neverreallythoughtaboutthefuture - Tumblr blog

neverreallythoughtaboutthefuture · 2 years

Photo

"A lot of fans are basically fans of fandom itself [...] their object of veneration are useful mainly as a backdrop to their own devotion. Anyone who would camp out [...] on the sidewalk weeks in order to be the first in line to see the movie is more into camping on sidewalks than movies..."

The caption may say it is about "a certain type of nerd(s)", sure; but I don't know who wrote that caption, and I don't personally see a single place in Ebert's text that specifies: "BTW, please note that I'm not talking about the autistic or other neurodivergent nerds that would camp out to go see a movie because they are simply very enthusiastic and happily intense about it, overjoyed to share that passion with like-minded people that will embrace their enthusiasm for the source material and expand on it, and really can't wait for it to get out! And I do acknowledge that waiting outside in a tent with other fans provides them with an opportunity to socialize without boring those around them with a subject matter that non-fans may not be as passionate about, and spending a good time! Those are truly fans of the movie and the movie's universe themselves, and it is great that fandom allows them to have a place where they feel safe enough to express their very specific, targeted passions and interests, and are welcomed with open arms by the rest of their community; thus building friendships, social bonds, etc. that they may not have had access to otherwise."

No, it's basically expressed as: "***ANYONE*** having any interest in camping out to go see a movie when it comes out is nothing but a self-centered jerk, dedicated to worshipping themselves, that is so "socially inept" that they only care about being a Luke Skywalker to a Princess Leia."

The problem is that Roger Ebert is not telling us what "specific kinds of nerds" he is referring to, but only going by a lot of fans (thus making it sound like it is the norm, rather than the exception of the few dude bros that would likely get shut down by other fans, and be heavily avoided by the rest of the fandom anyway!) and making a point that anyone having any interest in doing something as outlandish as camping out to go see a movie, as soon as it comes out, is devoted to their own selves rather than being genuinely interested and passionate about the movie they are about to see.

You may believe that it's obvious that he's talking specifically about the insufferable toxic dude bros that will try to make others feel inferior if they can't remember a quote from the movie, and hate on women for daring to "want to appropriate their world", etc.

But he uses words like "a lot", "anyone", etc. while naming behaviors that may be common to different members of the fandom - including those that are neurodivergent and might indeed use fandom as a means of socializing more easily with others - for reasons utterly unrelated to narcissism or the wish to appear superior.

Some people do struggle with making small talks and holding a "normal conversation". Some people do use their interest in movies and the worlds built around them as a means of satisfying their need for human contact and interaction.

And there should be no shame in that.

The ableism that we see reflected in Ebert's words is that he seems to imply that people that enjoy talking about what they already know about those movies, could instead choose to develop those social skills and other interests, but are simply "avoiding to make the effort" that would allow them to become interesting for others to get to know them instead.

When my partner's cousin gets into movies and series he loves, he really gets into them, and dives deep into that world, inviting you to tag along for the ride.

He reaches out for me through his love of movies and gets overjoyed when I catch his references and quote some of those movies with him.

We don't leave the conversation having learned anything "new", but it's like going to the karaoke with a friend.

There's no backing tracks to the lyrics, but our fanboying/fangirling together is like making a duet to a song we both know and love.

The sad thing is that out of his whole family, most are unwilling to "sing" along with him, and bond with him in such a way.

Because it is repetitive, because it is focused on a single interest they don't share, because it is "boring".

Whereas I can switch my "fangirling" on with him, and we have a great time "singing our song".

I simply have an easier time switching it off than he does, that's all.

But it's being there in the moment, and the act of "singing" together, that matters.

Not "showing off our knowledge" in a way that could be used to intimidate anyone.

If you wish to join the song without knowing any lyrics, we'll either sing for you, or teach you those lyrics, should you have any desire to learn them.

So yes, I may find myself being a fan of "fandom as a social facilitator" in those moments. It becomes about emotionally connecting with a neurodivergent family member, and being together in the moment, rather than being about the movie "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword".

My own personal issue with this post, is that Ebert is drawing conclusions as to what motivates certain behaviors in fandom without realizing he's casting too wide a net by assuming that those fans are all toxic and self-centered, or that social inaptitude is a trait that belongs to the realm of narcissism.

Yes, you do meet the occasional "dude bros" .

But you meet way more socially awkward people in fandom that may have autism, ADHD, social anxiety, etc. that will benefit from the safety net that fandom provides them, and socially thrive among other fans.

