i feel like a lot of miscommunication between criticisms of a thing and praise for a thing comes from how you interpret its core. Like, especially in sequels or prequels or continuations of whatever came first, you have to understand that the core of a medium or a story is usually going to stay the same throughout, unless it changes teams, at which point the core may evolve or change slightly, and you can point to that or learn to accept it as part of a criticism. I don’t know how to explain this without examples, so sorry to everyone who thinks this’ll be a universally rebloggable post, but splatoon/ninjago/kingdom hearts really come to mind when I think abt this bc there’s a lot of conflicting opinions about how the series have grown. (Also, splat 3 spoilers ahead)

Kingdom Hearts at its core is sort of melancholy, sort of deeply touching, and a LOT very goofy and sincere in how stupid (affectionate) it can be — it’s dramatic and reads like a longform DND game because it’s just WEIRD and builds off of itself because it likes the world it made. Every game is like this. Every game is going to do something kinda cringy, very sincere, and weirdly additive and retconny at the same time because that’s how it works. Criticism that refuses to acknowledge that it just does that, and that’s part of its soul, tends to get caught up in continuity or logical details that don’t matter because kingdom hearts’ core is emotional, emotional symbolism, Disney magic, not stone cold logical. It’s not going to ever “grow out” of this, because that would kill the core. And also, probably be boring. Splatoon 3 was always going to have a bear as the final boss, and the story mode is extremely consistent with past story modes because of its goofy, street kids counterculture This Weapon Is Called The Bloblobber core. Ninjago has changed cores, slightly, since wildbrain took over, and I bet you it’ll change again — I don’t know how to explain this one, my brain is rapidly running out of coherent words. The vibes are different. It’s not just “new writer different dialogue”, it’s “new directors new core personality”. You can like or dislike the new core all you want, but it’s not necessarily fair to compare the two without realizing that it’s changed.

you feel….??? I think this could have all been summed up with I think a lot of media criticism is built off of what the video essayist would PERSONALLY like to see, rather than what’s consistent with the series as a whole or what the author likes to see. A lot of fan speculation over long periods of time swings in a different direction than the pre written story, and lots of media series work together when seen all at once better than it works for someone who’s been in it for years and years. That’s why people getting into longform media NOW near the end of its lifetime are much more open to the newest addition to the series than old fans, on average.

i randomly found your post about casual serbophobia (/post/655276183842406400/) while browsing and oh god i've been in the exact same boat from 5th grade onward, except i'm german and of serbian origin. up until 10th grade lots of my classmates (and kids in my grade in general) were albanian & kosovo-albanian and that really did a number on the development of my social skills. it doesn't help that the 1999 NATO bombing has been completely shoved under the rug and the only mentions you'll ever find of the yugoslav wars over here nowadays is in our social science textbook in the form of an argumentation task on who was in the wrong. sorry for the out-of-nowhere rant, just wanted to tell you that i really relate to what you wrote. it really is tiring, and i hope you're alright

no, no, you're good. and i fully get you. i still vividly remember how in elementary school my kosovo albanian and macedonian classmates would just randomly gang up at me to tell me how kosovo is its own country and how we serbs are evil for not letting it free - and we were like nine years old, i had mostly no idea what was even going on, neither did the other kids, they just parroted what their parents told them, and i was punished for simply being a serb, it was fucking wild. so i grew up thinking we're the bad ones, being ashamed of my heritage, and it really didn't help that a lot of serbs here can be quite bigoted jerks

it took me until well into my mid-twenties to finally wake up from this and realize that hey, that's not normal, and actually, i have nothing to be ashamed of. we have a beautiful and rich culture and i'm going to show it off proudly - а они који то не воле су добродошли да попуше курац

what's more difficult is trying to talk about the crimes done against serbs, because most people are more than willing to believe the western media when they paint us as the bad ones', even the ones who usually criticize western media. you point out the nato bombing, and people go "oh, but srebrenica", you point out the ethnic cleansing in kosovo and people don't believe you and go "but srebrenica" while they're at it anyway, you talk about jesnovac and people somehow still go "but srebrenica", which doesn't even make sense considering jesnovac happened decades before!

and look, i am absolutely disgusted by the genocide of bosniaks by serbs, i feel the bile rise up my throat every time i think about it, it was a horrible, inhumane thing that happened, and we absolutely need to talk about it. but it's WILD how any and all ethnically motivated crimes against serbs can be brushed off with "but srebrenica", no matter if they happened before or after, because apparently, ethnical cleansing is fine as long as it's against serbs

or they just shrug any of this off as nationalistic serb propaganda. and it doesn't help that there is a lot of nationalistic bullshit (one of the most difficult parts for me as an adult trying to reconnect with my culture was to learn to differentiate what are nationalistic lies and what's the truth; for the longest time i used to believe western media was right when they talked about kosovo and that my family was in the wrong), and it doesn't help that even in this day and age so many serbs will say that the genocide against bosniaks was necessary because "if we hadn't attacked first, they would've attacked us" (but then again, literally every. single. balkan country denies their own crimes, yet somehow, it's only us serbs they dogpile on), and it doesn't help that the only countries that support us are fucking russia and china, of all countries, and it doesn't help that there are so little trusted sources that talk about what the neo-fascist party albania's is doing in kosovo, so you feel like you're talking against a wall

it's tiering. ppl in real life won't listen, and when you reblog even a sourced post on tumblr about it, no one will look (or point out srebrenica, as if one genocide excuses another). here on tumblr, where ppl seem to inform themselves, the only platform i see talk abt armenia even. nix, nada, nothing when it comes to us. as i said, genocide seems to be ok if it's happening against us "evil, dirty serbs"

serbophobia is well and alive even today, if not quite as bad as it used to be - i at least don't have to worry abt not getting a job bc of my name, unlike my mum or worse, moja baba i deda - and all you can do is ignore the vile words and soldier on with your head held high and celebrate your culture. at least we'll always have each other

anyway, this turned out much longer than i wanted it to be, sorry. i get you - know that i'm mentally hugging you tightly 🫂🫂 и јебеш мајку сваког неуког идиота ;)

If I have to explain a Single aspect of leftism to you, I'm not answering your ask. If you have fundamentally misunderstood something or made a false claim that I can fact check with 30 seconds of effort, I am not answering or publishing your ask. You need, at minimum, to be making an Effort to understand the nuances of what's going on. If you haven't done that, as I've said, shut the fuck up instead. There are So Many other people better equipped than you to speak if that's the case, so leave it to them- you don't have to voice your dumb ill-formed opinions All The Time.

Listen to Actual Cubans and consume your media with critical analysis, consume even Cuban experiences with critical analysis. Because like BLM, it's very possible there are Cubans doing the bidding of their authoritarian government an starting to change our perception of events.

All this to say, come at me with knowledge or keep quiet and keep learning. If you do not know enough for me to discuss with then don't waste my time sending an ask with a half formed opinion based on tankie memes you saw on leftblr or leftbook.

I haven't said I leaned one way or the other specifically for this reason. It's nuanced. I'm still learning. I'm Not taking sides, but I DO know one of them is wrong. And the side who is right deserves our support. It being a socialist country makes it more nuanced.

Because I will ALWAYS will support the poor, starving, dying class and their right to stand up to Whatever government put them in that position. And if they're Tired and Fed Up of being in that position who the fuck am I to tell them to stop. That their suffering must continue? There's no way in hell I'm gonna villify them without having the facts first.

Don't come in my asks telling me what to think. I can figure that out myself with enough resources. If slavers are running away, fucking awesome. If it really IS just the bourgeoisie being harmed, GREAT! But that's not what it looks like to me. And what if y'all are just misinformed and harming ppl who need help...? Then coming to leftist inboxes like mine and trying to Shut Down critical conversations and analysis of it? Yikes.

That's not the kind of leftist I am. Couldn't be me.

So if You're the kind of leftist who'd idly sit by and let a socialist government kill it's constituents while Refusing to entertain the idea that the goverment is the problem Simply because it's a socialist government then fuck you 🤷🏼‍♀️

I'm not like that. Imma figure this shit out and I'll form my Own opinion, tyvm.

I Kissed His Books Goodbye

Kae Salonzo Perez- Dilla

April 30, 2021

It was in 2019 when one of my favorite Christian authors shocked the Christian world by announcing his separation from his wife. It was Joshua Harris, the famous author and pastor who wrote, "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" and "Boy Meets Girl" which sold millions of copies since their publication in the 90s and made him like a Christian celebrity. I was totally heartbroken when this news popped on my IG feed. A year before this devastating news, I came across Joshua Harris on Facebook and YouTube where I learned about his recent project at that time which is also the reasn why he resurfaced. He was on some documentary film of some sort where he reevaluated his very own books mentioned earlier. I have also watched his TED Ed segment where he apologized for the lives destroyed by his book. He said that he was too young when he wrote his famous books. I was puzzled at that time which led me to do more research a.k.a stalking. I am a good stalker, you know. Kidding aside! So, from there, I started stalking the Harris couple on their social media accounts. I will not forget feeling that something was already off from their relationship since they are both absent from each other's daily activities. I do not know if that is just normal with other people but to me, it isn’t. Also, it struck me that Shannon and the Harris daughters "appear" to be highly modern and very much "in the trend" kind of way when it comes to their clothes, music, and social media posts. Given that they are in the limelight of conservative believers, this is a diversion. I was not a diehard fan of Joshua Harris and so I do not really know what happened to him after writing his books, after getting married to the girl of his prayers, and after pastoring a mega church for 17 years. However, I suddenly recalled an information he disclosed in one of his books. It was about Shannon whose inches close to starting her music career but then converted to her newfound faith and so this dream career of hers was aborted. This, I strongly recalled when I found lots of her IG post informing the world that she is about to release her music albums -which her songs don’t have the slightest expression of her love for God. For a preacher’s wife, for a Christian woman, so to speak, her recent project gave me another major what-in-the-world-is-happening moment. These findings surprised me! That's why I'm not really taken aback when Joshua Harris announced that he and his wife, Shannon, are eventually divorcing. Perhaps something bigger is afoot since then.

 I know I am very late to make a fuss about Joshua Harris and his chosen path today, but I just want to express my thoughts since I kept seeing him lately. I was instantly reminded that I followed him on IG! And now I think about unfollowing him so I would be free from another stress. So, following his separation from his wife in 2019, more of his announcements on the social media just got more terrible as time pass by. He then denounced his Christian faith and joined an LGBTQ parade publicly. What worst could happen now? He has been posting his personal criticism on “Christianity" and against people "in the faith" with the notion of man's freedom being suppressed by God's will.  He makes obedience to God appear so vexing and that it’s the very thing that stifle man from enjoying earthly pleasures. He just twisted the truth about ‘love the sinner but hate the sin’. God is angry at the wicked every day and so we were all once hated by God until he shows us His grace (Psalms 7: 11). But tolerating a sinner could never equate to any form of love. Unless man sees himself as a sinner, he will never repent and seek God. Harris has numerous posts about this particular topic! As I see it, one could assume that it is his way of answering back to the spiteful comments he keeps on receiving from the Christian group. He’s making the believers look like a group of unbelievable people for hurting him with God’s truths. The truth will surely hurt him.

