, with a weird background of my own and things like extreme OCD, having experienced a lot of loss, some of which is only days-old at this point. I do self-examine and such. I just also sometimes need grace and something to keep me afloat, even if it can't help everyone. So I do therapy personally and try to know my limits and still try to challenge myself to grow and to learn with self-awareness. There's no way to articulate this super well so I'm sorry if it comes off as a lot of nothing lol.

When it comes to BNHA, I'm not rooting for people to "get away" with things so much as I'm rooting for a restorative approach where everyone's better off and where society changes. I genuinely don't think punitive punishment works, which is why I don't want it. You might disagree! Most people probably do, actually.

That said, in real life, theory isn't practice, which is to say no I don't think punitive punishment works and I'm opposed to mass incarceration, but for violent people I'd still rather see them convicted and sentenced to life than get away with it, since that's an insult to victims. Longterm I'd like to see the US, where I live, convert to a more Norway-esque judicial system, but for the time being, the better option imo, for violent offenses like murder or assault, is of course punishment and reparations where possible (in a lot of cases, it's not possible to fix really even with reparations, esp when it comes to violence because it still will have happened. You can't un-kill someone). 

For BNHA, for me at least, I see it as an idealistic story of hope where it's less weighted down with the gritty reality of justice, so I look to it for what's not possible here in practice to be portrayed there as a lovely dream where broken things are made whole and where there is restoration and healing and reparations made and even in some cases, the damage undone. I want them to realize they're wrong. I want them to change.

#ask hamliet #personal #i guess

[zonerobotnik]

Even when I show you onscreen evidence you are still dismissive.

You say that Rapunzel doesn't suck out the energy of things and people when she sings the hurt incantation.

You say the expressions of Saporians are not important.

You say that the moonstone opal can't cause fires.

Why should I listen to your theories and headcanons?

One, she does, but it has nothing to do with the color of her hair. It's only linked to the magic involved. I notice you forgot to say what the main theory was that I debunked, which was that her hair glows the color of what she's sucking life from! Two, the Saporians' expressions didn't match their actions, which is the more important part to me. If they were wearing masks, you'd never see the expressions., but you'd still see the actions. Three, nowhere but in Cassandra's angst is there evidence of the Moonstone causing fires. If she could summon fire, why didn't she use it? Why did she only use the rocks? I can understand the hurt incantation, she has trauma from it, but why didn't she use fire? It's more likely that the fire is from her latent magical ability from being Gothel's daughter. And, you know what? You don't. You don't HAVE to listen. You can fuck right off! Nothing is forcing you to look at my page, see my posts, my theories, my discussions with a fandom YOU'RE NOT EVEN IN. Nothing is keeping you here, sending me Asks! You can just LEAVE. Go away! I shouldn't have to block you for you to have some self-control and stop visiting the page of someone you don't agree with! Cultivate your dashboard and Unfollow me! If you hate my theories and headcanons so much that you'll try to demand that I and several others ditch an EXTREMELY COMMON THEORY in a fandom you're not even participating in just because you don't like it and you're feeling spiteful to me? THEN LEAVE!

#ask zone stuff

[anarmorofwords]

Hi! You're probably not going to like this ask, but before getting into it I'd just like to say that this isn't meant as Kamala hate or anything, and I don't really want to offend.

Having said that, wouldn't it make sense that we get to see how Kamala treated Anna after she came out? It's in all likelihood one of the things that's weighing on Anna the most.

Obviously Kamala had her valid reasons: her parents aren't as liberal as the Lightwoods, she believes (knows?) their love is conditional as she's adopted, she's not white and not being heterosexual could further any treatment she's suffered from being different... Her reasons have already been listed multiple times by multiple people. Kamala has the right to stay in the closet and fear coming out. And while that shouldn't be villianised, we can't forget that closeted people can harm those around them.

If Kamala had kept treating Anna like a good friend, rumour would've sparked, and even if it was denied, she'd have been harmed by merely associating with Anna. Especially with the life Anna began leading; she could have been labelled as one of Anna's 'conquests' by the Clave. That, as we've established, is detrimental for her safety.

