#fandom rhetoric

[fozmeadows]

tools not rules: the importance of critical thinking

More than once, I’ve talked about the negative implications of Evangelical/purity culture logic being uncritically replicated in fandom spaces and left-wing discourse, and have also referenced specific examples of logical overlap this produces re, in particular, the policing of sexuality. What I don’t think I’ve done before is explain how this happens: how even a well-intentioned person who’s trying to unlearn the toxic systems they grew up with can end up replicating those systems. Even if you didn’t grow up specifically in an Evangelical/purity context, if your home, school, work and/or other social environments have never encouraged or taught you to think critically, then it’s easy to fall into similar traps - so here, hopefully, is a quick explainer on how that works, and (hopefully) how to avoid it in the future.

Put simply: within Evangelism, purity culture and other strict, hierarchical social contexts, an enormous value is placed on rules, and specifically hard rules. There might be a little wiggle-room in some instances, but overwhelmingly, the rules are fixed: once you get taught that something is bad, you’re expected never to question it. Understanding the rules is secondary to obeying them, and oftentimes, asking for a more thorough explanation - no matter how innocently, even if all you’re trying to do is learn - is framed as challenging those rules, and therefore cast as disobedience. And where obedience is a virtue, disobedience is a sin. If someone breaks the rules, it doesn’t matter why they did it, only that they did. Their explanations or justifications don’t matter, and nor does the context: a rule is a rule, and rulebreakers are Bad.

In this kind of environment, therefore, you absorb three main lessons: one, to obey a rule from the moment you learn it; two, that it’s more important to follow the rules than to understand them; and three, that enforcing the rules means castigating anyone who breaks them. And these lessons go deep: they’re hard to unlearn, especially when you grow up with them through your formative years, because the consequences of breaking them - or even being seen to break them - can be socially catastrophic.

But outside these sorts of strict environments - and, honestly, even within them - that much rigidity isn’t healthy. Life is frequently far more complex and nuanced than hard rules really allow for, particularly when it comes to human psychology and behaviour - and this is where critical thinking comes in. Critical thinking allows us to evaluate the world around us on an ongoing basis: to weigh the merits of different positions; to challenge established rules if we feel they no longer serve us; to decide which new ones to institute in their place; to acknowledge that sometimes, there are no easy answers; to show the working behind our positions, and to assess the logic with which other arguments are presented to us. Critical thinking is how we graduate from a simplistic, black-and-white view of morality to a more nuanced perception of the world - but this is a very hard lesson to learn if, instead of critical thinking, we’re taught instead to put our faith in rules alone.

So: what does it actually look like, when rule-based logic is applied in left-wing spaces? I’ll give you an example: 

Sally is new to both social justice and fandom. She grew up in a household that punished her for asking questions, and where she was expected to unquestioningly follow specific hard rules. Now, though, Sally has started to learn a bit more about the world outside her immediate bubble, and is realising not only that the rules she grew up with were toxic, but that she’s absorbed a lot of biases she doesn’t want to have. Sally is keen to improve herself. She wants to be a good person! So Sally joins some internet communities and starts to read up on things. Sally is well-intentioned, but she’s also never learned how to evaluate information before, and she’s certainly never had to consider that two contrasting opinions could be equally valid - how could she have, when she wasn’t allowed to ask questions, and when she was always told there was a singular Right Answer to everything? Her whole framework for learning is to Look For The Rules And Follow Them, and now that she’s learned the old rules were Bad, that means she has to figure out what the Good Rules are. 

Sally isn’t aware she’s thinking of it in these terms, but subconsciously, this is how she’s learned to think. So when Sally reads a post explaining how sex work and pornography are inherently misogynistic and demeaning to women, Sally doesn’t consider this as one side of an ongoing argument, but uncritically absorbs this information as a new Rule. She reads about how it’s always bad and appropriative for someone from one culture to wear clothes from another culture, and even though she’s not quite sure of all the ways in which it applies, this becomes a Rule, too. Whatever argument she encounters first that seems reasonable becomes a Rule, and once she has the Rules, there’s no need to challenge them or research them or flesh out her understanding, because that’s never been how Rules work - and because she’s grown up in a context where the foremost way to show that you’re aware of and obeying the Rules is to shame people for breaking them, even though she’s not well-versed in these subjects, Sally begins to weigh in on debates by harshly disagreeing with anyone who offers up counter-opinions. Sometimes her disagreements are couched in borrowed terms, parroting back the logic of the Rules she’s learned, but other times, they’re simply ad hominem attacks, because at home, breaking a Rule makes you a bad person, and as such, Sally has never learned to differentiate between attacking the idea and attacking the person. 