 There is no denying of the fact that Joshua Harris is still a hot issue among Christians today.  Every time Christians talk about relationships, Joshua and his books are brought into place. Before the declaration of his newfound path away from Christ, his books were said to be the "Bible" of Christian romance. Decades ago, Joshua and his books were often referred to when Christians tend to look for godly relationships to pattern theirs. I personally and seriously took note of the contents of his books since I was in a relationship when I read them back then. Just like the other Harris loyalists, I would always mention his name and the things I have learned from his books when giving advice to my friends both in and out of the church during girl talks. It's such a shame that I have to evaluate my old self and admit that I have passed onto others the words of Harris more than God's.  This, I humbly ask forgiveness from the Lord. And so, fast forward to the present time, look at how events have turned now. No one knows what really happened between Joshua and Shannon, but I'm pretty sure that whatever hit their relationship is a reflection of their individual relationship with God which have finally come in fruition in time. The book of Jeremiah says in chapter 7 verse 24, But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward. Whilst spending years and years of their life in the ministry, I could not help but wonder, was God really there "in" them? Frankly, although no man is in the position, it’s hard not to question their salvation thinking about what happened to them.

 Joshua Harris have said in an interview that he excommunicated himself from his church because he failed to follow the standards required by the scriptures. In his words, he sounded like he was the victim more than the traitor. To add, one of his videos on YouTube showed live reactions from the offended readers of his books. I personally think that was a clear picture answering the question of why he ended up retracting his beliefs in public. He responded to those people in oppose to what Christians should be doing when being persecuted. He wanted to please them so bad to the point where he just decided to abandon his post, leave his God or god and follow them as if that was the best decision to reach out to them. His mindset is just so disappointing. At some point, did he blame God for earning his haters? Is that why he went after people he doesn’t personally know and has no relationship with God? Was he supposed to reevaluate through the Bible or through people’s lenses? How many were Christians in that pool of readers? It was just necessary to apologize for the wrong points that resulted to misguided readers, but why leave the faith? It’s true that it takes lots of courage to face the music but I don’t see the part where leaving your faith is a new definition of bravery.

 When a Christian is found to be challenged, he ought to thrive. What happened to standing fast in the faith written in 1 Corinthians 16:13? But instead, Joshua Harris allowed the enemy to overpower him. He heard the wrong side. Well, to start with, he's probably not a genuine Christian. We don't want to judge him but again, we have been warned in Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;  A Youtuber also commented that a Christian should never find his life in the Lord burdensome. Sadly, Harris has put down his cross, got tired and stopped following the Savior. A believer's walk with Christ was never promised to go through an easy road but we will always find ourselves consistently rejoicing in His grace despite the way.  Otherwise, those who are just pretending to understand the gospel will soon be revealed and will simply walk away because they were not meant to be in the fold of Christ in the first place.

 Just recently, not only Harris have denounced his faith in Christ. There were others. Although this is not new anymore because there were others even before Harris’s time, but in this age of social media, issues like this have great impact in the Christian society perceived in various wavelength. And this case has left Christiandom a question-- what do we do with the learnings gained from such persons? It is fitting to know where the line should be drawn when reading Christian books. The Lord has commanded us to daily seek Him in prayer and in the scriptures. Even the prophets enquired and searched diligently (1 Peter 1: 10). Hence, to check if the materials we read carry God’s truth in them, they must be aligned to what the Bible says. God’s words should affirm the ideas being offered to us by other books whether they appear new or not. I believe that the things I learned from Joshua’s books really helped me assess my former relationship and double check if it indeed glorifies the Lord. But I do not give credit to the author because most of the concepts of the godly dating he presented were extracted from the Bible and were inspired by the people around him that were ‘in Christ’, and Lord willing, still walking with Him until now. Joshua Harris have miserably left his once professed faith and no wonder when ‘his followers’ do the same too. The Lord only revealed the impending danger of following leaders and prominent individuals with such devotion that should only belong to God. We should be vigilant and be fully aware of where and with whom do we pour our faith into. 2 Peter 3:17, KJV: "Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness."

 The books written by Joshua Harris have heavily influenced his Christian readers. However, more than those pages that illuminated his beliefs before, what would really speak for himself is the life he chose to live today. I have kissed dating goodbye long time ago, not because of his books, but because God has been gracious to me and provided me a godly man to marry. I won’t recommend Joshua’s books but I will be keeping them. If people see them on my shelf one day, I know significant lessons could be drawn from them --more than courtship and dating, but particularly about a Christian’s walk with Christ.  

  We are in the end times and we are witnessing the falling away of man as said in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. But by God’s grace, His true children will persevere until His glorious return. The sad story of Joshua Harris just proved that our God is a perfect God who is solely worthy of receiving man’s adoration and trust. Not that He needs any of it, but it’s just crystal clear that no one else does. And that no earthly relationship should we model ours after except that of Christ and His love for the church which we could learn nowhere else but from the scriptures.

 Isaiah 40:25-31 

To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. 

Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. 

Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the LORD, and my judgment is passed over from my God? 

Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. 

He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength. 

Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: 

But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint. 

if you don’t mind me asking why don’t you respect thomas as a person anymore? i’m not trying to be rude or jump to anyone’s defense, i’m just genuinely curious.

I have been getting a lot of asks like these since I mentioned that I’m still upset with Thomas and although I’ve covered it multiple times on this blog, I will go ahead an explain it again because I’m tired of people telling me how to feel.

Here I will complie a list of all of the reasons why Thomas just does not rub me the right way sometimes. That being said, i recognize that Thomas is a very good actor and is a very talented man. He may have things going on in his life that I don’t know about, but the opinion I’ve formed of him is simply based on what I’ve observed and I am willing to change that if he shows reasons for the things that he does. I’m in no way trying to “demonize” Thomas here or make him out to be some crazy, rutheless being. I simply just dont vibe with some of the choices he makes and things he does. So here we go...

1) Thomas appears to have a pretty big ego. He constantly posts pictures of himself on his social media instead of using the platforms as most youtubers would: to communicate with fans about his content. He is okay with fans contantly worshipping him like a god and living off his every word. Even during his birthday he would retweet videos of people literally cellebratig his birthday with cake and candles, and that is just so odd to me... Theres nothing wrong with having a lot of confidence in yourself, but its simply something that rubs me the wrong way.

2) Thomas is a really awful business man. As I have mentioned time and time again, Thomas is running a business here, just like most youtubers with his level of fame. He has merch, a huge following, and a membership program. Despite this, Thomas continues to act as if his youtube channel is just a fun past time for him. His schedule for video releases is atrocious and I’d be surpised to find out that the team even schedules dates for things at this point. To an outside fan it just seems like they release a video whenever they want to or whenever they finish it, with no prior end goal in mind. Thomas treats his job as if it is an opinional past time, and as someone who is in college, works in a fast food job, and has an internship I cannot respect that. The man has no work-life/personal-life separation and it shows... He’s hired all of his friends to work for him and gets work done at a snails pace because of it. He always says that the team is working hard and getting things done, but never has anything to show for it...

3) Thomas is very bad at communicating with his fans. For having such an outstanding and die-hard fanbase, Thomas takes them for granted. Instead of giving fans insight on video release dates and production, he opts to say nothing simply because he doesnt “want people to get mad at him for being wrong”. I don’t know about anyone else, but that is just so messed up to me... You keep all of your adoring fans in the dark simply because you dont want to face the concequences of you not getting your work done is a timely manner? This bothers me a lot... especially when a lot of fanders are paying to get “extra information” when in fact the livestreams are simple Joan and Thomas hanging out and joking around with a very rare, almost completely absent mention of future videos.

4) The babying issue. Thomas has to recognize that his fans baby him and treat him like a breakable doll all the time. This not only makes him incapable of taking and responding to criticism, but it makes him shrug off responsibility all together. If his fans never give him concequences for his actions and simply praise him to no end, then he just keeps going what he’s doing and ignores any ouce of negativity because of it. The fanbase has babied thomas into thinking that he can do no wrong and will never be criticized, and it shows. Never once has he formally sat down and just talked about the concerns people like me and the anons that come to my blog have.

5) This is a newer one I realized with the most recent episode. The whole Trump joke threw me off guard because, while I don’t support Trump, I KNOW there must be fanders who do. And Thomas must have known this when allowing the joke into the show. It’s very inconsiderate to subtly manipulate your fans like that when this show has frankly nothing to do with politics. Had a fan been watching that who has their reasons to support trump, they may have felt alienated and hated by Thomas and that just insnt cool. This isnt the only instance of Thomas being manipulative with his fanbase. He constantly thanks and praises those of his fans who baby him and worship him while ignoring and never talking about those who have criticisms. This make fans who have concerns feel as though their worries make them terrible people and they shouldnt say them. Is this blog is anything to show for it, fanders are scared to speak about how they feel. Thi has created an extremely toxic environment for open discussion, but thomas continues to let it go on.

6) Money. Everyone, believe it or not, but Thomas makes a LOT of money. He is not an independent creator that films and edits videos all by himself simply for the fun of it and not for the money. This is his career. He is a business man and the owner of this company. His goal is to not only produce content, but to make money. And boy does he make a lot of it... Here is some math i did on my own to figure out just how much (granted it is not perfect, but it should give everyone a realization that Thomas is nowhere near the independent artists and authors that they constantly compare him to...):

-The average youtuber with 1m subscribers makes $57,200 a year from ad revenue. Thomas has 3.36 million subscribers so 3.36*57,200 is $192,192.

-The last member livestream has 1.5k views and each member is giving thomas $5.29 per month. So per month thomas is making 5.29*1,500 from members, or $7,935. Per year, Thomas the recieves 7,935*12 from members, or $95220 (obviously this number could be a little smaller because I’m sure youtube takes some of that money)

-Apart from this, Thomas also sponsors nearly every video on his channel that is a decent length. (I’ll admit that the math for this part is up to a lot of interpretation because I have no idea how Thomas sponsorships are handled, but I will do my best). Alright so, youtubers charge brands anywhere from $10 to $50 per 1,000 views, to be forgiving I’ll do the math using the lowest price. On Thomas’ most recent blooper video, he had 736k views. If we divide that by 1000 thats 736. So 736*10 is 7,360. And that is just one sponsorship at the lowest price. I’m not really sure how many sponsorships thomas has done, but in the last year it seems like about 5 (the blooper, asides episode, gay disney prince, intrisive thoughts, and SvS). So that is 5 sponsorships per year, 7,350*5 or $36,800.

-So total income before considering merch sales and by assuming the lowest numbers for some areas is $36,800 + $95,220 + $192,192 = $324,212

Now with all of this in mind... Thomas makes so much money. Money that I could never even dream of coming by. And he does this with minimal uploads and scamming his members into continuing to pay him even through month long periods of no content. Thomas doesn’t even need to make videos at this point, the money that he drags out of his fans is already plenty. And then, not only does he have all of this money, but he uses it for fun trips and adventures those of which he brags about on his social media. He went to new york and saw three broadway shows, he went to vidcon and took a weeklong vaction there. He bought from what I saw, at least three playstations and games for different friend and family members. He is in no way struggling for money... and instead takes money from his adoring fans when he has no content to show for it.

Terms and Conditioning and Meanings

Okay, so it’s something a lot of people heard me bang on about several times over the last few years, but recently I found a thread (x) by yet another lit professor -- this one in another fandom.

I’m sure some people will choose to reactively and malignly pick at parts of what they say without reading the heart of their body of work, in a blazing display of self-blind irony, but well-- I went off on my usual tear I go on ‘round these parts and unsurprisingly they went through and liked every single one while QTing other Typical Fandom Asshats to shoot them down, so let’s roll here.

I’ll start with the TLDR edition but then break down the actual content behind a cut -- because this? This is something this fandom DESPERATELY NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES OF, and how they DO and DON’T relate.