And it can be hard, and make those more vulnerable members of the fandom feel even more misunderstood and isolated, to read about Ebert mocking *a lot of fans* for struggling socially, and ridiculing their need to use their interest in movies to avoid having to ad lib "normal conversations" between "non socially inept" people.

It's not explicitly stated Ebert's targeting only the "toxic dude bros" that have all the social skills required to socialize normally with others, yet prefer making other people feel shitty about themselves by quizzing them too harshly about movies, because they're cruel like that.

It's easy for those having been bullied over their lack of social skills all their lives to imagine that they are, once again, the target of such criticism.

There's way too much room for interpretation and for the wrong targets to suffer collateral damage in the way he expresses himself here, IMHO.

As soon as you make generalizations such as "anyone behaving this way thinks that" to describe the motivations of an obnoxious minority, it no longer works.

Which makes me wonder what the rest of his statement was, and if the nuance that I feel is really missing from it might have been found in the paragraphs above, or bellow.

Roger Ebert just destroying some specific kind of nerd(s).

#My thoughts #OOC

48K notes · View notes

neverreallythoughtaboutthefuture · 2 years

Note

are you really so self-centered as to think anybody was going to waste more than two seconds total on that fucking wall of text you worked so hard on? holy shit

See, there was a time when walls of texts didn't appear in the notes, but only on the feeds of those following you.

And it so happens that writing walls of texts is kinda one of those few things I enjoy doing. 😉

Not because I'm desperate for attention; but because if I see something I disagree with, believe misses the mark, or might harm a more vulnerable group, I believe it is my responsibility to speak up about it.

Even if no one reads it, I'll have been true to who I am, and expressed dissent. I'll have offered another P.O.V. about the issue, and put it out there.

And if, by any chance, anyone here happens to come across my answer, decides to read it, and finds themselves relating to the views I've expressed, ideally finding understanding and support in my words, even better!

Also, one of the neurocognitive deficits I have is an inability to properly and effectively summarize my thoughts.

We actually had meeting about it back when I was a nurse clinician, because I was writing huge 3 pages novels in the patients' charts, describing conversations in details and what each participant had said, having a hard time extracting the most important info.

We realized that if I was told to do it in point form, however, I could manage it.

But offering one's thoughts in point form on Tumblr would be a little odd and tricky.

So, those following me already know exactly what to expect from me, don't worry.

And from the few notes I read, including those saying "thank you", I believe it was absolutely worth it.

Look, unlike what internet would have you believe, not having anyone show interest in your ideas or like what you're saying isn't the end of the world.

When you seek external validation first and foremost, you run the risk of expressing yourself in accordance to what you think is going to attract the most attention, v.s. expressing thoughts and ideas that may make you unpopular, but will reflect who you are.

You don't have the time to read what I'm expressing? Then don't.

No one's gluing your eyelids open while specifically putting my text before you.

I'm good with that.

This is my blog, and every once in a while I write a wall of text sharing my thoughts, beliefs, and values.

If everyone skips it, that's their right. I'm not going to be mad about it.

But somehow, if I've managed to make a single person - just the one - feel understood and supported, I'll be insanely proud of having spoken up!

Why try to be "worshiped by the many", when you can have the privilege to connect with another human being?

So yeah, I wasn't really expecting anything to come out of it, other than hopefully offering a few words of support, and/or being true to who I am.

That mission's already been accomplished.

#My thoughts #OOC

1 note · View note

neverreallythoughtaboutthefuture · 2 years

Photo

Well, all I know is that I see absolutely no point in seeking your approval, being friendly to you, allowing you to get to know me, or modifying your perception of me, really.

If the goal was to see if a nerve was hit, and I'd have an emotional response at the thought that I could be the target of Ebert's criticism, now you know.

I never felt that I was the targeted audience of his comment. And you telling me that I am absolutely won't make me worry that I might have been.

Unfortunately for them, you'll have to go looking for another victim to toy with.

Roger Ebert just destroying some specific kind of nerd(s).

48K notes · View notes

neverreallythoughtaboutthefuture · 2 years

Photo

It's not so much about touching a nerve than being wildly inaccurate. And yes, having very specific, targeted interests so happens to be a trait found in autism, some cases of ADHD, etc.

I've studied to become a parrot behavior expert. Our teacher has high functioning autism and, while there is no collegial or university program specifically offering parrot ethnology / psychogenesis programs where I'm from, she's been thoroughly going through so much scientific research and literature and her approach is so accurate that veterinary schools are inviting her to teach classes about parrot behavior.