And of course, because Sally doesn’t understand the Rules in-depth, it’s harder to explain them to or debate with rulebreakers who’ve come armed with arguments she hasn’t heard before, which makes it easier and less frustrating to just insult them and point out that they ARE rulebreakers - especially if she doesn’t want to admit her confusion or the limitations of her knowledge. Most crucially of all, Sally doesn’t have a viable framework for admitting to fault or ignorance beyond a total groveling apology that doubles as a concession to having been Morally Bad, because that’s what it’s always meant to her to admit you broke a Rule. She has no template for saying, “huh, I hadn’t considered that,” or “I don’t know enough to contribute here,” or even “I was wrong; thanks for explaining!” 

So instead, when challenged, Sally remains defensive: she feels guilty about the prospect of being Bad, because she absolutely doesn’t want to be a Bad Person, but she also doesn’t know how to conceptualise goodness outside of obedience. It makes her nervous and unsettled to think that strangers could think of her as a Bad Person when she’s following the Rules, and so she becomes even more aggressive when challenged to compensate, clinging all the more tightly to anyone who agrees with her, yet inevitably ending up hurt when it turns out this person or that who she thought agreed on What The Rules Were suddenly develops a different opinion, or asks a question, or does something else unsettling. 

Pushed to this sort of breaking point, some people in Sally’s position go back to the fundamentalism they were raised with, not because they still agree with it, but because the lack of uniform agreement about What The Rules Are makes them feel constantly anxious and attacked, and at least before, they knew how to behave to ensure that everyone around them knew they were Good. Others turn to increasingly niche communities and social groups, constantly on paranoid alert for Deviance From The Rules. But other people eventually have the freeing realisation that the fixation on Rules and Goodness is what’s hurting them, not strangers with different opinions, and they steadily start to do what they wanted to do all along: become happier, kinder and better-informed people who can admit to human failings - including their own - without melting down about it.   

THIS is what we mean when we talk about puritan logic being present in fandom and left-wing spaces: the refusal to engage with critical thinking while sticking doggedly to a single, fixed interpretation of How To Be Good. It’s not always about sexuality; it’s just that sexuality, and especially queerness, are topics we’re used to seeing conservatives talk about a certain way, and when those same rhetorical tricks show up in our fandom spaces, we know why they look familiar. 

So: how do you break out of rule-based thinking? By being aware of it as a behavioural pattern. By making a conscious effort to accept that differing perspectives can sometimes have equal value, or that, even if a given argument isn’t completely sound, it might still contain a nugget of truth. By trying to be less reactive and more reflective when encountering positions different to your own. By accepting that not every argument is automatically tied to or indicative of a higher moral position: sometimes, we’re just talking about stuff! By remembering that you’re allowed to change your position, or challenge someone else’s, or ask for clarification. By understanding that having a moral code and personal principles isn’t at odds with asking questions, and that it’s possible - even desirable - to update your beliefs when you come to learn more than you did before. 

This can be a scary and disquieting process to engage in, and it’s important to be aware of that, because one of the main appeals of rule-based thinking - if not the key appeal - is the comfort of moral certainty it engenders. If the rules are simple and clear, and following them is what makes you a good person, then it’s easy to know if you’re doing the right thing according to that system. It’s much, much harder and frequently more uncomfortable to be uncertain about things: to doubt, not only yourself, but the way you’ve been taught to think. And especially online, where we encounter so many more opinions and people than we might elsewhere, and where we can get dogpiled on by strangers or go viral without meaning to despite our best intentions? The prospect of being deemed Bad is genuinely terrifying. Of course we want to follow the Rules. But that’s the point of critical thinking: to try and understand that rules exist in the first place, not to be immutable and unchanging, but as tools to help us be better - and if a tool becomes defunct or broken, it only makes sense to repair it. 