CODING = CONSCIOUS CHOICE OF CONSTRUCTION BY AUTHOR SUBTEXT = THEMATIC RESONANCE THROUGH MOST OF OR THE ENTIRE WORK THAT EMBOLDENS THE TALE INTERPRETATION = LITERALLY WHATEVER YOU WANT BUT STRONGER IF YOU KNOW WHAT THE OTHER 2 ARE AND WHERE THEY ARE. THANKS KIDS DEATH OF THE AUTHOR = NOT AN EXCUSE FOR EIGHTH-ASSED READINGS CANON = WHAT EXISTS WITHIN A WORK, OR AN AGREED UPON BODY OF ACCEPTED WORKS (episodes, books, etc not part of the ecclesiastical body) NO, it is not a MAGIC WORD for “NOW THEY KISSED” and there are MANY FORMS OF WHAT IS CANON WITHIN AN ACCEPTED BODY OF WORK.  QUEERBAIT = VERY FEW OF THESE THINGS AND YET CAN BE ALL OF THESE THINGS AND THIS IS THE MOST BUSTED WORD Y’ALL HAVE FUCKING RUINED.

(Edit: I saw someone reblog this with “really aggressive in an offputting way” before a tag of “but I agree” so I’ma put this out here: Yeah. It fucking is. Because this fandom is fucking exhausting. And I am tired. Of having to fucking repeat things. That are literal common sense. In a fandom that insists on flushing common sense. Of otherwise intelligent people sending themselves into destructive spirals. Of even friends losing friends to people sliding off into bitter pits these problems lead to. So if you’re someone that favors common sense, maybe you actually should feel this frustration in your soul. The lit folks reblogging this with commentary so far seem to.)

To quote the linked OP and give credit where credit is due for resparking this conversation in my mind and realizing I haven’t said this for a long time and new followers may not know, even if this is familiar to like 90% of people who follow me -- but I feel they touched aptly on parts I haven’t even really done more than brush over.

queer-coding is quite sinister in a lot of ways (though can be employed subversively to great effect) but also very interesting! studies have shown that children who like or identify with queer-coded villains are more likely to be lgbt, even if they don't realise what's going on.

during the hays era it was mostly a way to show that a villain was bad (because gay = evil), but it could also be a way for closeted queer creators to sneak lgbt representation into their work, which is why so many queer-coded villains are so damn *likeable*.

what's also interesting is that lgbt creators would sometimes explicitly *straight-code* their villains - gaston from disney's beauty and the beast is a great example of this. highly recommend that you read up on the story of his creation!

all of which is to say: queer-coding has a meaning, it's not the same as queer-*baiting*, and it DEFINITELY isn't the same as "I'm gonna read this character as gay because I wanna imagine him as gay" - the name for that is fanon, and some trek fans

there are lots of academic works on the history of queer-coding if you want to spend an afternoon down a google scholar rabbit hole! just, you know. terms have meanings.

that's the thing. coding literally is intentional. what you're talking about is an alternate or resistant reading, or a world-context-centred critical approach.

you're right that it's got nothing to do with representation, but unlike semiotics, which is text-centred but may or may not rely on reading into intentional authorial choices, queer-coding refers specifically to an authorial choice. it's a defined term.

I didn't just take AP and honours english. I *taught* AP and honours english. for y e a r s.

--by @jaythenerdkid who I just accidentally found the tumblr of by preparing to make a twitter link but I checked and it’s the same person.

-------------

Okay so let’s pick through this a little bit before people start spinning this up in their heads.

TO START: QUEER CODING

I’ve seen people say “This character has villain attributes or dark attributes ergo he is queer coded.” That is absolutely not the way to apply this history, this works in reverse. As handled here, villains were either malignly codified to make queer characters evil and/or were then used as a slip-in of representation. A villain being a villain is not in fact itself an actual queer coding point. A dark history is not itself a queer coding point. Addiction stories are not themselves a queer coding point. In fact, trying to apply itself in this order is like BLAZINGLY homophobic and gross as hell and if you’re doing this, you should stop now. Yes, I’ve seen this.

I fucking promise you Gaston wasn’t consciously “queer coded” in being a villain, being a villain does not give him a Magic Gay Point.

Are we good on that point? Have we figured out the direction these Magic Gay Points fly in and don’t? Cool. If the author consciously added elements that will harmonize with a straight audience as queer to make them seem bad, that’s malignant queer coding; if an author consciously added elements that will harmonize with a queer audience to make them somehow familiar or likable, that is subversive queer coding. 

An example of subversive queer coding: In the Legend of Korra, the creators had limitations on what the network would allow them to do. Later, they confirmed their intent was a WLW couple being portrayed at the end, but it hovers in the area of a hand hold that people can unfortunately choose to negotiate away into bestest friends despite all the other story flags for them along the way.

People have/can/will call queerbait about this. In this case, this is not queerbait. This is attempted representation to bypass restrictions and is not malign, but are authors doing their best to give their queer audience something, anything, in the case of it. Yes, it was post-air acknowledgment but it was what they were goddamn trying to give us gays out here. It’s not hiding their gays on the creator’s part -- it’s hiding their gays on the network’s part -- WHICH IS A STEP A LOT OF PEOPLE GET VERY CONFUSED ABOUT.

Hell, just because *one* show or property on a specific channel even allows X Amount Of Gay in it doesn’t even mean they’ll allow their other properties that amount of gay every time, and can and WILL step in and block creators. It happens even on premium networks like HBO or Starz. Because they have their ideas of what the demographic they dump a bunch of marketing money into is okay with, half-educated and half massive fiery balls of projection from whatever old white dude is reviewing the data. So no, never just bank on “well X network made the Gay Bar exactly This Tall To Ride here so all their other shows can be Exactly This Gay.” -- you do that, you’re gonna set yourself up for a FUCKTON of disappointment. 

Hell, LGBT aren’t even treated equally to other LGBT. Bi men have like 1/3 the representation of bi women because media is held in a largely male gaze corporately and well, bi women are sexy to straight guys, give them some of that lesbian action. But oh, nono, don’t put the bi dudes near their network, no homo. If you drape a rainbow boa on this lamp post though we’ll let you have a gay guy run around that is there to make other characters uncomfortable as a stereotype, that’s fine. LITERALLY do *NOT* simply assume for *ANY REASON* that because one kind of LGBT person cleared on one show that others will too, there’s so many ways that drops through the floor.

That small aside about network bullshittery handled, let’s get back to the terms.

Negative queer coding I can think of with things like, I dunno. Jafar. Honestly very few LGBT people will actively associate with most of these attributes because a great wealth of them are attributes in the eyes of straight creators villainizing gay people, rather than gay people making gay people that just happen to be villains, and this distinction *DOES MATTER.* The long, snaky body -- the coy, venomous tone, embellished gestures; I mean sure, some people are like that, and that’s fine, you be you, but it’s a stereotype most try to shed rather than play into. It’s not the sum of who we are but put into the wrong creator’s hands, they *make* that the perceivable sum of who we are, + villainy.

But queer coding CAN be suggestively used to paint positive role models in situations they can’t necessarily be written as Overtly Gay, and the list of those reasons is unfortunately Very Long. But they are always things that are active choice, and your interpretation of what is Active Choice is not the same as Proven Active Choice.

For example: “The wallpaper was green and blue in this scene so Dean is thinking of Castiel even if he isn’t saying it.” Okay. We’re gonna go to Subtext and Interpretation later, but summarily: no. Hell, maybe it even is, but that’s a huge vault you actually have to exorbitantly prove and you can’t just say “but movie lighting theory” because I promise Dean = Green Cas = Blue isn’t general lighting theory.

An alternate example: “Bobo Berens, the first LGBT author on Supernatural, affirmed that Castiel was written in place of Colette, Cain’s wife, in Dean’s mirrored life; this is recurring symbolism and reflects often in Beren’s work, wherein his first episode showrunner Carver opted them to act as jilted lovers, and made a vast wash of content involving bold partnership ideals such as ‘at the altar’, ‘secret admirer’, and more that mysteriously hit the cutting room floor, but resonates very loudly through several directly connected seasons and all future work by Berens such as classic romantic partnership gifts and ideas [mixtape, heart connect, etc].”

This is simultaneously coding and subtext. We could frankly make 200 page dissertations about this chain of text -- and most of us already have -- that doesn’t require loudly extrapolating interpretation of external elements or single unrelated lines. 

“But subtext is just QUEERBAIT. It’s JUST SUBTEXT, it’s NOT CANON.”

Okay honey let me stop you right there. This is like the most common bad hot take in this fucking fandom. Like every part of it is bad but everybody kind of strings it together into one big Ball of Bad.

Subtext is, summarily, a hidden body of text that is felt in the work. Beyond Who You Want To Be Gay, subtext is a lot of things. Subtext is the value of humanity above all powers and principalities, in Supernatural. And there’s all kinds of other subtext. Whenever you see someone blink and have black eyes in SPN without them saying “I’m a demon” and you know they’re a demon, that’s... kind of subtext too. I mean, we know textually demons have black eyes, but nothing ever said only demons have black eyes. So what if I wanted to say it’s the ghost of big bird? It’s MY INTERPRETATION and MY INTERPRETATION IS VALID TOO.

Shit you can even cobble together half assed unrelated extrapolations--some demons have yellow eyes and Jack had yellow eyes so he wasn’t a demon so clearly not all black eyes are demons and uh... the angel blade kills lots of things, that black eyed thing still wasn’t a demon.

See how easy it is to absolutely BULLSHIT around it with decontextualized BULLSHIT? It almost passes at a glance until held up to the smallest bit of scrutiny and following episodes.

Okay, so look, “It’s my interpretation, and my interpretation is valid” is only as far as it holds up soundly to *you.* As long as it is truly valid to *you.* And that doesn’t mean big brave faces you put on For The Twitter Stan Wars because you don’t want to lose digital clout when the newest episode falls through and blows your entire house of cards out of the water because you weren’t reading the actual subtext being hewn into the story by the authors -- or even forming a resilient resistant read of your own subtext that can hold -- but once that interpretation leaves your mouth to try to bounce off of other people’s viewpoints, you’re now indirectly challenging their viewpoint with theirs. If you stay in your cabal where you think the spirit of big bird has black eyes, and never subtweet or @ or whatever anybody else about this Hot Take, that’s fine, just don’t be surprised when you’re left defending that to whatever followers you pulled into the Big Bird Cabal. 

Or you all sit in angry silence with each other and then start helicopter swinging at the writers for ruining The Spirit Of Big Bird that was never fucking there. Because you’re trying to apply patchy, unstable, and generally very piss poorly founded readings to a still released work. 

So THAT lead in shoved off to the side about interpretation and keeping your interpretation to yourself if you don’t want to be challenged by far more solid interpretations, Because that’s how content discussion works,

SUBTEXT IS OFTEN A FORMULATIVE PART OF CANON, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS CODED, WHETHER WE ARE TALKING QUEER CODING OR ANY OTHER KIND OF CODING.

Subtext is a thematic undercurrent. Subtext is the unspoken soul of a piece, what lies in the blank space between the lines, but not just whatever you take the lines to be. If you sit down and write a lit paper, you’re gonna have to explain where you pulled your subtext out of. 

You can either go the “Death of the Author” route where you summarily erase any commentary ever made and build your own, but you still need to be able to read the sum of the text and present what it all is. And most importantly you can’t just present what it’s not. If your entire reading of a work is trying to explain away common sense bullshit and it ends up reading like All Work No Play Makes Johnny Dull Boy because you had to build 82 nonlinear explanations around what you don’t want, and those all lead to nowhere, that professor is going to flunk the shit out of you. And if you use Death of an Author DEFINITELY don’t simultaneously try to appeal to authority with other quotes convenient to you.

Not Wanting something to Be So and going completely over the river and through the woods in completely disjointed intentionally maladapted readings of refusal doesn’t mean you’ve found subtext, it means you’ve chosen to make a reading -- an interpretation -- that is not really thematically sound with the body of work but for whatever reason, you’ve chosen to make that the meaning it has to *you.* And that’s fine. Unless you’re trying to impress a professor. Or jousting your opinion off of somebody else that isn’t doing cartwheels around the content to avoid the parts they don’t like (and get mad about it later.)