But at the same time, it would create a breach between Anna and Kamala. And Anna had the right to be hurt by it and weary of it when Kamala said she wanted a relationship.

If we look at it from that perspective, Anna's actions (though inexcusable in how they treated Kamala --who was also at fault for not accepting a negative for four months) make sense. Kamala wasn't only a fling of a week*, but also the girl she lost her virginity with, who asked her to be her secret (until she married Charles, after which Anna's affections would be discarded), who hid her sexuality for two years and sat back while Anna suffered from homophobic commentary, and who now wants a relationship hidden from most of the people that know her.

Kamala shouldn't be forced to come out; but the harm that can do to the women she may engage with is reflective of what happens nowadays. I can mostly think of examples with gay men, so my apologies in advance. But how many women have seen their marriages ruined by their husband having affairs with men?

Creating characters that reflect a toxic part of the 'hidden' LGBT community shouldn't be seen as hating or villinifying. Thomas isn't out and he isn't labelled a villain by the narrative --because his actions don't harm anyone. The hate Alastair gets in-universe is because of his past as a bully, not because he's gay. Matthew's not fully out and he isn't villianised --like Thomas, because the decisions he makes to keep his sexuality hidden don't impact anyone negatively.

I'll even go as far as saying that not even the narrative villianises characters like Kamala and Charles. If it were, they'd be seen more like Grace in Chain of Gold. We'd see how Kamala's actions are affecting Anna's in more ways than anger (that in itself put the fandom against Anna), and the characters would note so. We wouldn't see scenes were Cordelia empathised with Charles, nor Matthew said he loved him.

Be it as it may, Kamala and Charles represent ugly parts of being closeted that can naturally occur when someone is in their position. LGBT people are human. Humans, when put into very difficult situations (and Charles risks his career; Kamala her safety), can make decisions that harm those around them. Consequently, the people they're harming have a right to feel, well, harmed in whatever range of ways --this goes mostly for Alastair, and very partly for Anna, whose treatment of Kamala was horrible.

Readers need to understand what is pushing these 'villianised' characters to harm (again, mostly for Alastair) the more prominent characters and go beyond how they are instantly depicted. Because these are complex characters based on complex real people influenced by very ugly realities we will move on from someday, but sadly not yet.

By the way, Charles and Kamala's situations aren't that similar beyond the closeted thing, but I crammed them together because of a post I saw you reblog.

Please understand I'm not justifying Charles's actions; that I understand the pain he's put Alastair through, and know that he shouldn't ever be near Alastair. Nor am I trying to justify Anna's actions nor hate on Kamala.

I'll just finish my pointless rant by adding that I do think cc has sensitivity readers. I think she asked a gay man to go through tec (I don't know if he still revised her other books, though), and know she asked POC's input when writing someone for their culture. I don't know much beyond that, but I doubt who revises her stuff is up to her. Wouldn't that be something the publisher is responsible for (honest question)?

*I've also noticed people using the argument that they didn't know each other long enough for Anna to harbour such ugly emotions towards Kamala, but Kamala also remembered Anna pretty deeply and is 'in love' with her. I just wanted to say that considering cc writes (fantastical) romance where someone can ask a woman they met two months ago marriage, stressing over time spaces doesn't make much sense. Just my take.

hi!!

alright, where do I start? probably would be best with stating that while I can analyse Kamala's situation with what I know/see/read about racism and discrimination and reasonably apply things I've read/heard from PoC to the discussion, as well as try to be as sensitive about it as possible, I'm still a white woman, so not a person that's best qualified to talk about this.

that being said - if someone wants to add something to this conversation, you're obviously more than welcome to, and if there's something in my answer that you don't agree with or find in some way insensitive or offensive - please don't hesitate to call me out on that.

back to your points though: (this turned into a whole ass essay, so under the cut)