She's also opened her own school (that doesn't require any degree).

Among her students, there was a more withdrawn, absolutely brilliant, caring, sensitive 17 y.o. autistic girl that we all had the pleasure and privilege to watch grow out of her shell, embrace who she is and her passion, and share her gifts with the rest of the world.

She found herself in an environment where people shared her love for parrots, didn't judge her or found her weird for how much efforts she spent studying and interacting with them, didn't push her to maintain eye contact, were not bothered if she didn't get any social codes or interactions, were more than willing to clear up any misunderstandings, and absolutely loved listening to her talk and sometimes repeat the same thing.

Even neurotypical members of the groups loved and respected her, so she was allowed to take risks in her social interactions and make mistakes.

We have founded a huge collective to help spread better practices when it comes to captive parrots and guide humans into making less mistakes that their bird might suffer from.

She can talk for days with a bunch of different people about the one big subject that brings her joy, and thus has found her calling. She's being told that she matters, she has a place under the sun among us, and that she doesn't need to try to be anything else to be accepted.

She is a pure treasure we are glad to call a friend and member of our flock / family.

In fandom, the ability to relive the same scene, over and over, and laugh at those jokes, smiling fondly at memories, is not harming or taking away anything from anyone, either.

It brings a sense of familiarity, comfort, fantasy, and community among people that admire various elements of these worlds.

I never get bored of watching "Pacific Rim" in a loop, or talking about BTVS. I even have acquired tons of knowledge about movies and series that I've never watched thanks to Tumblr and exposure to fandoms I'm not a member of.

And guess what? My partner of over 15 years has a cousin at family gatherings that is very neurodivergent, and connects with other people through his own love of many movies and series.

Each time we see each other, we both disappear into our own little universe, and geek out together like there's no tomorrow!

His mother once approached us to tell him "stop talking to her about your movies, and go talk to other people, you'll keep bothering her!"

I don't know what the exact look I gave her was, but she literally backed off!

Let's simply say I very firmly told her that he wasn't bothering me in the least, the attention I was giving him wasn't pity, I had more fun listening to him talking about his thoughts on the series finale of "True Blood" than listening to someone talk about the Dow Jones, and that it was insulting to imply that what I enjoyed was something I should be ashamed of.

I was perfectly able to manage my own social interactions, and put up ma own boundaries if need be with him, and sure as Hell didn't need her help or protection when I was enjoying valuable time spent with a member of my extended family.

Yeah, I'm neurotypical, too, mainly ADHD and giftedness, with some traits that suggest I may have the very feminine presentation of autism, where I use a lot of "mirroring" to put people at ease, and it so happens one of my interests I tend to hyperfocus on is human behavior and psychology.

So, I have a very theoretical approach and understanding of what's going on around me. I may miss subtleties of human interactions and not realise that from their facial expression, one is tired of speaking with me...

But I know that if someone is angry or raising their voice, they feel threatened and unheard, and - unless they represent a risk to you - you need to make yourself open, smaller, take a posture showing the interior of your hands and giving them space to show you're not a threat, lower your own voice, adopt a soothing, deeper pitch, etc.

My social skills aren't instinctive, they are knowledge. They are analytic. Humans and animals largely share the same instincts that are emotionally expressed the same way (emotions are nothing other than motivations to adopt certain behaviors to fulfil needs).

The difference? Humans are incoherent and complex creatures that often lie about what they mean, are in denial about their own fears and anger because they stupidly think those are emotions reflecting a lack of control over themselves and weakness.

They give senseless moral meanings to what they feel and ask their progeny to suppress their "negative feelings" to be "well-behaved", etc.

Relying so much on words has made human interactions emotionally incoherent and socially impaired as a species.

But love and attachment reinforces social bonds and taps right into our gregarious instincts, for example.

In a society where the species' survival depends on its ability to collaborate with each other and coordinate things like the search for foods, there is an instinctive drive to generate strong bonds with a (or multiple) partners, and within a clan.

Love / attachment is highly utilitarian, and Harlow (among others) has showed that it is something vital to highly social, animal development as well.

So, I do have very strong social skills, because when talking you someone I quickly detect what the goal of the current interaction is, what they are feeling in accordance to what they are telling me, and respond by accurately putting words onto what they were trying to express. Developing active listening skills is something I tend to hyperfocus on.

Each person and social interaction is a bit of a puzzle I challenge myself to find the right answer to.