Removing all genuine thematic subtext and disregarding it from any part of the canon discussion of a piece is, however, devastating and essentially rips out the foundation of a piece. This has become all the more common as junk TV gets junkier and continues to appeal to the lowest common denominator that need to be reminded that 2+2=4 every three episodes before they accept that 2+2=4 in their respective canon universe, because otherwise they’ll claim it’s just subtext or someone else’s opinion that it equals 4.

And that’s not what these words mean and I am left eternally climbing up walls, because in this fandom, like... subtext, interpretation, coding, queerbait have all become one amorphous blob that just gets hurled around like four stuck together balls of Gak at a grade school party and just seeing where they splatter.

It is entirely possible for content to be subtextual and canon, if it is thematically resonant with the piece and a loud and fundamental part of its storytelling that it can not operate without acknowledging. Discussion of queer content aside, there’s a lot of shit this applies to. There’s a certain sense of good faith most authors put in their readers/viewers/whatever that people will have an fundamental understanding of the spirit of a work they’re conveying. This good faith amount varies depending on their projected demographic, but let me assure you, if your respective creator essentially has the characters stop and do “today I learned” narratives, or interruption explanation inserts over everything, there’s one of two reasons: 1. It’s a literal parody/comedy 2. It’s either geared for kids or they think you’re all fucking idiots.

As I don’t tend to watch parody, comedy, or kid shows, I tend to favor shows that don’t feel the need to handhold me through every instance of the show. Because I am not nor do I appreciate being treated like an idiot.

Subtext is a valuable part of canon as long as we are talking by virtue of “coding” not “random unfounded interpretation.”

Now, to the topic of queer coding, is it fundamentally gratifying to our primitive lizard brain survival instinct if we see characters kiss or whatever your personal landmark for gratification is? I mean, sure. Does the romance leading up to the kiss absolutely not matter at all until the kiss, or was that early state of subtext, dance, and non-consummation itself a valid romantic journey? 

Because honestly this is something I feel current LGBT dialogue is missing. We’re so wounded from being caught in the subtext veil that we want confirmation, but everybody wants to skip the journey to the sweet stuff. I’m not saying every story needs to be a years long slow burn, but y’all. You know how we talk about het romance being boring as fuck because it’s like “dude/chick look at each other and they fuck and now they’re insufferable, hahahah is this what het culture is like is this what they call romance what kind of standards--”? Yeah, we’re rapidly snowplowing towards that.

I’m also not saying quick confirmation is bad either. There’s shows and stories where even pre-confirmed LGBT couples are GREAT to see, just existing in the population. Not every story needs to be THE grand romance, or THE great coming out adventure, some can have already had their adventures just like the Totally Het Neighbors Next Door and that’s... fine. That’s great, even. 

But we are approaching Absolute Bottom Barrel Trash Content at terminal velocity, mostly just being exploited and monetized by corporations that are virtue signaling us to give at best sub-par turnout. The amount of currently airing shows with quality queer content can probably be counted on your two hands.QED there’s hundreds of shows, thousands depending on which networks you’re counting in your numbers. Off the top of my head, Legends of Tomorrow has a fabulously queer cast that Just Is without being defined only by having a partner nor being a rainbow lamp with a sticky note of plot directions. 

But we are also signaling creators that it’s no longer safe *to* give us gradual, slow burns, or genuine romance either. And we’re ALSO signaling creators -- INCLUDING QUEER CREATORS -- that it is no longer safe to make subtextual or coded content.

“Well good!” you probably say.

NO, THIS IS BAD, THIS IS REALLY, REALLY BAD.

Because while you may live in a fantasy universe where X Network had Y show exactly This Gay To Ride, it’s in blatant disregard of inconsistent landmarks and limbo sticks different shows, creators, and products have to go through, and some people in some shows are trying REALLY REALLY HARD to give you resonant queer content and you’re just shitting all over them and yelling that it’s queerbait.

I mean, queerbait is the idea that someone is giving queer content without intent to follow through and generally to exploit a queer audience. The problem is, all queerbait accusations are launched in default bad faith. Some of that bad faith is earned. Some of it is not. Sometimes there’s a lesbian with a network executive breathing down her neck that just wants to let her girls be together so she has them hold hands, even if she knows The Straights will talk it away as best friends, no matter how many canonically romantic storylines they’ve wedged into the subtext through loudly recognizable tropes.

Queerbait is a VERY DANGEROUS CARD and MUST BE USED WITH EXTREME CAUTION. Because depending on the longevity of what you’re crowing about, without understanding of what’s going on beyond the production veil, you can very easily even get creatives and creators hard shut down on a network level for wanting to protect the product. I’m sure you think “make it gay!” is the one answer to that, but no, it isn’t always, not depending on what the old white guy network exec I mentioned a while ago has in his papers about what or who he interprets pulls his income and what they like via demographics or inconsistent marketing test groups.

That’s not to say never call out queerbait, but the internet desperately needs to be more conscious about when and where they fling it around. What if Korra fans started horrifically screeching about queerbait and blasting it all over the internet and @’ing production or even network people and making devoted articles to make it a shitshow that even hit GA impact zones? Do you really think Nickelodeon would look at their demographic paperwork and throw it in the air and go “Oh! Well we make it gay then.”

Or do you think they’d have left a hard feedback note to further divide those characters with a strong warning about limits and restrictions.

We are slowly moving out of the area of things like queer coded villains and have more migrated into an area of subversive queer coding, but a great deal of subversive queer coding has people lose their SHIT because Some Idiot On The Internet With A Shitty Take And Quarter Assed Interpretation told them “it’s just subtext so it’s not valid until they kiss”, setting out this roving goalpost everybody keeps running after like a goddamn donkey chasing a carrot on a stick, and in some cases completely unable to be reached, despite the LITERAL BEST INTENTION of the authors. 

I’ve heard “well if they can’t Bring It All The Way, they shouldn’t at all.” What the FUCK? What kind of UNBEARABLY STRAIGHT WASHED WORLD do you want to live in? What kind of world do you think we’re living in right now? I regret to inform you, Trump got elected to office somehow and reversed a lot of LGBT protections somehow and it’s not just “because Russia,” it’s because there’s still a SHITTON of assholes out there that make corporations that bankroll TV SHITTONS of money and whether we like it or not, TV is a BUSINESS and we’re all DOLLAR SIGNS.

Stripping subversive queer coding, especially from the hands of queer authors, sets us back into a weird offset of primitive ages and extremized content, where the latter becomes poorly packaged lesbians dropped as a marketing plan to upsell Trendy New Teen Show without daring to rattle the middle aged demographic of a split political demographic in another show. No. Absolutely fucking not. Use some responsibility and apply some critical thinking before yelling queerbait and figure out where a problem is in any given situation, that’s all I fucking ask.

Hell for all you know those queer creators could be pitching it again and again behind the scenes, or baited on that side with maybes, or being stalled out by being told to wait for test marketing groups, and generally tugged around on their own leash where corporate is summarily watching the feedback to the blatant but subtextual and coded queer content.

--------

Now, ALL OF THIS becomes a fucking mess in discussion when people don’t box off these definitions and issues.

If people don’t realize the value of subtext to canon, 

And people don’t understand the difference between coding and interpretation,

And people confuse queerbait with any of this,

You end up with some giant VAT of literally EVERYBODY sounding like dipshits because Anti A told Shipper B who loves queer author C and relationship D that It’s Just Subtext, and then Shipper B turns around and yells ITS NOT CANON YOU’RE IDIOTS FOR LOVING IT in their pained bitterness, but then Anti A brings Anti B back and they decide they optically prefer relationship Z that has no actual coding or subtext, but they’ve strapped together their own interpretation, but they confuse interpretation and subtext, and break out all interpretations are equal even if they are not in the body of the actual canon work, but now everybody is yelling it’s not canon because nobody even fucking knows what any of these words mean anymore, and then Shippers A-Z turn around and start yelling queerbait at a gay author just trying to write his little gay heart out-- you see the problem, right?

On the other hand, there’s fandoms where people confuse these same points and think their uncorroborated interpretation is subtext simply because they chose to interpret it that way, and with enough voices drawn into it in the vat of “all interpretations are equal”, turn around and yell queerbait at authors who are scratching their heads going “the fuck are you on about”

-------

Other bad takes: The opinions of actors really don’t fucking matter. I don’t care if they’re pro-relationship or anti-relationship or just pro/anti any idea other than a relationship. This is like taking the opinion of some dude who played Hamlet an eternity ago for Shakespeare while Shakespeare was still alive and writing about what Shakespeare’s writing meant. His opinion may be meaningful to him, but it is his own interpretation. If Shakespeare wrote Hamlet The Sequel the actor could turn out entirely wrong about what he was babbling about. 

Actors are just interpreting the art to screen like you are. Acting is an interpretive art. They’re just. Interpreting. Just like you. So stop whipping out statements of actors against each other. You might as well be quoting jared-uwu-cest.tumblr dot com as an authority for your bad fucking take. Stop it. If actors on the same set have conflicting opinions and are just talking about their opinion, their opinion doesn’t mean shit more than any other fan of the source content, unless they are hand delivering statements, cited, from specific authors they’ve communicated with about the work they’re interpreting from (coming to mind, the time Jensen Ackles went to showrunner Jeremy Carver confused about the romance with Amara feeling right, only to tell us that Jeremy Carver told us that Amara wasn’t his romance, she was his kryptonite). 

Now if you’re choosing death of the author NONE of this is relevant, obviously, because you shouldn’t be citing ANY of this, because then you’re just playing to discussion points for convenience. But if you are looking for actual intent, the actor’s interpretation is only as valid as any other dedicated interpretation, albeit possibly more or less sounded in awareness of the text, but is otherwise only as valuable for how direct of a voice box they are being for what authors said about specific scenes. Hell, most things are filmed out of order and many actors don’t watch the whole piece. It already consumes their work life, it won’t consume their home life, no matter how much they love it, they haven’t reviewed the full body of the piece externally as a finished product, just processed emotions out of sequence.

THERE WAS A NEW AVENGER THAT DIDNT EVEN REALIZE HE WAS ACTING A NEW AVENGER UNTIL HE TOOK HIS KIDS TO THE MOVIES AND WAS LIKE “OH SHIT I’M AN AVENGER.” Stop BANKING on actor statements.

This also gets more complicated in group writing projects such as TV shows with multiple authors. And MORE complicated explaining that complication to fandom when they get positive statements from the creator of a show who is the *only* author and then turn around and yell “WHY DIDN’T [OTHER FANDOM]” do that when like, IDK, 6/40 authors have over the course of however long it’s been written on, most have been radio silent and one other had a different opinion and then you just expect some group borg rising of everybody who’s ever written on the show to come and hand deliver you individual hand-fed statements about what they meant.

This entire thing also foregoes the import of directors and how they work with their set dressers as part of the creative process; they’re what manifest the text into a visual medium of the story, which may or may not be identical to the author’s intent. Again, to hearken back to Supernatural as my root fandom here, it’s been mentioned Sgriccia knew how to work with everyone and get what they were meaning to convey with how long he worked on set, so generally, authors and Sgriccia cooperated really well in a full art. Whereas that nightmare of an episode Don’t Go In The Woods was directed by a VFX guy as his first directing experience and we could see he barely knew how to work with actors much less the spirit of the text; he just had great understanding of environment. 

These things, these opinions, these takes also matter. Because TV is a different form. I generally don’t see people arguing Pride & Prejudice on twitter, it’s usually TV/movies. Lit theory is incredibly valid for understanding the pace and flow of a body of work but you also have to understand what authors are deeply plugged into that, what directors are deeply plugged in, who’s an experimental folly they’ll patch up the work of afterward, it’s not the same as just reading a novel by one author or, at most, a few co authors in immediate harmony.