I don't think Anna shouldn't be able to reminiscent on Kamala's behaviour/reaction to her coming out, or be hurt by it. what bothers me is the way CC talks about it - I can't remember the exact phrasing, but the post where she mentioned this suggested something along the lines of "you'll see how Kamala sided with the Clave and didn't defend Anna after her coming out", therefore putting the blame on Kamala and completely disregarding the fact that Kamala wasn't in position to do much at all. It suggest that their situation was "poor Anna being mistreated by Kamala". therefore I'm afraid Kamanna's main problem/conflict will remain to be portrayed as "Anna having to allow themselves to love again and forgive Kamala", while Anna's shortcomings - and Kamala's vulnerable position - are never discussed. I think it would be possible to acknowledge both Kamala's difficult situation and the possible hurt her behaviour caused Anna without being insensitive towards Kamala's character, but it would take a really skilled - and caring - author to do both of the perspectives justice. CC would have to find a balance between being aware of the racism/prejudice Kamala faced/ writing her with lots of awareness and empathy, and still allowing her to make mistakes and acknowledging them. As it is however, I'm under impression that she's just treating it as a plot device, a relationship drama.

I'd say no one expects characters of color to be written as flawless or never making mistakes, it's mostly the way these mistakes are written and what things these characters are judged/shamed/

And that's - at least in my understanding and opinion - where the problem is. it's that the narrative never even addresses Anna's faults, and portrays Kamala as the one that caused all - or most of - the pain, without ever even acknowledging her problems and background.

White characters in TLH make mistakes and fuck up - because they're human and they're absolutely allowed to - but the thing is, non-white characters aren't afforded that privilege. Anna's behaviour is never questioned - none of it, shaming Kamala for not being able to come out, dismissing her desire to be a mother, or any of the questionable things she did in ChoI. Same with Matthew, James, Thomas. Alastair and Kamala however? they're constantly viewed through their past mistakes, and forced to apologize for them over and over, forced to almost beg for forgiveness. Moreover, those past mistakes are used as a justification of all and any shitty behaviour the other characters exhibit towards them now, which is simply unfair and cruel. They're held to a much higher standard.

So I'd like to say that yes, Kamala was in the wrong to keep nagging Anna after numerous rejections, and she was in the wrong to not inform Anna about Charles prior to them having sex - but that doesn't give Anna a free pass to constantly mistreat Kamala. And let's be real, Anna isn't stupid - while at 17 she could be naive and uninformed, I can't imagine how after years of hanging out with the Downworlders and numerous affairs and being out and judged by the Clave she's still so ignorant about Kamala's situation. I definitely think she's allowed to be hurt, but to still not understand why Kamala did what she did? Anna isn't blaming her for not telling her about Charles earlier - which would be fair - but instead for refusing to engage in an outright romance with her. She's being ignorant - and consciously so, I think.

Overall, I think you're definitely right about how coming out - or staying closeted - can be messy and hurt people in the process, especially in unaccepting environments/time periods, and I've seen enough discourse online to know there will never be a verdict/stance on this that will satisfy everyone. I, for one, would really like to refrain from putting all the blame on a single person - but, at least the way I see it, CC is pointing fingers. maybe not directly, but she is. Kamala, Alastair and Charles have no friends or support systems, and the only people in the narrative that defend them are themselves (ok, Cordelia does defend Alastair from Charles, but not from shitty takes about him and his "sins"). Also, sorry, but I don't like how you say "hid her sexuality for two years and sat back while Anna experienced homophobic comments" - it sounds very much judgemental. Kamala had every right to do that? The fact that she slept with Anna doesn't means she owed her something, and certainly not coming out and most probably destroying her life, or even defending her at the - again - expense of her own reputation, or more possibly safety.

As for Charles - it's a different issue here, at least imo - I fear that it'll be implied that his refusing to come out will is his main "sin", and therefore not something he can be judged for, which ironically, will be villainizing, but mostly will mean his actual sins are dismissed. This is where the scene with Cordelia feeling a pang of sympathy for him comes into play, and it worries me. I've never hated Charles for not wanting to come out, but rather for, let's see - grooming Alastair, disregarding Alastair's needs and feelings, disrespecting his mother, being a sexist prick, being low-key far-right coded "make Shadowhunters great again" etc.