Rigid thinking teaches us to view the world through the lens of rules: to obey first and understand later. Critical thinking teaches us to use ideas, questions, contexts and other bits of information as analytic tools: to put understanding ahead of obedience. So if you want to break out of puritan thinking, whenever you encounter a new piece of information, ask yourself: are you absorbing it as a rule, or as a tool? 

#critical thinking #logic #rhetoric #purity culture #fandom #evangelism #hierarchy #thinking

[mxtxfanatic]

Fandom Gripe #23: I know that fandom is in some deep denial about its treatment of female characters that are canonically involved with fan favorite m/m ships, but do y’all realize that when you disappear female characters from the narrative wholesale to push the idea that your canonically straight fav was “secretly gay all along!” you’re making several bad implications? That 1) bi men don’t exist, 2) bi men do exist, but those who have genuinely loved a woman before cannot genuinely love a man after that (therefore bi men don’t exist in practice), 3) women cannot inspire genuine love and devotion in men, therefore any relationship with a woman is “lesser” than the one they later have a man (see previous parenthesis), or 4) to acknowledge the existence of a lovable woman who isn’t a terrible person, where if a relationship previously existed, it did not end because of “incompatibility,” is enough to destabilize the present relationship between two queer men?

Because why is the tgcf fandom allergic to acknowledging that He Xuan had a whole ass fiancée that he loved? Why does no one ever seem to remember that the kidnappings and murders of He Xuan’s sister and fiancée were the final straws that sent him on his rampage, and he still keeps a shrine to them in the present-day of the story? Why is her entire existence and significance to He Xuan as a man, character, and to his character arc disappeared in favor of pushing Shi Qingxuan—the brother of the man responsible for his fiancée’s death—into that same role, as if to say that her impact on He Xuan is significant... just not when it's from her? Why does He Xuan’s life in fandom essentially begin not just after her death but because of it?

#tgcf #human gripes at fandom #anyways these are rhetorical questions because I already know the answer #i just absolutely hate it #why do y’all hate female characters so badly 😭 #especially when they ‘get in the way’ of m/m ships? #mxtx shows that woman more respect in the book than fandom does outside of it #and she didn’t even give that character a name! #simply embarrassing #i could have also talked about jgy here #but let’s be real: that man never loved qin su (or anyone) #so i did not want to include him when discussing people who are *actually* capable of unconditionally loving others #but anyways #mdzs fandom sure loves to either disappear qin su #or act as if she’s the one responsible for why their precious ‘meng yao’ can’t just hop into bed with his bros #you know? the one he killed and the one he used as an accomplice in his murder? those bros? that he so obviously loved with sincerity? #at least moreso than he could ever love a *woman* amiright? #(for legal purposes that last tag was a joke) #i also really hate the implication that he xuan had no life before shi wudu ruined it #that in fact shi wudu made his life 'better' by tying him to shi qingxuan #the romanticization of shi wudu's actions to make way for a ship is... a Choice

[huginsmemory]

Since the arguments about Wolfwoods age is beginning to start up again. Info taken from this post by @tantei-armin . As well, here's another post with screen caps from the manga. Both Livio and Wolfwood are legally adults.

Also, if you don't like something? Block the tag, block the people, don't try to wage a puritanical war. Much love and peace ✌️

Edit (same day as posted): Some people are wondering in the tags where this is coming from, so I thought I'd clear it up for those who are confused.

This rumour comes from the manga panels which talk about how from the serum and surgeries Wolfwood's metabolism is faster, and so he doesn't look the age he should look. Since Wolfwood was never explicitly given a set number for his age, and if you're not paying attention to the context, some people have assumed this meant that he's actually still a minor at the time trigun is set, while in reality he's been confirmed to be in his early/mid twenties, and so would look like he's in his late twenties/early thirties (and it would make very little sense for Stampede to have changed the ages for the characters). It's alright to be a bit confused, since it's not ever explicitly stated; however, this rumour that he's a minor has then been used as slander for ship wars. I've only seen one recent post calling Vashwood an underage ship, but it looks like it was a bit of an issue in the old fandom, and I (and I think most people) would prefer the newer fandom to avoid that if possible. Again, just going to reiterate using the blocking function liberally for things you don't like!

Edit (Apr 15): as another person so kindly explained on a reblog it wasn't actually a problem in the old fandom; it's always been a small minority of people, often those who are against queer relationships in the first place, who've used it as a way to slander others.