Like I don’t know if people think I did my Crazy Pagan Magic to come up with the season 14 ending like I had a pages-long rant reel of direct quotes and shots that literally predicted that Jack was going to lose his soul, become faux-god, and Dean was going to be given an ultimatum of shooting him, probably after killing Mary, because getting the yellow eyed thing was the point right--but that the true scarlet letterman wasn’t their lost child, but the absent father. The Great Father who left all questions--the god of control. But dad told you to put a bullet in me, and you didn’t.

Like, anyone remember me spouting literally all of these things across different posts? It’s not magic. So while Christians in fandom are turning themselves into pretzels making shitbrained theories trying to explain why it Wasn’t Really Chuck Or Chuck Isn’t Really God, I’ve got a few hundred pages of thesises here talking about this being exactly where they were going because of SUBTEXT. Because it’s PART OF THE CANON AND BUILDING THE FUNDAMENTAL STORY. 

If it comes to a textual head like Chuck, great. But people have to recognize whatever landmark they set for what they consider a textual head is entirely subject to the creators or, worse, a network. The same way in season 11 they got told they couldn’t kill God, here we go on take 2, maybe the network changed it’s mind, we’ll find out. 

These things all interplay VERY IMPORTANTLY with each other and also, this issue goes WELL BEYOND Supernatural fandom. At some point in history a bunch of people in multiple fandoms started slinging these words around without understanding them and bounced them off of more people that don’t understand them and it turns into a goddamn hot mess because nobody’s using words like they mean anymore, just vaguely beating each over the head with it, and it’s driving me i n s a n e. Hell, y’all are undermining YOURSELVES half the time by the way people have taught you to misuse words.

ALSO WRT “CANON”

Most of the above covers what canon is within the way it’s abused in fandom, but I’ve seen some people take the idea of it being accepted into a body of work by the authors as meaning like, every reading of the material needs to be acknowledged by the authors. I already detailed what it means. It’s absolutely not that. 100%. I don’t give a shit how you choose to interpret that. Because there is literally no way on planet earth an author has made a full statement confirming every detail about every part of their book and that goalpost doesn’t just magically manifest when we’re talking about, say, gay shit. Or powers you don’t like. If it’s thematically there, it’s thematically there, you can’t hackjob it out of canon just because This Specific Idea doesn’t have a Canon For Dummies statement attached to it, or worse, one attached to it specifically to your liking, since people like interpreting away ones based on their preferences rather than reason.

Similarly it doesn’t mean there’s a magic goalpost of a vagueblogged percentage of people that must accept the content for it to be canon. Hell, like half the fandom still tricked themselves into thinking there was a reaper retcon in season 9 (x) that NEVER FUCKING EXISTED IN ANY DAMN CAPACITY. Large groups of people choosing to miss the point doesn’t mean the canon didn’t hold the point, simply that they chose to draw another point out of it. Generally, in a still releasing work, that also leaves them disappointed and confused later (such as when someone claimed they retconned the nonexistent reaper retcon, because I heard you like retcons.)

There is no magic percent, no magic statement. These things are nice, but they aren’t what makes canon. Canon is the actual accepted body of work such as seasons, episodes, books, movies, or whatever else as part of the universe. (Eg: Supernatural’s novels are officially noncanonical and not part of discussion of canon content. They are not accepted into canon. That’s what this means.)

Also if you’re talking about canon quantify it. You can be as tired as you want about bad rep, but bad rep quality has nothing to do with the canon source content. You can be as tired about lowkey gayness as you want but are you saying the canon material isn’t romantic at all, or are you saying the characters aren’t consummated yet. If the canon material isn’t canonically romantic why are you yelling queerbait; or acknowledge the value of queer unconsummated canon romances even if you aspire for more, but don’t bounce that goalpost around for convenience, fuck sake. 

DID U KNOW that things can be CANONICALLY ROMANTIC without being CANONICALLY CONSUMMATED? Or that even a queer author’s idea of what reads as consummated canon may not be the same as yours? Did you know that a MLM LGBT author in his 40s may have very different ideas of how to express an MLM romance than a bunch of WLW LGBT women of any age, because there’s intersectionality at play? If you don’t want bi men determining how lesbians should be represented we need to apply that all around, kids.

-----

So sure, your interpretation can be valid, for you. But once you joust others, or pin your interpretation on the show without careful exploration of the actual intentful themes, you’re gonna probably be disappointed as it releases and uproots your ideas. Now the question is if you are willing to hold mature intelligent discourse about other people’s potential interpretations and readings, or if you’re going to grapple onto your old, broken interpretation like Gollum with the Ring because it’s your precious and you’ll let it send you crawling into a moldy cave hissing at anyone happily walking by.

Is Your Interpretation worth your anger when it falls through Do you even WANT to like the show? Do you literally prefer staying angry over reviewing your take compared to people who are still happy with it? Why AREN’T you willing to figure out where you went left of canon?

And furthermore, is your anger and broken interpretation/expectations worth holding onto a damn ring/show that clearly isn’t what you thought it was, or can you toss your fiery stan rage into Mordor before you turn into a twitter goblin and find a place you can interpret differently that makes you happy?

---

Lesson: Stop being fandom goblins

Also @tinkdw 

With all due respect to Lana, I’d like to politely and respectfully dissect her ig post and address the loopholes and fallacies in her arguments, in hopes to clarify why it’s inherently problematic for some, and hopefully bring people on both ends of the spectrum towards a middle ground :-) x

(in no way, shape or form, am I attempting to invalidate Lana’s struggles. Her feelings are completely valid and just like everyone else, she has every right to express herself unapologetically.)

(I do not condone any immature individuals sending her threats, but where dissenting arguments are presented on a factual basis by well-meaning fans and the general public, I’d like people to understand that not all criticism is bad or irrational. Criticism, when constructive and logically sound, can often serve as a fuel for self-improvement and advancement.)

Lana’s fundamental gist was her frustration in being unable to sing candidly about “morbid” issues in society without being censured or harped on by the media for her melancholic lyrical content.

She feels stifled and is tired of critics being critical of the way she unintentionally ‘glamorizes’ abuse and the pathologies of society, and proceeded to incorporate some of the biggest names in the music industry - many of whom were WOC. (Beyoncé, Nicki, Cardi, Doja and Kehlani), and goes on to speak of feminism and how she feels contemporary feminism doesn’t cater to her ‘aesthetic’ and singles her out.

There are so many reasons why her following arguments are deeply flawed and erroneous:

1. By name-dropping and bringing in stars in the industry who’ve been through the same level of scrutiny and castigation as her, if not worse, completely defies all logic in her paragraph and her purpose of cultivating acceptance.

Her comparison is not analogous.

These women have all bore the brunt of Hollywood and a predominantly whitewashed, chauvinistic music industry, and have undergone years of tabloid stings, scandals, controversies, to widespread denigration and misogynistic subjugation by men in the industry and the wider public.

Beyoncé has been in the industry for more than a decade, from her innocent Destiny Child days to her solo debut, where there was never a moment where she was spared from the media vultures, who preyed on her and slammed her for her music, to her looks, to her alleged “anti-feminist” lyrics, to her stance on Police Brutality, to her ‘glamorizing’ Jay-Z’s infidelity in Lemonade and to inconsequential things like the way she dresses her daughter, Blue.

Cardi and Nicki both, have been victims to years of media disparagement for their sexually explicit lyrical content and for proudly embracing their sexuality and their body confidence and self-love. Their music have been subject to relentless cynicism, with many arguing that their lyrics ‘promote promiscuity’ and what not.

More importantly, the fact that they’re WOC already puts them at an incredibly unfair disadvantage from the get go, as they’ve had to challenge not only misogyny, but institutional structures such as racism and xenophobia.

WOC have been known to be systematically and historically OPPRESSED by our patriarchal Eurocentric society, where andocentrism and white superiority takes precedence over everything else.

We like to think that society is becoming progressively ‘equal’, but that cannot be farther from the truth. There are always underlying race relations and power struggles at play, even if one denies it.

The reality is that it is completely out of character to compare her struggles to Women of Color, who not only face the same austerity of slander and retraction as her, but have had to deal with institutionalised discrimination and racism their whole lives.

She cannot pit herself on the same level playing field as these women for she’s not of ethnic descent, and is a fairly wealthy white cis female herself who already is privileged from the beginning.

These women Lana mentioned are and have been DOUBLY oppressed - in terms of their gender AND race, and have had to work TENFOLD as hard to even make a breakthrough in the industry, let alone set trailblazing records of topping charts - which is why their success is not only monumental, but legendary and should be commemorated.

If you’re not a person of Color, you would never understand, but you don’t get to tell people of Color what consists of racial microaggressions or undertones or not when you do not walk in the same shoes as them.

Just like there exists capitalism, racial discrimination and ostracisation has stood the test of time. POCs have never had anything easy, and have been systematically stigmatized since the dawn of civilisation.

What makes Lana, or anyone think, that people like Bey, Nicki or Cardi have never faced scrutiny for their lyrics, or are somehow precluded from criticism or hardships?

Drawing them as examples is a ridiculous analogy and reeks of white privilege. Lana cannnot compare her experiences of being “slammed” to what POC women have to go through to even be recognised or respected for their craft. Her race automatically puts her on the pedestal in life, where she doesn’t have to be affronted with the same level of systematic subjugation or suppression that the WOC have undergone.

For years, the contemporary feminized ideal was the ‘soft-spoken’ and ‘delicate’, overtly feminine white woman.

Black women have had to cope with being mislabeled as “aggressive” / “loud” for literal decades even up till this day, while the conventional, soft-spoken white woman archetype is celebrated all around the world. Today, the stereotype has been refuted thanks to the contribution of our WOC - who‘ve shown that there is femininity in being strong and charismatic.

Aforementioned, Bey’s lyrics have been dubbed as “anti-feminist” for ages, and the amount and magnitude of calumny bey received is simply, and unquestionably UNPARALLED to Lana’s.

America, the world, and feminism as a whole, have always CATERED to white women, while WOC have categorically had to bear the brunt of their unequal/restricted access to opportunities.

There’s space in feminism for Lana - she is not oppressed in any manner.

The problem doesn’t lie with these artistes, the problem lies right with patriarchy and the workings of a heavily male-dominated industry.

Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

Women will always be scrutinised, judged and censored for whatever they do or say. Whether it be WOC or not, most women in lucrative industries have had to put up with shit from their male counterparts - it’s nothing new.

I hope this post highlights the hypocrisy in Lana’s statement in the most amicable way possible, without discrediting anyone in the process.

It is imperative that we are receptive to different viewpoints, and not class every dissent in opinion as a form of “hatred”, and not allude ourselves to ignorance.

Cheers x

i saw that post u rbed and honest to God i have to say that 'exclusionist lesbian chara' is supposed to be transmisogynistic apparently (that's what i saw somewhere). like i can't tell if exclusionists are just ignoring it all, but ppl making the girl their icons saying they're 'proud aphobic lesbians' ignoring the context of why IT'S ALL JUST REALLY FUCKING BAD is just headache inducing pal. like it's rlly concerning ppl wanna ignore and make bigotry a joke

(2/2) also i am so so SO tired of the 'proud aphobic lesbian thing' like my asexual lesbian ass is exhausted by that crap like i guess i don't exist or that i'm not a real lesbian i guess :)

I hear you, my friend, and I also agree. I’m really not getting any joy out of trying to be an ‘aphobic lesbian uwu’ over some ridiculous comic that was made by someone who I don’t even know is being genuine in their supposed ‘hatred’ of lesbians in the first place. I don’t know if this person is ace or is an inclusionist or is just being a troll and purposely trying to stir an endless pot of ‘discourse’ that needs to die already.