As for sensitivity readers - I'm no expert, so I don't think my input is worth much. From what I've gathered from multiple threads/discussions on twitter, tho it is probably consulted/approved by the publisher, many authors push for that - and authors less famous and "powerful" than her. I'm not a hater, but seeing fandoms' opinions on much of her rep, I think she could do better. Because if she does have sensitivity readers, then they don't seem to be doing a great job - maybe they're friends who don't wanna hurt her feelings? Or maybe she thinks a gay guy's feedback will be enough for any queer content - which, judging by the opinions I've seen from the fans, doesn't seem to be true.

Again, these are mostly my thoughts and I'm more than open to reading other opinions, because *sigh* I really don't know how to handle this.

Bottom line - I really really don't want to be hating on the characters in general, playing God in regards to judging the struggles of minorities, or even criticising the characters too harshly for being human, flawed etc. What my main issue is is how CC handles those complex and heavy topics.

I hope I make sense and this answer satisfies you somehow - I also hope someone better equipped to answer might wanna join this conversation.

* I desperately need a reread of TLH before I engage in any more conversations like this, but I didn't wanna leave you hanging. So yeah, I might be remembering things wrong. Again, let me know, I'm very much open to being corrected as well as to further discussion.

* I use she/her pronouns for Anna because that's what she uses in canon

#the last hours #tlh #alastair carstairs #shadowhunters #the shadowhunter chronicles #anti charles fairchild #is this anti anna? #kamala joshi #ariadne bridgestock #chain of iron #chain of gold #spilling the tea

[tinylilvalery]

From what I understand back when the discussion first started, it’s not that you’re not allowed to hate on Sally. It’s more that if you don’t like her because of her personality, shouldn’t you also hate Barry who is a murderer? But I’m sure there are people who want to dismiss what she does because there’s another character who is so much worse than her.

Barry being a murderer isn't a personality. Sally being abusive isn't a personality either. You can like Sally even if she's abusive. You can like Barry even tho he's a hitman. They're characters. How about we talk about them and all their flaws instead of just thinking one has done no wrong and the other has. It's so reductive otherwise and low-key insulting to the complex writing that has gone into both.

This show is also fictional. Meaning even tho Barry has killed people, it's not real - so saying I should like him less because of fictional murder is kinda funny. I feel like a lot of Barry haters and Sally stans really rely off the argument that "he's a murderer therefore Sally is automatically better and more likeable". It sounds like a lot of the Barry fandom hasn't watched any shows or movies where a character is a murderer and still likeable. Hannibal is literally a serial killer cannibal and he's one of the most well loved characters of all time because his character and personality is likeable and compelling.

Also, I made that post about Sally being abusive not to say: she's abusive you shouldn't like her and Barry has never done anything wrong. It was in response to people that were calling him abusive because he yelled at her once, and conveniently forgot how she's been treating him the whole show. It's hypocrisy and it's double standards.

I also found it funny because a lot of people had been siding with Barry the whole show and ONLY NOW have gone "oh wow did you see how he yelled at her? Look how she was trying to be nice to him after. Wow he's really a villain." As if this dude hasn't been a fucking contract killer the entire show, who has killed a lot of people. For me it's like,,, that's what tips you? When he yelled at his partner that has been using him the whole time and who is never there for him emotionally and has actually hit him? THIS is what really makes you go,,, "oh,,, maybe Barry isn't an angel." Like it blows my mind how black and white this fandom can seemingly be over characters that are fantastically grey. No character is cleanly good or bad. That's why they're so fucking brilliant.