#vashwood #Wolfwood #nicholas d. wolfwood #vash the stampede #livio the double fang #trigun #trigun manga #trigun maximum #trigun stampede #trigun anime #trigun 98 #wolfwood x vash #trigun wolfwood #vash x wolfwood #hugin rambles #if people have more specific posts/links they wanna add feel free to throw them my way #vashmeryl #really sorry to toss this into the vash meryl tag #the grand majority of you are lovely lovely folks! but i feel its probably mostly needed to be seen in that tag #and its really only a very small subset of the fandom that ive seen this rhetoric in #but id prefer to nip this in the bud before it might get bigger #much love and peace!

[the-everqueen]

action items white people can consider to make fandom spaces more inclusive for bipoc:

rec/kudos/comment on fanworks made by poc

consider what roles characters of color take in your own work. do black and brown characters exist solely as emotional support for central white characters? are black and brown characters sidelined for white character arcs? do black and brown characters appear solely to Talk About Racism (aka be the Magical or moralizing force for a narrative)?

(consider: Not Doing That)

reflect on whose voices get centralized/prioritized in any given narrative

listen to poc who express discomfort/frustration/critique of the text or fanon without feeling the need to defend either (or recognize you don't need to insert yourself into some conversations)

conversations around racism in fan spaces almost always get derailed into debates about ships or The Literal Text, but in my experience some of the most alienating aspects of fandom are the subtle ways that white people signal us as "other," i.e. acting as though race and queerness are distinct categories (there are queer bipoc! we invented a lot of queer culture!), framing nonwhite characters as unrelatable or undesirable, and reproducing stereotypes in fanon narratives. these become exhausting to encounter, whether or not we're part of the larger fandom ecosystem, and because it's systemic, it becomes impossible to avoid. which means white people's escapism corner is another site that poc have to navigate very, very carefully.

#fandom discourse #i don't want to get into the debates about shipping #some of my favorite fics involve Main Fandom Ships #i also project onto white male characters in media #that's fine! i'm not here to dictate your desires #what frustrates me in any given fandom is the underlying rhetorics that uphold white supremacist thinking #kill the cop in your head #and that's really all i have to say about that #because i would like to get back to my unhinged reblogging of gifsets and discussions on critical race theory #also again! i know a lot of ppl who are into the Main Ship in the current fandoms #who are doing really really good and nuanced shit #i follow some of them!

[basuralindo]

I really can't say enough how much I appreciate twst revealing Idia's chronically online behavior to actually be the result of Serious Trauma as well as a very real significant obstacle holding him back from just going out into the world and socializing.

Like, yeah, he could technically try harder, and with a combination of enough support patience and brute force (it's nrc after all) he does manage to do more and benefits from it, but it still shows without saying that trauma is genuinely disabling in so many ways, as well as representing how any other disability, physical or mental, which makes going out or interacting with other people in person difficult will leave people dependent on whatever alternatives are available, which is usually internet and fiction.

And yeah, his bullshit can be toxic, but mostly it's just irritating to people who have already stigmatized all of his attempts at experiencing and engaging with the world, which leads to him growing more isolated and unsociable as he's probably spent years in a spiral of shrinking social circles even online. And he's actually shown to be more empathetic and even emotionally intelligent than most of his peers, but actually expressing it appropriately is a challenge that he usually fails, due to lack of social skills, because he's never given the chance to form them.

idk where exactly I'm going with this now. It's just, twst's whole thing is not fixing issues, it's showing that they exist, and people live with them, and it's caused by damage outside of their control, and it's compounded and perpetuated by social stigmas and lack of empathy. And I think Idia's whole storyline is an excellent showcase of the difference between incel culture and people who have just been ousted from society by life circumstances.