This whole situation lacks so much nuance and leaves no room for criticism against the way exclusionists have CONSTANTLY made degrading, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and even ableist media as a way to bully ace and aro people for their identities.

But because some gross comic, that plenty of ace/aro people were already calling out as lesbophobic and criticizing the OP for, miscommunicated such a nuanced experience of what it feels like to be an ace and/or aro person excluded from the only community that could possibly help them...suddenly it’s ok to make gross, even transmisogynistic ‘parodies’ of this comic to ‘stick it’ to those nasty ‘aceys uwu’?????

It makes no sense to me and only reinforces my feelings on the fact that exclusionists DONT want LGBTQ+ people to grow and think critically about anything. Even simple mistakes that could have easily been fixed by someone simply going, ‘Hello! I just wanted to let you know that this thing is kinda bad because blah blah blah...’

And I understand where that lack of wanting to meet ace/aro people where they’re at comes from. So many exclusionists believe that because they’ve experienced some form of ‘oppression’ from cishet society, that they suddenly know all there is to know about ‘real’ oppression. They don’t.

There are so many exclusionists who are privileged in ways that some ace/aro people may not be privileged in because oppression exists on an INTERSECTIONAL scale. It’s not always as simple as saying, ‘you’re not gay, so you can’t be oppressed like me uwu’.

That’s not how oppression and privilege is ‘handed’ out to us by an overall cisheteronormative society that seeks to control every person’s sexual, romantic, and gender identity.

I’m just rambling now but at the end of the day, my friend, just keep being yourself and don’t let anyone tell you why you should or shouldn’t identify a certain way. You are not personally responsible for a few jackasses in a community you happen to be a part of and you are not obligated to change or hide any part of yourself, either. 🐻🌻

From An Old Internet Veteran: Go, and Sin No More

I wish I could explain to young people how wild the internet was as it went from the ‘weird niche thing for lame nerds’ irrelevancy of the early 90s and the “Boy This World Wide Web Thing Sure Is Nifty”-style painful optimism that describes 97% of Western Culture between 1994 and 2002 to the ‘Mad Max But Statistically Less Australian” culture that was the internet from 2002 to around 2010. I come neither to praise this era of internet nor condemn it. I merely want understanding. I cannot polish a lumpen pile of rape jokes, Chuck Norris glorification, “ironic” racism, and numa numa fat shaming and say that it’s misunderstood comedic genius. Trash is still trash even if it wins a bunch of Emmys. But at the same time I cannot take you with me back to the 90s and get you to feel, on a visceral level, what it was like to live in a place where Bart Simpson was both promoted as a real and present danger to the moral upbringing of the world’s children and was named by Time magazine as one of the most influential icons of the 20th century. And because I cannot do that I cannot get you to understand how freeing it felt to be on the internet in that Mad Max era. Ten years before a yellow boy shouting “Don’t have a cow” while doing a pathetic kick-flip on a chunky skateboard was considered the potential downfall of humanity’s children, but now you could make something so risqué that the old-guard stuffed-shirt in 1994 would have died on the spot, his brain unable to consider anything so outside his moral world view. I cannot easily make you understand a time when nobody just said whatever it was they wanted, not just because they had no platform to do so but because the rigidity of social convention was so strong. Nobody ever had hardcore lesbian sex on Northern Exposure on prime time television. Nobody on the X-Files ever died by having their head smashed in a car door repeatedly like a melon until viscera spilled all over the pavement. You could not have made Game of Thrones or Steven Universe in 1995. Forget the graphics, forget the budget, you simply couldn’t do or say any of that on television for either kids or adults. The Mad Max internet changed that - changed the very firmament of what was acceptable in media for every genre and for every demographic.  Is this a good thing? Not particularly. Is this a bad thing? Not particularly. If this sound frustratingly ambivalent that’s because it is: were we to go back and do it all again, knowing all that we know now, would we do it the same way? No. But then, we would not know all that we know now had we not learned it by making the attempt in the first place.

This poor comfort for someone who dives into some 2006 webcomic with a reputation of a Legacy Touchstone and finds it full of ‘jokes’ about their gender, or sexual preference, or the liberal use of the r-slur, or a kind of hyper-suburban comedic racial ignorance. I am not here to argue that that had any value merely because it was transgressive. But the same space that opened-up to let such ugly things out also opened-up places for marginalized groups to made themselves known, groups who never before had such public voices.

Imagine an apocalypse. Imagine society rebuilding in the ashes. Imagine how many false starts and missteps there would be and you begin to understand just a little of what that period was like. It was embarrassing. It was cruel. It was childish and stupid. But in living through it we grew up. Or, at least, those of us capable of growing up grew up, and learned, and learned to be better - learned what better was. And then we built new places where other people could learn too - and spread the gospel of being better. One of the things that always irritates me when it comes to young people talking about the past is the unexamined privilege of knowledge being at your fingertips. It’s more than just everyone carrying a wireless-internet connected computer in their pocket at all times. It’s more than just a Wikipedia with hundreds of millions of articles and a reputation for fact sourcing. It’s more than just a Google that works. If you never experienced it you cannot imagine what using WebCrawler was like in 1995 against Ask Jeeves in 2005 against Google in 2015 - or even Google between 2005 and 2015. Most people don’t go around thinking about SEO and search engine algorithms but maybe we should because anyone who wants to go “this info’s been on the internet since day one so people have no excuse not to know it” disingenuously argues that information search and retrieval has been consistent across the decades. There was a time - not all that long ago - when to look something up on-line involved getting the tacit agreement of everyone in your household to lose the use of the sole telephone for as long as you were web browsing. There was a time - not all that long ago - when ‘looking something up’ was to burden everyone around you with inconveniences, and while you were doing your web searches there was no guarantee what you wanted could be found with the primitive technology of the day. Do you know how much I’ve learned since joining Tumblr in 2011? On a fundamental level, both about myself and the make-up of our species in terms of social conception? I recently went through a bunch of old posts, removing those with broken links and meaningless content, but also shit that just embarrasses me now - mostly opinions from a period where I hadn’t yet had a chance to learn because the spaces in which to learn it did not yet exist. It’s not just things like communities for [demographic X] - it’s things like “communities for [demographic X] with an ability to broadcast their voices and have platforms able to network their ideas and audience halls able to receive them and a search engine to guide people to that community and a basic understanding that the community even exists in the first place.” And this does not even begin to touch on internet access, something that even now is not a universal thing, and for which getting angry about people’s ignorance reflects a bias all its own. I say all this because I think that a core tenant of cringe culture is a myth of universal access to knowledge and universal awareness of one’s own ignorance. I look back on old posts of things I said and I cringe with self-hatred - cringe enough to rip them down and stuff them in the trash. “HOW DID I THINK THAT?” and “HOW DID I NOT KNOW?” But why should I have known - what, in my life, would ever have put better ideas across my desk? That I can meaningfully speak now about privilege and intersectionality and historiography is because between then and now I was put in a place to learn these things. I was exposed to ideas that I had never before been exposed to, and was given the grace to learn. I am tired of the expectation that every aspect of our past selves should be held to the same standard as the present. (Yes, to all the disingenuous bad-faith trolls out there, I obviously and of course am advocating for complete and total uncritical pardon for everything in the past ever. Were you a neo-Nazi ten years ago? Water under the bridge without question because that’s obviously, obviously, obviously the sort of extreme outlier case I am talking about good on you for being clever enough to notice.) But for the non-dipshits out there who understand how to read without injecting insincere hyperbole into every argument, I want us to be kinder to our past selves when we have learned to be better. It’s okay that you used to like Sherlock - there were genuinely fun things about it, and it’s okay that you didn’t possess an expert grasp of post-graduate feminist critical theory when you were 21. Or 31. Or 41. More concepts of academia have filtered into mainstream consciousness than ever before - and in saying that we should remember the corollary that ten, twenty, thirty years ago that was not the case. We knew less, had access to less, and were exposed to narrower viewpoints than we are today. It is unfortunate - but it was not our fault, and we cannot easily blame ourselves for it any longer. Nothing makes my blood boil more than seeing people taking umbrage that... oh, Farmer Joe McSmithHead of Buttnut, Alabama in 1963 was ignorant of internal Chinese politics and said some untrue things about Chinese Communism. But the only thing Farmer Joe had to tell him of the outside world was a radio that played country music, a TV with four channels and strict content guidelines to only show pleasant, moral, and god-fearing content, and the three books in the Buttnut library, two of which were the Bible. There have, and will always be, certain moral lines so obvious that people of any era should always be held accountable to them. But above that, in the more trivial space of media consumption, absorption, and critique, we have to learn to be more forgiving - to ourselves and to others, so long as in the present we have changed. Did you use the r-slur a lot because it was practically a form of punctuation on 4chan and that’s where you learned the ways of the internet? Did you learn the harmfulness of this practice and cease to do it? Then I do not condemn thee - go, and sin no more. Did you and your friends used to make jokes about how Mexicans smelled because you saw Seinfeld do that in his standup and the whole TV laughed as though it was funny? Did you realize one day ‘wait a minute that’s actually super gross’ and stop repeating it? Then I do not condemn thee - go, and sin no more. Have you gone back to a beloved childhood property and found it’s full of woman-beating and weird views on homosexuality? Did you find yourself able to critique this beloved thing and did not defensively double-down on shielding it from all harsh words? Then I do not condemn thee - go, and sin no more. I will not allow us to dismiss the cruelty and hurt of Mad Max Internet Culture with a flippant ‘well that’s just how it was back then” but nor will I allow anyone to condemn us all as being consciously unfeeling, willfully ignorant, purposefully hateful. Some of us were. But some of us did not know, could not have known, needed to learn - and we were lucky enough to live in a time before cringe culture and cancel culture where we were allowed to have that opportunity to learn and grow. We need that today, for all young people who think themselves as woke as can be and ten years from now will look back and blush with shame for things they said and did in total ignorance. The sin is choosing to never change, not failing to change sooner.

Cancel Culture: The Internet Eating Itself RSS FEED OF POST WRITTEN BY FOZMEADOWS

As social media platforms enter their collective adolescence – Facebook is fifteen, YouTube fourteen, Twitter thirteen, tumblr twelve – I find myself thinking about how little we really understand their cultural implications, both ongoing and for the future. At this point, the idea that being online is completely optional in modern world ought to be absurd, and yet multiple friends, having spoken to their therapists about the impact of digital abuse on their mental health, were told straight up to just stop using the internet. Even if this was a viable option for some, the idea that we can neatly sidestep the problem of bad behaviour in any non-utilitarian sphere by telling those impacted to simply quit is baffling at best and a tacit form of victim-blaming at worst. The internet might be a liminal space, but object permanence still applies to what happens here: the trolls don’t vanish if we close our eyes, and if we vanquish one digital hydra-domain for Toxicity Crimes without caring to fathom the whys and hows of what went wrong, we merely ensure that three more will spring up in its place.

Is the internet a private space, a government space or a public space? Yes.

Is it corporate, communal or unaffiliated? Yes.

Is it truly global or bound by local legal jurisdictions? Yes.

Does the internet reflect our culture or create it? Yes.

Is what people say on the internet reflective of their true beliefs, or is it a constant shell-game of digital personas, marketing ploys, intrusive thoughts, growth-in-progress, personal speculation and fictional exploration? Yes.

The problem with the internet is that takes up all three areas on a Venn diagram depicting the overlap between speech and action, and while this has always been the case, we’re only now admitting that it’s a bug as well as a feature. Human interaction cannot be usefully monitored using an algorithm, but our current conception of What The Internet Is has been engineered specifically to shortcut existing forms of human oversight, the better to maximise both accessibility (good to neutral) and profits (neutral to bad). Uber and Lyft are cheaper, frequently more convenient alternatives to a traditional taxi service, for instance, but that’s because the apps themselves are functionally predicated on the removal of meaningful customer service and worker protections that were hard-won elsewhere. Sites like tumblr are free to use, but the lack of revenue generated by those users means that, past a certain point, profits can only hope to outstrip expenses by selling access to those users and/or their account data, which means in turn that paying to effectively monitor their content creation becomes vastly less important than monetising it.