I thought it was normal, and that was how other people did it and socialized, too.

Regardless of my ability to effectively "read" facial expressions, I know which ones I need to express to get the other person to read me, feel certain emotions, or understand my intent, and I can ask questions that will help me understand context and what they are feeling.

And I've learned not to trust people's words when it comes to how they feel. "I'm fine" means nothing most of the time. There are some human dumbasses desperate for validation that erronously believe that if we don't insist to know what's wrong when they say "it's fine", then they are entitled to chew us up for not caring more about them (screw them!).

Or they may have been socially conditioned to set their own own needs aside, and believe they don't matter as much as others, they are "boring", etc. (Respect them and their vulnerabilities...).

So, as I was saying, I may have developed rather strong and functional social skills and an ability to assert myself. From the outside, I may look "normal", but I most certainly am not.

The way my ADHD and giftedness (and maybe certain autistic traits, though I'm not sure I fully fit the diagnoses) will thus affect how I relate to someone sharing some of those traits, too.

And the fact that this cousin knows I'm enjoying talking to him, and I don't have any expectations for him to act "normal" or talk about "something less boring", allows us to have a purer and more authentic conversation without the unnecessary pollution from "social conventions", and neither of us fearing to be accidentally misunderstood because we trust that we won't be upset over any social cue the other has missed, don't expect eye contact to be maintained, or other things like that.

So, to go back to the OP, the whole "if I think you're boring that makes you self-centered" shows a very narcissistic worldview where "the value of social interactions and gatherings should only be evaluated in regards of whether they serve my own needs."

Human contact and bonding doesn't need to be complex or bring new information.

The very act of interacting with another human being, regardless of the subject matter, serves a very important function and purpose of strengthening social bonds between individuals.

Fandom is a culture. Fandom is about rituals and traditions that someone chooses rather than being born / forced into.

Why the fuck are Quebecers so obsessed about their poutine and keep taking about it? Or are so passionate about keeping french as their common tongue? Why do they love hockey so much, and can watch other people chasing a puck on ice with a stick day after day after day?

***IT'S ABOUT OUR SHARED CULTURE.***

Fandom has the advantage of being a culture people are adopting by themselves and integrating into their sense of identity.

It allows them to care as strongly for someone living on the other side of the planet as they would their own countrymen, because they share the same cultural references and are passionate about the same words being spoken.

Instead of "God Bless America", it is "We Are Drift Compatible".

Different words, same purpose: building a common point of reference and sense of social unity.

Fandom is a humanitarian, global culture without boundaries, that threatens those that would rather have us maintain an ethnocentric worldview...

So, of course you always have some scared, self-centered individual that thinks culture should only be embraced and useful if it is something that is specifically serve them.

And the vast majority of fans I know that engage fully in fandom culture can yet maintain a very healthy and balanced life outside of it (though they may integrate elements of fandom culture into their own everyday life).

But does that put others at a disadvantage?

Any form of culture : religions, nationalism, etc. can be unhealthy, dangerous, and self-serving when pushed to the extreme, and/or used as a means of facilitating human interactions.

What bothers me is that we are suggesting that isn't the case, by deciding that "camping outside to see a movie isn't related to the love of this movie itself", because only an "extremist" would devote so much time, or put so much effort into a shared cultural event that deeply matters to them.

It is not a failure of social skills, so much as them living in a society that, culturally speaking, may not reflect their values and who they are, and looking elsewhere to find that much needed sense of belonging and cultural identity.

Before being a Quebecer, and before being a Canadian, I'm a member of the Global Geek Culture.

I come from the fandoms of Pacific Rim, Mass Effect, Star Wars, Lucifer, Sense 8, etc.

I love to celebrate art, diversity, humanity, and so many other values that I've seen reflected in those cultures.

Some members of Geek Culture may be toxic, but they are the overwhelming minority.

Whether you're from Canada or from India, as soon as you see your love for "Poets of the Fall" reflected into another human being, that makes you brothers and sisters, in a sense.

This is the beauty and gift of fandom.

The ability to turn your love and interest for a movie, series, music, or sports, into a love and interest in others, and breaking restrictive ethnocentric cultural boundaries.

Every human interaction doesn't need to "answer questions". Sometimes, it's just nice to be reminded of who we are, and of the value and pleasure of just gathering and relating to one another.

Fandom doesn't need to be any more complex than that.

Roger Ebert just destroying some specific kind of nerd(s).

#My thoughts #Fandom

48K notes · View notes