#also how people like lilia and azul talking to him without bullying him for his awkwardness #can keep people like him from giving up entirely and falling into incel style nihilist rhetorics #this game just keeps surprising me with genuinely good writing #idia shroud #fandom drivel twst

[kaladinkholins]

guys cmon. be ffr please. akemi did Not love taigen. the only reason why she was desperate to search for him to the point of putting herself in danger is because she didn't want to get married to an abusive man (which she believed at the time that takayoshi was). when seki tried to dissuade her from running off, her reason was not "but i love taigen and wanna be with him 🥺" it was because she refused to be controlled and have her autonomy taken from her; she literally says "i won't be locked away in edo married to a stranger." and when seki still tries to argue that getting married to the heir of the shogun would be better than getting caught by brigands, she then says "that kind of man"—referring to takayoshi—"treats women like animals. they say he's a tyrant." and when seki chuckles and says "what man isn't?" her response is "you." she doesn't even talk about taigen. she is using him as much as he was using her. they both see—or, well, saw—each other as means to an end. for taigen he saw that marrying into the tokunobu clan would elevate his status and wealth. for akemi she wanted the right to choose who she married, and she wanted that person to be someone kind. that's it! neither of them loved each other. but since they were courting of course they acted sweet to each other, and they do still care for one another, especially due to their romantic history. but let's be real! akemi is a boss bitch who dropped taigen and forgot all about his ass as soon as she saw takayoshi was a nice guy. because duh? not only is takayoshi a better lover (it's implied their lovemaking lasted a long time) but he's also kinder towards her and presents her with an opportunity to claim power and freedom, which she would not have if she had married taigen, as she would have still been stuck under her father's thumb. so literally why should she settle for taigen's stupid ass! she may be a little naive at times but she's still incredibly intelligent. she would not do something stupid for the sake of "love." you know who would though? taigen.

#blue eye samurai #wank.mp3 #kinda? #fandom.rtf #shut up haydar #like out of the 4 main characters #akemi is the brains (the mental aspect) #she mainly uses reason and rhetoric. that's why she's so good at persuasion and manipulation. #ringo is the soul (spiritual aspect) #ringo serves as the show's moral compass and gets mizu to follow her morality #taigen is the heart (emotional aspect) #taigen will always impulsively follow his feelings (he's so brash for this reason. if he feels angry he will act on it etc) #mizu is the body (physical aspect) #mizu suppresses her emotions. her reason. and her morals. she only lets her skills and primal instincts guide her. #that's why she's almost super human sometimes #but anyway yeah #akemi? is a strong-willed self-empowered woman! she is not some damsel. she is intelligent though somewhat naive #please do not mischaracterise her cuz she is a boss bitch! she is a queen a cuntress a baddie #also on that note. the nature of taigen and akemi's rship is one of the reasons why im not keen on a polycule ending #like please explore it in fanfic and fandom! i personally just dont want it canon. i just dont see it working! #like literally i dont even think taigen found her attractive... #i mean he did obv find her very beautiful as everyone does. but did yall SEE his face when she propositioned him? #no desire in that man's eyes. he is GAY! his sexuality is men + mizu. he is a raging and bitchy bisexual!

[fromtheseventhhell]

Sansa and Alicent stans acting like people dislike them because they're feminine, when ninety percent of all Westeros women dress and act feminine, in fact it's a cultural and societal requirement expected of Westeros noblewomen. If the fandom has no problem with the rest of the traditionally feminine characters but hates Alicent and Sansa, then femininity isn't the problem here.

Also, and I can't stress this enough, not everybody in this fandom is constantly sorting female characters into "masculine" and "feminine" categories. It's incredibly misogynistic to do so and ignores that they're fleshed-out, complex characters. The majority of Dany, Arya, Cersei, Brienne, Rhaenyra, etc stans don't consider them to be masculine, that's just something their antis came up with to portray them as "lesser" female characters. When this fandom talks about "femininity" they mean it in a patriarchal context and, shockingly, there are some of us who can enjoy their characters outside of misogynistic standards. No one dislikes Alicent or Sansa for being feminine, because that isn't their only character trait (and only their "fans" think it is). Now if you want to talk about the traditional standards they hold as a byproduct of adhering to traditional feminity, that's another thing. But saying that people dislike Alicent's misogyny towards Rhaenyra or Sansa's classism towards Arya because they're "feminine" is just hilarious.

#ask #anon #anti alicent stans #anti sansa stans #it's such a stupid argument #I feel like there's a good chance you just hate women if you're constantly sorting them into /masculine/ and /feminine/ groups #especially considering this never happens with male characters even though there are non-conforming ones #it's literally alt-right podcast rhetoric and it's crazy that the fandom /feminists/ use the same logic #being feminine to them is being entirely passive and waiting to be rewarded for suffering in silence 🥴

[effervescentleaf]

why do people so desperately want a character who has shown absolutely zero interest in sex to fuck

#rhetorical question of course #we all know exactly why #the danger of going unprotected into fandom tags #take off the yaoi lens for five fucking secondsssss #id almost take zel ink over this #actually i take that back #idk aphobes are wild like i just get the Vibes #do i dare maintag this #i'll regret it but hey easy blocklist if it goes south #wwdits

[showmey0urfangs]

----

See, posts like this one here are what makes me think that some people must have watched a completely different show than I did.