Small wonder, then, that individual users of social media platforms have learned to place a high premium on their ability to curate what they see, how they see it, and who sees them in turn. When I first started blogging, the largely unwritten rule of the blogsphere was that, while particular webforums dedicated to specific topics could have rules about content and conduct, blogs and their comment pages should be kept Free. Monitoring comments was viewed as a sign of narrow-minded fearfulness: even if a participant was aggressive or abusive, the enlightened path was to let them speak, because anything else was Censorship. This position held out for a good long while, until the collective frustration of everyone who’d been graphically threatened with rape, torture and death, bombarded with slurs, exhausted by sealioning or simply fed up with nitpicking and bad faith arguments finally boiled over.

Particularly in progressive circles, the relief people felt at being told that actually, we were under no moral obligation to let assholes grandstand in the comments or repeatedly explain basic concepts to only theoretically invested strangers was overwhelming. Instead, you could simply delete them, or block them, or maybe even mock them, if the offence or initial point of ignorance seemed silly enough. But as with the previous system, this one-size-fits-all approach soon developed a downside. Thanks to the burnout so many of us felt after literal years of trying to treat patiently with trolls playing Devil’s Advocate, liberal internet culture shifted sharply towards immediate shows of anger, derision and flippancy to anyone who asked a 101 question, or who didn’t use the right language, or who did anything other than immediately agree with whatever position was explained to them, however simply.

I don’t exempt myself from this criticism, but knowing why I was so goddamn tired doesn’t change my conviction that, cumulatively, the end result did more harm than good. Without wanting to sidetrack into a lengthy dissertation on digital activism in the post-aughties decade, it seems evident in hindsight that the then-fledgling alliance between trolls, MRAs, PUAs, Redditors and 4channers to deliberately exhaust left-wing goodwill via sealioning and bad faith arguments was only the first part of a two-pronged attack. The second part, when the left had lost all patience with explaining its own beliefs and was snappily telling anyone who asked about feminism, racism or anything else to just fucking Google it, was to swoop in and persuade the rebuffed party that we were all irrational, screeching harridans who didn’t want to answer because we knew our answers were bad, and why not consider reading Roosh V instead?

The fallout of this period, I would argue, is still ongoing. In an ideal world, drawing a link between online culture wars about ownership of SFF and geekdom and the rise of far-right fascist, xenophobic extremism should be a bow so long that not even Odysseus himself could draw it. But this world, as we’ve all had frequent cause to notice, is far from ideal at the best of times – which these are not – and yet another featurebug of the internet is the fluid interpermeability of its various spaces. We talk, for instance – as I am talking here – about social media as a discreet concept, as though platforms like Twitter or Facebook are functionally separate from the other sites to which their users link; as though there is no relationship between or bleed-through from the viral Facebook post screencapped and shared on BuzzFeed, which is then linked and commented upon on Reddit, which thread is then linked to on Twitter, where an entirely new conversation emerges and subsequently spawns an article in The Huffington Post, which is shared again on Facebook and the replies to that shared on tumblr, and so on like some grizzly perpetual mention machine.

But I digress. The point here is that internet culture is best understood as a pattern of ripples, each new iteration a reaction to the previous one, spreading out until it dissipates and a new shape takes its place. Having learned that slamming the virtual door in everyone’s face was a bad idea, the online left tried establishing a better, calmer means of communication; the flipside was a sudden increase in tone-policing, conversations in which presentation was vaunted over substance and where, once again, particular groups were singled out as needing to conform to the comfort-levels of others. Overlapping with this was the move towards discussing things as being problematic, rather than using more fixed and strident language to decry particular faults – an attempt to acknowledge the inherent fallibility of human works while still allowing for criticism. A sensible goal, surely, but once again, attempting to apply the dictum universally proved a double-edged sword: if everything is problematic, then how to distinguish grave offences from trifling ones? How can anyone enjoy anything if we’re always expected to thumb the rosary of its failings first?

When everything is problematic and everyone has the right to say so, being online as any sort of creator or celebrity is like being nibbled to death by ducks. The well-meaning promise of various organisations, public figures or storytellers to take criticism on board – to listen to the fanbase and do right by their desires – was always going to stumble over the problem of differing tastes. No group is a hivemind: what one person considers bad representation or in poor taste, another might find enlightening, while yet a third party is more concerned with something else entirely. Even in cases with a clear majority opinion, it’s physically impossible to please everyone and a type of folly to try, but that has yet to stop the collective internet from demanding it be so. Out of this comes a new type of ironic frustration: having once rejoiced in being allowed to simply block trolls or timewasters, we now cast judgement on those who block us in turn, viewing them, as we once were viewed, as being fearful of criticism.

Are we creating echo chambers by curating what we see online, or are we acting in pragmatic acknowledgement of the fact that we neither have time to read everything nor an obligation to see all perspectives as equally valid? Yes.

Even if we did have the time and ability to wade through everything, is the signal-to-noise ratio of truth to lies on the internet beyond our individual ability to successfully measure, such that outsourcing some of our judgement to trusted sources is fundamentally necessary, or should we be expected to think critically about everything we encounter, even if it’s only intended as entertainment? Yes.

If something or someone online acts in a way that’s antithetical to our values, are we allowed to tune them out thereafter, knowing full well that there’s a nearly infinite supply of as-yet undisappointing content and content-creators waiting to take their place, or are we obliged to acknowledge that Doing A Bad doesn’t necessarily ruin a person forever? Yes.

And thus we come to cancel culture, the current – but by no means final – culmination of previous internet discourse waves. In this iteration, burnout at critical engagement dovetails with a new emphasis on collective content curation courtesies (try saying that six times fast), but ends up hamstrung once again by differences in taste. Or, to put it another way: someone fucks up and it’s the last straw for us personally, so we try to remove them from our timelines altogether – but unless our friends and mutuals, who we still want to engage with, are convinced to do likewise, then we haven’t really removed them at all, such that we’re now potentially willing to make failure to cancel on demand itself a cancellable offence.

Which brings us right back around to the problem of how the modern internet is fundamentally structured – which is to say, the way in which it’s overwhelmingly meant to rely on individual curation instead of collective moderation. Because the one thing each successive mode of social media discourse has in common with its predecessors is a central, and currently unanswerable question: what universal code of conduct exists that I, an individual on the internet, can adhere to – and expect others to adhere to – while we communicate across multiple different platforms?

In the real world, we understand about social behavioural norms: even if we don’t talk about them in those terms, we broadly recognise them when we see them. Of course, we also understand that those norms can vary from place to place and context to context, but as we can only ever be in one physical place at a time, it’s comparatively easy to adjust as appropriate.

But the internet, as stated, is a liminal space: it’s real and virtual, myriad and singular, private and public all at once. It confuses our sense of which rules might apply under which circumstances, jumbles the normal behavioural cues by obscuring the identity of our interlocutors, and even though we don’t acknowledge it nearly as often as we should, written communication – like spoken communication – is a skill that not everyone has, just as tone, whether spoken or written, isn’t always received (or executed, for that matter) in the way it was intended. And when it comes to politics, in which the internet and its doings now plays no small role, there’s the continual frustration that comes from observing, with more and more frequency, how many literal, real-world crimes and abuses go without punishment, and how that lack of consequences contributes in turn to the fostering of abuse and hostility towards vulnerable groups online.

This is what comes of occupying a transitional period in history: one in which laws are changed and proposed to reflect our changing awareness of the world, but where habit, custom, ignorance, bias and malice still routinely combine, both institutionally and more generally, to see those laws enacted only in part, or tokenistically, or not at all. To take one of the most egregious and well-publicised instances that ultimately presaged the #MeToo movement, the laughably meagre sentence handed down to Brock Turner, who was caught in the act of raping an unconscious woman, combined with the emphasis placed by both the judge and much of the media coverage on his swimming talents and family standing as a means of exonerating him, made it very clear that sexual violence against women is frequently held to be less important than the perceived ‘bright futures’ of its perpetrators.

Knowing this, then – knowing that the story was spread, discussed and argued about on social media, along with thousands of other, similar accounts; knowing that, even in this context, some people still freely spoke up in defence of rapists and issued misogynistic threats against their female interlocutors – is it any wonder that, in the absence of consistent legal justice in such cases, the internet tried, and is still trying, to fill the gap? Is it any wonder, when instances of racist police brutality are constantly filmed and posted online, only for the perpetrators to receive no discipline, that we lose patience for anyone who wants to debate the semantics of when, exactly, extrajudicial murder is “acceptable”?

We cannot control the brutality of the world from the safety of our keyboards, but when it exhausts or threatens us, we can at least click a button to mute its seeming adherents. We don’t always have the energy to decry the same person we’ve already argued against a thousand times before, but when a friend unthinkingly puts them back on our timeline for some new reason, we can tell them that person is cancelled and hope they take the hint not to do it again. Never mind that there is far too often no subtlety, no sense of scale or proportion to how the collective, viral internet reacts in each instance, until all outrage is rendered flat and the outside observer could be forgiven for worrying what’s gone wrong with us all, that using a homophobic trope in a TV show is thought to merit the same online response as an actual hate crime. So long as the war is waged with words alone, there’s only a finite number of outcomes that boycotting, blocking, blacklisting, cancelling, complaining and critiquing can achieve, and while some of those outcomes in particular are well worth fighting for, so many words are poured towards so many attempts that it’s easy to feel numbed to the process; or, conversely, easy to think that one response fits all contexts.

I’m tired of cancel culture, just as I was dully tired of everything that preceded it and will doubtless grow tired of everything that comes after it in turn, until our fundamental sense of what the internet is and how it should be managed finally changes. Like it or not, the internet both is and is of the world, and that is too much for any one person to sensibly try and curate at an individual level. Where nothing is moderated for us, everything must be moderated by us; and wherever people form communities, those communities will grow cultures, which will develop rules and customs that spill over into neighbouring communities, both digitally and offline, with mixed and ever-changing results. Cancel culture is particularly tricky in this regard, as the ease with which we block someone online can seldom be replicated offline, which makes it all the more intoxicating a power to wield when possible: we can’t do anything about the awful coworker who rants at us in the breakroom, but by God, we can block every person who reminds us of them on Twitter.

The thing about participating in internet discourse is, it’s like playing Civilisation in real-time, only it’s not a game and the world keeps progressing even when you log off. Things change so fast on the internet – memes, etiquette, slang, dominant opinions – and yet the changes spread so organically and so fast that we frequently adapt without keeping conscious track of when and why they shifted. Social media is like the Hotel California: we can check out any time we like, but we can never meaningfully leave – not when world leaders are still threatening nuclear war on Twitter, or when Facebook is using friendly memes to test facial recognition software, or when corporate accounts are creating multi-staffed humansonas to engage with artists on tumblr, or when YouTube algorithms are accidentally-on-purpose steering kids towards white nationalist propaganda because it makes them more money.

Of course we try and curate our time online into something finite, comprehensible, familiar, safe: the alternative is to embrace the near-infinite, incomprehensible, alien, dangerous gallimaufry of our fractured global mindscape. Of course we want to try and be critical, rational, moral in our convictions and choices; it’s just that we’re also tired and scared and everyone who wants to argue with us about anything can, even if they’re wrong and angry and also our relative, or else a complete stranger, and sometimes you just want to turn off your brain and enjoy a thing without thinking about it, or give yourself some respite, or exercise a tiny bit of autonomy in the only way you can.