#barry hbo #hope theres no errors in my writing #cos im not proof reading this lol

[angeloncewas]

hi!! this is not meant to be read in a mad tone at all but i felt like giving my input because the anon from before brought up a good point. i would also like to preface this with the fact that i have adhd, rsd, and pretty bad anxiety.

i can't speak for everyone obviously, and i dont even know which posts op was directly referencing, but from the ones i've seen, a lot of people have been calling the few unnecessarily aggressive buildmart defenders ableist for the way they completely disregard and/or mock neurodivergent peoples' comments/discussions/concerns.

to me at least i never thought the game was ableist or that the game creators were ableist in any form, i just believe that it's a game that gets played by a lot of neurodivergent (and neurotypical) people who have brought up very similar "complaints" as to what people with my point of view have: that the game can cause sensory overload and is often very stressful to play/watch. and i feel like it shouldn't be so bad to discuss making accommodations for those ccs since it's all supposed to be for fun right?

buildmart is one of those games that i'll click away from because it personally bothers me a lot and i know that i would be a complete mess if i ever tried to play it on a timer like in mcc. so from my perspective it just kind of hurts a little when people completely make fun of and/or attack the people with adhd who were relating to that same struggle (and im not saying that everyone with adhd feels the same way).

i hope im not sounding too defensive here, i just felt kind of bad when i thought about how people might think we're all just calling everyone ableist when from what i've seen, it's mostly just been discussions on why the game could be improved and/or comments towards those hateful people who were directly attacking us.

uh but, yeah this isn't mad in any way i just felt like sharing my view in case it makes any sense at all :'-]

Makes perfect sense ! I appreciate your input a ton <3

I agree, I think. I get that the people who like Build Mart are... really into Build Mart. And a lot of them feel like Dream is trying to steer the event as a whole in his favor (I'd prefer not to get into my opinion on that matter lmao) so when they see people agreeing with him, it's frustrating. But I'd be hesitant - even if I was Build Mart's biggest fan - to brush aside what a significant amount of people are saying, just to prove my theoretical point. We know that this fandom has a high number of ND people and exactly as you said; while their plight doesn't make the game or its creators inherently ableist in some way, what's the problem with discussing theoretical accommodations for those people, especially since we have no actual pull and its all up to the Noxcrew at the end of the day ? (this, of course, not referring to the fucking weirdos who send threats and the like).

It's a bit like that post about how insulting public figures' physical traits actually hurts the people who see that comment; Dream probably isn't too pressed about some people on Tumblr dismissing his sensory overloads, but it's all the other fans among you who see themselves in that and have to see that dismissal who I feel for most. I'm really sorry that it made you feel bad and I wish people would stop to actually consider what's being said instead of being like "haha Dream stan stupid and whiny" :')

#angel answers #anon #discourse #mcctalk #negative

[tuiyla]

No no you got me, the four I had in mind were santana, Rachel, mercedes and Kurt. I feel a little bad now about forgetting about unique, she's amazing, but she was pretty separate from most of the cast, tbh I often forget s4 kids even exist. As for Blaine, I forget he exists too. I find him very boring so I skip most of his scenes and I wouldn't know if his singing is at the same level as merchelunikurtana ;) it's possible it is but I just don't know

Yeah the Rachel shade was there because that was her reaction literally everytime somebody other than her got anything in that damn glee club, but oh the girls were so unreasonable for leaving for the troubletones. Poor Tina should've joined them, she got so much shit. You're right, santana has bigger parts in so many songs, she's one of the go-to's for some more difficult notes etc. (head will roll, living on a prayer, bad romance etc) but it's never actually talked about.

COME ON SCHUE THIS FLAMING BAG OF POO ON YOUR DOORSTEP IS FOR YOU BITCHING AT SANTANA FOR WANTING THE RECOGNITION SHE DESERVED

Ah okay I see, well for me the big four are Mercheltana but I get you!