This idea that Louis is drawn to Lestat because Lestat emasculates him is an odd one given that—do you know who else emasculates Louis? Literally every fucking white man he meets on a daily basis;

Tom Anderson, who calls Louis a most discrete negro and to whom Louis still has to say “Yes sir Mr. Anderson sir.”

The white lawyer who calls Louis an exceptional negro before condescendingly tapping him on the head like a dog—and whom Louis rips to shreds shortly after as a result.

Fenwick, who looks down on Louis and resents that Louis turned down his scraps. Who accuses Louis of being arrogant for wanting to rise above his station— and whom Louis guts like a pig and leaves on display as a warning to other white men who would want to disrespect him.

So does Louis also want to fuck all these other white men? Is he irresistibly aroused by their racist comments towards him and by the humiliating way they treat him?

Not to mention that Louis also grew up with a mother who emasculated him constantly, in whose eyes he was never good enough. She treated him as less than his whole life despite the fact that he provided for her and his entire family—including his good for nothing brother-in-law Levi, who Florence later replaces Louis with because, in her eyes, he makes a better son than Louis ever could.

His own mother who tells him “Don't come back fragile son” and who mocks him for the way he dresses and for his sexuality.

And yet you think being emasculated is what seduced Louis and drew him to Lestat?

It was nothing special to Louis, he was emasculated every single fucking day of his life.

What was different about his interaction with Lestat is that Lestat tells him they are “destined to be very good friends”, that Lestat openly compliments Louis and praises him, that Lestat says he is only in New Orleans because of Louis, that Louis is his destiny.

That's what draws Louis in and not the fact that Lestat initially talks down to him like every other racist piece of shit he meets when he enters into spaces where his society dictates he is not supposed to be.

Louis does not get drawn to Lestat because Lestat wins the dick-measuring contest—which makes Louis angry to the point where he wants to slit Lestat's throat with his cane sword—but in spite of it.

In that scene, Lestat was like one of those lame pick-up artists who insult you to lower your self-esteem so that you will respond better to their advances when they later compliment you. It's a classic manipulation technique and it works as intended because, in all his anger and frustration at the exchange, Louis still liked the way Lestat tied a string around his lungs.

I mean did you even listen to the speech Lestat makes in the church to convince Louis to accept the dark gift?

Notice how among all the things Lestat lists he includes deferential businessman.

That's because being deferential to white men is not Louis's true nature, and Lestat knows this. It is something that was forced upon him by the primitive country he lives in.

Louis says yes to Lestat in the church because Lestat promises he can free Louis from all of it and allow him to finally live, not just as an equal, but as something far superior.

Lestat promises Louis—a man who has been disempowered his entire life—a power he can't begin to imagine (and also love and acceptance as an added bonus).

We later find out this was a lie, of course—becoming a vampire does not free Louis from having to experience structural racism and homophobia. As Jacob said in this interview, as a black vampire you can kill and eat one racist or maybe even a thousand but you can't singlehandedly dismantle systemic racism.

So this implication that because Louis is disenfranchised by the racist society he lives in, it must mean he enjoys being degraded, enjoys being talked down to, enjoys being treated as less of a man simply because of the colour of his skin or his sexual preference is INSANE to me.

This kind of discourse, coming from people who claim to be Louis fans is frankly baffling because it's no different than the racist Lestat stans who always want to shift the blame onto Louis for everything Lestat subjects him to during their relationship. This is no different than saying that Louis chose to be abused, was asking for it, and even secretly enjoyed it. That Louis was looking for an excuse to fight with Lestat and probably loved getting beaten within an inch of his life like I saw some idiot say in a comment the other day.

Listen, I'm all for everyone having their own interpretation of the show but in my humble opinion, if you think along these lines then you have fundamentally misunderstood both Louis and Lestat as characters and the dynamic of their relationship. But most importantly you have completely missed the main point that both the show and the book are trying to make.

#I had to make a post about it because I refuse to let stupidity like this go unchallenged #the fact that this is the fandom's 'kang' whose fics y'all eat up like candy is frankly concerning #because this same racist and victim-blaming rhetoric is reflected in the dehumanizing way they write Louis #and yet people still eat that shit up #sad #iwtv #iwtv meta #interview with the vampire #fandom woes

[frogayyyy]

just some ramblings on the rise of rebranded homophobia in relation to shipping and fandom etc (i watched lotr yesterday)

the way people will say "healthy friendships between men are important and we need representation!!!!" (this is true) in response to shipping as if there's an abundance of mlm relationships in media and yknow. homophobia hasn't existed??

“>:[ us men aren't allowed to be just friends anymore!!!! because of the homophobia!!!! that we created!!!!!!”

i've definitely seen this sentiment grow more again over the last few years as the number of canonical mlm relationships (often badly written or lacking any substance) increases.

before it was just a blatant "no homo" or something but it's now becoming a bit more subtle and "how dare you imply this character could be gay? do you hate men being friends?! go back to your handful of bland designated Gay Characters that we so generously gave you" from the same people who have spent years adding to the very same toxic masculinity and homophobia that stopped them from having deep and healthy friendships with other men in the first place. dare i say gaslighting?

(and just to be extra clear i am not talking about ace/aro people, or characters who are headcanoned as ace/aro, or qprs, etc. or even anyone interpreting a relationship as 'just' platonic. i'm only referring to that specific "no homo" kind of argument against shipping)

#this does apply to all queer identities and relationships btw #and also not just in fandom either this is the rhetoric irl too #but i am specifically thinking of lotr #you know. the book that is literally full of friendships between men. #and yet some people are sooo quick to jump down your throat if you even suggest that a character or relationship might be queer #i say platonic and romantic loosely for lack of better terms but i actually hate using them #(for me personally) #but that's another story #ok it's kind of the same story but i'm not going into it #(i am also not saying that there is no good canon queer representation now) #(there is. but for some reason we're pretending that's there's loads and loads when there's literally not) #(plus just because there may be some now doesn't magically make them appear in older media??) #anyway

[soullessjack]

anyone who’s ever said that liking jack is “basically pedophilia” because he’s “mentally a child” owes the autistic community every single coin in their bank account and a free kick in the teeth. what the actual fuck is wrong with you guys 👍👍

#this will become a second more well thought out post when I feel like making it #but you guys do realize that is just even More ableist rhetoric you’re spouting right #like how are we still not understanding this #A) that’s a grown man and B) jack isn’t a fucking child and C) that is not something you throw around so carelessly you fucking strangeoids #like goddamn #cal.txt #jack kline #spn #supernatural #autistic jack kline #cw ableism #spn fandom #also if you’ve ever said it about any other autistic adult character #cough cough entrapta #then I will personally throw a fucking rock at your face #w* dni #I AM NOT AFFILIATED WITH YOU. #NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL BE. #anyways goodnight

[izzysheavingbosom]

One thing that baffles me about the OFMD fans who can't accept any criticism about the show, not even mild criticism, is that even if you loved every second we got on screen, we know it's not the version of S2 Jenkins and the others wanted to make.

We know there were last-minute rewrites. We know that Jim/Oluwande/Archie were supposed to have a sex marathon. We know Pete and Lucius were supposed to get married in ep 6. We know the crew was supposed to push Ed and Stede together.

So how can you go 'this season was perfect' when it's not the season the creator wanted to make?

#ofmd critical #Rhetorical question #ofmd fandom critical #I mean lbr the people who think S2 was flawless and perfect only care about Ed/Stede and no one else #You can enjoy a show and think it's not perfect #That's allowed

[harringroveera]

I’m not even in this group but this notif popped up and I actually wheezed

Why should he be in prison? For almost hitting the bunch of kids that are driving in a row on the street? For fighting the older guy who kept his underage sister in a stranger’s house with 3 other boys? Not to mention Steve threw the first hit and it ended with Billy being drugged?

#man pray tell why should he be in jail #it’s rhetorical question he should not #billy hargrove #reddit people all around piss me off #fandom wank #billy antis dni

[hussyknee]

Just saw someone on Twitter call AO3 the "place where freaks post their freak shit". If AO3 ever needed a marketing slogan, they should use that LMAO.