I think Rachel's flaws are very delicious nom nom and part of that is that yeah, she can react badly to seeing others' talent. She has a whole thing with all the other three you mention. Kurt in season 1, Mercedes at various point but most notably the Maria-off, and Santana in season 5. The Pezberry feud had... many layers, but part of it was Rachel feeling threatened. And I think it's an interesting flaw because feeling threatened really is the root of it. If she's only ever worth anything as the most talented person in the room then of course she's gonna flip out if she's not the most talented anymore. I just wish there was more of an exploration of this instead of the show going "oh yeah Rachel gets what she wants" every time. Because that is the conclusion every time.

But Rachel side note aside, I hate how others are treated as unreasonable when they point out the imbalance. They show time and time again frames them as being greedy, like with TT and then later Tina. I've said it many times, it's not that Rachel can't be the main ch and get to sing the most but it's disproportionate to a ridiculous degree. And everyone feel free to challenge me on that but I have the numbers, I have an Excel sheet the size of Texas to back that disproportionate statement up. And again it's not that Rachel shouldn't shine but others should be allowed to, too, without being ridiculed in the narrative because of it.

Back to Santana, and this is what I couldn't articulate last night, Valerie is particularly interesting. Because the whole point of that Sectionals is to feature those who haven't gotten much so far so fair enough, a Fabrevans duet and a Santana solo. But Fabrevans get a scene acknowledging that duet, we refer back to their win, all that. Even Bike's dancing spotlight is an actual plotpoint, not something that just happens once they're on stage. No one mentions anything about Santana getting a solo; we only find out when Valerie begins playing and she blows our minds away. So while it undeniably is a solo and a setlist one at that, I really don't like it when either Will or the fandom, tbh, dismiss Santana wanting more because of that one solo. Valerie, in-universe, doesn't feel like a moment of appreciation for Santana's talent but it is then used to silence her about wanting more. You get why I see a dissonance there?

I could go on about Santana songs in season 2 that are really just Naya songs but anyway, it's not like I mind that she grew to be the fifth most featured voice. I just think you're right to bring up the point of whether anyone truly appreciated what Santana had to offer as a performer in-universe. As we discussed, Mercedes did, and Britt obviously knew she was a star. But Will pisses me off when he goes "well what are you on about, you had a solo!" and refuses to be self-aware about that statement. Because it's not even about the number of solos one gets, it's the appreciation. Mercedes gets to sing plenty but, as the show lampshades, it's those ending belts that only she can do. She's wheeled out for that and then told she just isn't as good as Rachel. Bro, what? Anyway, could go on and on.

(But also another interesting thing, how many solos were even diegetic and then within that performed in the club/assigned by Will? If only someone had the numbers to truly be able to demonstrate the disparity haha.)

#so i'm normally not on the will hate train but he does suck #glee asks #santana asks #anon #merchelunikurtana ashgfj

[transhawks]

Not asking, just saying that I'm getting a bit tired of people shouting "heroes don't kill" and making posts about why Hawks is bad, he had the """privilege""" to be trained by the commisison, he shouldn't kill Twice - and almost everyone is alright with that ofc -, he should get killed, and they don't allow others to comment. Like, are you scared of something? You can't even have a different opinion to discuss about, because they don't allow you to comment at all :/

Anyone saying the Commission was a privilege instead of being horrified that Hawks was practically institutionalized into a military as a little child, because he was poor and talented, and likely from a neglectful background (or the child of a parent who was locked up). I don’t understand how anyone can see this and not think of the million sci-fi films showing evil governments making child soldiers. I don’t understand how anyone can look at this and not think of real life examples of underprivileged children being taken from their communities and reeducated and exploited. 

I don’t find the ‘Messi’ story that gave us Hawks as a character inspiring - I find it horrifying a man had to sign his child away to a career in order for that child to live a  healthy life because there was no other way he could afford it other. The story that ‘inspired’ Hawks is a frightening tale of just how horrible capitalism is, where a child can only survive a genetic disorder through some exceptionalism, rather than just deserving to live.