That's right bitch, we're freaks and proud of it! That's what the rainbow is FOR.

#amazing how antis keep hitting the nail directly on the head and bouncing off it #imagine thinking queer people aren't proud of being freaks #sometimes I feel some sympathy for these people because yeah fandom is a lot #but then they're so flagrantly homophobic and horrible #do they realize they're spewing radfem and conservative rhetoric #anti bullshit #purity culture #ao3 #fandom wankery #tw homophobia #kinkshaming #censorship #knee of huss

[sevensoulmates]

i don't see eddie getting his own queer arc i think for one it'd be repetitive. i think for eddie it's simply gonna be the realization that he's in love with his best friend. buck will be the experienced one of the two so it's not bling leading the blind.

I respectfully disagree. Personally, I don't think it'll be repetitive if Eddie gets his own queer realization arc, because both of them have two different experiences with queerness.

Technically diving into my own headcanon here, so fair warning but I personally (IN MY PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL SINGUALR OPINION (I hate to use disclaimers here but I'm not trying to get accused of biphobia here)) view Eddie as a repressed gay man. I don't believe he is truly attracted to women (at least romantically, sexually is another story but then I'd have to dive more into demisexuality which I don't plan to do here). Anyway.

Buck's experience with coming out would be as a man who has always been happily attracted to women and will find out that he is attracted to men IN ADDITION.

For Eddie, if he were to get a queer realization arc, I think it would be vastly different from Buck's because he wouldn't be realizing he likes men as well as women, he'd be finding out that not only does he like men, but he hasn't actually been in love/attracted to any of the women he was with in the past (and that includes Shannon, and NO I will NOT be elaborating on that). I think that this will end up triggering a whole huge overhaul of Eddie's view of himself, his entire life, his family, and his marriage, and I think it will bring him a lot of guilt. Eddie's not the kind of person just to be like oh guess that's why I never was into sex with Ana or Marisol whoopsies and move on. Man is gonna feel GUILTY. That's what he's programmed to feel in response to everything.

I was telling a friend that I bet you ANYTHING Eddie is gonna resist something with Buck out of some backward loyalty to Shannon. Like "No, I can't be gay. Because that means I was using Shannon." No honey you were not. You were just deeply deeply repressed and traumatized.

For me, an Eddie queer realization arc would be an entire deconstruction of every single thing he's ever believed himself to be. Which would be vastly different from Buck realizing he's bi. Buck's bisexual arc will likely come with its own bisexual-specific issues.

I also want to say that even if Eddie did come out as bisexual like Buck (and I would be 100% okay with that happening in the show) I think it's quite diminishing to say Buck AND Eddie both getting queer realization arcs would be "repetitive" because the fact of the matter is that every queer person has a different experience.

More than likely, if Eddie figures this out later than Buck, then yes, Buck will likely be the one most experienced. And I do agree that it's unlikely they'll have Eddie realize he's queer in the exact same way Buck does (ie jealousy over a 3rd guy, etc) but I do think there's a strong possibility of Eddie having his own queer arc. Maybe in season 7 in tandem with Buck, or maybe later in season 8.

Either way, I need people to get off this whole "stop rehashing past stories", "I hate characters making the same old mistakes" or "get off the hamster wheel" train. What I like about 911 is that despite the somewhat unrealistic disasters and calls, and somewhat over-the-top drama at times, the actual character journeys they tell are true to real things people go through. And in real life, people exist in cycles, and that's not always a bad thing.

#911 abc #buddie #this became a bit of a rant #but it just so happens you touched on a rhetoric I've been hearing recently in this fandom that has been annoying me

[actual-changeling]

i've been thinking about this for two (awake) days now and i think i'll just commit to it and actually write a meta post on why—despite what everyone seems to think—crowley is not actually running away from his problems.

it's NOT his response to everything and it's NOT his preferred option, the fandom has simply taken three impactful moments and then decided that it applies to him all the time.

on top of that, we also really need to talk about the fact that a large part of this fandom degrades and criticizes leaving and glorifies staying.

#alex yells at the void #as someone who has gone through a lot of abuse and gaslighting #existing in this fandom is so fucking exhausting sometimes #y'all just repeat ableist and dangerous rhetoric without putting a single second of thought into it