Nonetheless, I think Hawks is a victim unfortunately perpetuating the same circumstances he’s victimized by. I do think he would have to make up what he’s done to Twice, to the League if we wanted...penance from him. However, I am very bothered by the way many people go out of there way to say Hawks had a ‘good’ childhood, as there aren’t serious ethical and sociopolitical discussions about orphanages, as if taking children from their parents and training them for financial reasons isn’t a very frightening type of grooming.

To put it simply, it’s an argument put forward by people who can see the sociopolitical issues at play in creating the League, but not Hawks? Not Endeavor? Not heroism in general. 

Like I said, I do firmly believe Hawks is currently in the wrong, and needs to actually take steps to rectify his wrongness. But at the same I don’t think, and many of the people you seem to be referencing, that he doesn’t have the capacity to change. Never mind, he’s absolutely regretting this in 264 - to the point it’s likely he just admitted to himself heroes (like himself) are in the wrong here, if he is the narrator in the end of 264. 

I’ve been saying this for years, but Hawks is remarkably complicated and a ‘black-white’ view doesn’t help in understanding the nuances and layers in his character because he, himself, is a character who says one thing, does another, and thinks something else entirely. What you see is not what you get.

And a lot of people don’t like that at all when it comes to characters. Which is their right. It’s okay to hate Hawks. He’s not a character I think many people can like, once you grasp how complicated he is. But arguments that stem from denying his exploitation by the State in BNHA, arguments that are incredibly ableist by ascribing him mental illnesses or disorders that are frequently demonized with the intention of demonizing him, are wrong - and silly. And honestly? The part of the fandom that likes engaging with his material deeply should just look the other way now. I’ve made no secret of my utter distaste for certain people in this fandom who view ‘shock topics’ as things for sexual gratification. 

And once you realize that the core of the ‘hawks is a murdering sociopath’ argument are people who write masturbatory screeds on Dabi being sexually assaulted by his father to prove how they can ‘shock’ and then write graphic depictions of Hawks being a rapist and an abuser, just for sexual gratification, it’s very easy to just dismiss anything emanating from that part of the fandom. Their support or love of the League doesn’t come from a place of genuine love and hoping for justice for the oppressed, it comes from a fascination with the ‘taboo’ and ‘violent’.  And it’s not worth arguing with people like that. Let them fester in their little hole in fandom and engage with the people making content you want to see. 

#asks #hawks

[tothemeadow]

Thank you so much! It feels nice to just let it out and feel comfortable in the middle. Im not responsible for sticking with any "group" and I'm freeing myself of that mentality. Not every negative comment needs a response. I know I'm a good person and I'm an adult so I don't care what someone approaching me in bad faith has to say. I know some people feel like that's just letting people walk all over them but I think it's mature to be able to just disengage. The issue is more complex than just "get over it" but realizing that I can block people or not respond changed my life. I seemed to forgot that realization and became fearful of people who weren't even harassing me just because they had the "potential" to not like me. It felt weird to see others screenshot and talk about people who were just discussing a notp because it happened to be their ship. A 13 year old saying they hate incest ships isn’t worthy of hit dog response, if anything the violent overreactions just makes it seem like a "gotcha." On the other end, I think statements like "enjoy fiction" and also "evaluate where this is coming from" can exist at the same time and shouldn't be so quickly dismissed by everyone. I see so much "oh we call that out" but then I see it happen so casually in so much spaces. I guess the problem is that it's hard to talk about because you can never really know over just an online conversation? But I've seen some people who are white make literal black slave content, say its only fictional, then use the word nappy as an insult 3 tweets later and it definitely gives me the vibes that this isn't just fictional content for them. Regardless, It's mostly my fault for keeping low for so long and not curating my circle better. I'll continue to ignore mean people and avoid others who spend too much time in fandom drama. Fandom should be fun, so yeah I'm not gonna define myself by who I don't like nor who doesn't like me.

Thank you for listening to me again, its nice to discuss things with you!

Of course! It’s honestly so refreshing seeing someone acting their age! I agree fandoms should be fun, for shippers and nonshippers alike!

And any time, sweets! If you need to rant again, you know where to find me!

#empress answers