It’s human nature to want to be the most amount of right for the least amount of effort, but unthinkingly taking our moral cues from internet culture the same way we’re accustomed to doing in offline contexts doesn’t work: digital culture shifts too fast and too asymmetrically to be relied on moment to moment as anything like a universal touchstone. Either you end up preaching to the choir, or you run a high risk of aggravation, not necessarily due to any fundamental ideological divide, but because your interlocutor is leaning on a different, false-universal jargon overlying alternate 101 and 201 concepts to the ones you’re using, and modern social media platforms – in what is perhaps the greatest irony of all – are uniquely poorly suited to coherent debate.

Purity wars in fandom, arguments about diversity in narrative and whether its proponents have crossed the line from criticism into bullying: these types of arguments are cyclical now, dying out and rekindling with each new wave of discourse. We might not yet be in a position to stop it, but I have some hope that being aware of it can mitigate the worst of the damage, if only because I’m loathe to watch yet another fandom steadily talk itself into hating its own core media for the sake of literal argument.

For all its flaws – and with all its potential – the internet is here to stay. Here’s hoping we figure out how to fix it before its ugliest aspects make us give up on ourselves.

          from shattersnipe: malcontent & rainbows https://ift.tt/2V13Qu4 via IFTTT

hi! i wanted to ask advice from you, i hope it's ok! i'm currently writing a long fic, but i usually write original stories, and i'm having a hard time with what i should say. i don't want to quote the canon, and say things people already know, but what if i don't say enough and lose my readers? do you have advice for a beginner? thank you so much, i love your work so much!

Hello, sweet anon! I am so honored that you would send a message my way and ask for advice of all things. I am but a humble gremlin, but, I can’t say that longfics/longer stories aren’t my focus or specialty. I will try my best to offer what insights and wisdom I feel I have in my 6+ months or so of writing. Be warned: I am in no way an expert or professional. This is simply all my perspective as another person in fandom who writes fic. 

I’m assuming you’re working with Dragon Age canon since that is the fandom I am apart of, but if you aren’t, my apologies for the false assumption! 

The thing is, every author contends with canon in different ways. I know some authors who use the canon quite literally as the skeletal system of their story, navigating the plot with their character and using the structure to their advantage to tell the story they want to tell. Others I know completely leave out canon scenes/plot points in favor of showing the moments/vignettes that happen in the in-between – moments we don’t get to necessarily see in games or other forms of canon media. Fanfic as a discipline and practice is highly dependent on each author’s style and idiosyncratic traits. It’s a reflex, a habit, and really, it’s alchemy. Aka it’s messy and creative and glorious. 

A rhythm I have found helpful for me is this: I use the canon plot points as checkpoints, or benchmarks, for my stories. They help me keep a pace in my stories, so that I can take steps back from my writing and go “alright, how much attention did I pay to this specific moment in the story versus the other? How long in theory does this era last in the canon, and what was missing from the original story line that I could show? What climactic moments have I yet to arrive at, that I can save or push off major developments that would better fit them?” 

I also think a critical point to remember is that the canon already exists, people know it, and if people wanted to just engage with the canon they can play the game or read the book or watch the movie. They’re coming to you for a new, unique story and perspective. You have a lot of liberty in that, to tell and show what you want. You can also bend it a bit and work with Canon to make it more dynamic, realistic, and poignant than it was before. I love breathing life into canon scenes/moments because:

1). it shows how the character I’ve crafted would handle the situation and thus impact the sequence of events, and 

2). it gives me an opportunity to show new sides of canon characters that may be unexplored in the canon all by itself.

I can only speak for myself as a fanfic reader and author based on what my tastes are. But, in my mind when I read a fic, I’m looking to get lost in the world. I want to be submerged in emotions, feelings, and complexities of being alive. I am looking for that because, as complex and engrossing as video game plot lines can be, they can feel rather hollow because it’s framing itself around your in-game pathway. When you’re telling a story, in my mind, you want to have a reader step into a world that you see, feel, hear, etc. and perceive what you perceive. 

So, the questions you want to ask yourself when you’re contemplating inputting a canon scene may just be:

1). Is it going to show/progress something I think is important? If so, what?

2). Will it ground my story or inhibit it from reaching where I think it needs to go?

3). If I am using it, how can I alter it/put my own take on it so it doesn’t just feel like a script read from the original canon?

Canon scenes may just be that – canon – but they aren’t inflexible. They aren’t one-dimensional. Brainstorm, make a thought tree perhaps, of dialogue points and choices, and see where they connect to. See if there’s easter eggs of character exposition you can use and further develop that the game otherwise left alone. Show how your character(s) would react to dialogue exchange, how it would be similar or different from the game. Be playful and have fun with it!

I also think that for as many multitudes of fic types there are, there are just as many types of readers. People who want canon-loyal fics, people who want canon-divergent, people who want AU takes, people who want a mixture of all the above or none! It’s endless. No matter what, as long as the story you’re trying to tell is one you feel invested in, someone will appreciate it. I am 99.9% sure of that. Stories are amazing like that. 

The bottom line is, anon – and I will say this over and over until my dying days – the story that is worth writing is the story that is loved. By that, what I mean is as long as you, the author love what you’re creating, and you’re able to utilize that energy in the process, rarely will your stories be a waste or an echo chamber of unoriginal ideas. Love is kinetic, active, and and investment. If you’re bored with what you’re creating there’s no point, because in the end you’re expending time and energy on something you don’t feel connected to. It’s a lot like baking and cooking: it may be well-done, technically perfect, and by the recipe, but if there’s no love in it there’s something that will always be missing. 

I am sending you the best writing mojo I can. At the end of the line, look at you! You’re writing a longfic, isn’t that amazing? Like, damn, how many people can say that? (Not as many as you think). Longfics are challenging, tiring, and involved processes, just as fanfic is in general. You’re doing the damn thing! Don’t be afraid to take breaks, take breaths, and pat yourself on the back. 

Love and light to you, friend. Don’t be a stranger! 

I also invite my fellow fanfic authors to input any advice, caveats, corrections, or add-ons to this post! :) Because we are a community and we are here for each other!

- Veri

GOD DON’T MAKE ME HAVE TO DEFEND TAYLOR SWIFT

San Francisco — The ACLU of Northern California today sent a letter to Taylor Swift and her attorney refuting their meritless legal defamation threats against a local blogger.

On Sep. 5, PopFront editor Meghan Herning wrote a post titled “Swiftly to the alt-right: Taylor subtly gets the lower case kkk in formation.” The post is a mix of political speech and critical commentary, and discusses the resurgence of white supremacy and the fact that some white supremacists have embraced Swift. It also provides a critical interpretation of some of Swift’s music, lyrics, and videos. The post ends by calling on Swift to personally denounce white supremacy, saying “silence in the face of injustice means support for the oppressor.”

On Oct. 25, Herning received an intimidating letter from Swift and her attorney labeling the blog post as defamatory and demanding that she issue a retraction, remove the story from all media sources, and cease and desist. The letter threatened a lawsuit.

“This is a completely unsupported attempt to suppress constitutionally protected speech,” said ACLU of Northern California attorney Michael Risher.

The letter went on to say that it should serve as an “unequivocal denouncement by Ms. Swift of white supremacy and the alt-right.” But that denunciation would only be known by Herning because the letter also attempts to use copyright law to forbid her from making it public.

“Intimidation tactics like these are unacceptable,” said ACLU attorney Matt Cagle. “Not in her wildest dreams can Ms. Swift use copyright law to suppress this exposure of a threat to constitutionally protected speech.”

Herning contacted the ACLU after receiving the letter from Swift's attorney, and ACLU lawyers determined the legal claims were unsupported. The blog post is opinion protected by the First Amendment.

“The press should not be bullied by high-paid lawyers or frightened into submission by legal jargon,” said Herning. “These scare tactics may have worked for Taylor in the past, but I am not backing down.”

The ACLU has requested a response from Swift and her attorney by Nov. 13 confirming that they will not pursue a lawsuit.

THIS IS THE ORIGINAL POP FRONT ARTICLE RIGHT HERE

Swiftly to the alt-right: Taylor Swift subtly gets the lower case “kkk” in formation with “Look What You Made me Do”

An anti–Marxist Mixtape review.

A little over a decade after her musical debut, Taylor Swift has made a career out of being portrayed as a good girl unjustly wronged. Her song catalog is stocked with tunes about how innocent she is, and how men seem to wrong her. But the most notable moment of the Taylor-as-an-innocent-victim narrative may have come when Kanye West interrupted her Best Female Video acceptance speech at the 2009 Video Music Awards to drunkenly ramble about how Beyoncé should have won.

Kanye upstaging Taylor in that moment not only gave that narrative merit in a lot of people’s eyes, it also looked like the personification of many a long-standing white fear: a black man taking away a white woman’s power. And Taylor has been playing off that narrative ever since, while America has embraced the notion of white victimhood — despite the reality. Kanye West is still hated for that moment, and the media has documented further fights between Taylor Swift and other pop stars such as Katy Perry, Calvin Harris, and Kim Kardashian. There is no shortage of media details about these “feuds”, whatever their purpose may be.

On the other hand, the idea that Taylor Swift is an icon of white supremacist, nationalists, and other fringe groups, seems to finally be getting mainstream attention. But the dog whistles to white supremacy in the lyrics of her latest single are not the first time that some have connected the (subtle) dots. A white supremacist blogger from neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormerwas quoted in a Broadly article in May 2016 as saying, “it is also an established fact that Taylor Swift is secretly a Nazi and is simply waiting for the time when Donald Trump makes it safe for her to come out and announce her Aryan agenda to the world.” What “facts” the blogger is pointing to are unclear (and likely invented); still, his statement exemplifies how neo-Nazis and white supremacists look to her as their pop icon.

And it is fitting: in the past few months, white supremacist trolls have jumped off line and onto the streets. Charlottesville was a coming out story for white supremacists and nationalists, a chance to show who they were and what they want — or really who they didn’t want in “their” country. But the brazen white supremacists on the streets are not the only ones who have bought into the current form of white supremacy. There is still a contingent of the country that agrees with the president and his response to the tragedy of Charlottesville. For all Trump’s tomfoolery and cavorting with white nationalism, his approval rating has stayed steady: almost 40% of the country thinks he is doing a good job. Perhaps this is an affirmation of the racist policies and climate that this administration has capitalized on and intensified, because racism and white supremacy have always existed in America — and the president alone cannot take credit for the movement.

The American eugenics movement  — a pseudo-science theory that the human race would be improved by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics that favor the white or anglo race — was alive and well long before Hitler came to power. In fact, the American Eugenics movement actually inspired Hitler. During the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century, eugenics was considered a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups (a.k.a. “white” groups — a shifting political label) in the population. These early ideas paved the way for racist and nativist reactions to emigration from Europe rather than scientific genetics. Meaning, as the Italian, Irish, and other immigrants poured into the country, eugenics was used as the basis for keeping those groups out. [Source]

The American eugenics movements received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune. Eugenics was championed by Ivy League scholars, Congressmen, and Presidents alike. One of the major campaigns emergent from the Eugenics movement was the restriction of immigration and scapegoating of immigrants, similar to what we see today. Another was the systematic sterilization of the poor and disabled. By 1910, eugenics had become so popular that even women’s suffragists groups were lobbying for eugenics legal reforms. Prominent birth control advocate and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger advocated for controlling birth rates among poor people, people of color, and the disabled.

Eugenics was popular among those who wanted the US to stay out of World War II, and until the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor, they were successful. Eugenics only fell out of favor because of the Nazi defeat in that war. Yet America never quite defeated the eugenics-based racial hatred in our country and culture, which is why it is no surprise that today the alt-right is echoing the cries of eugenicists. Indeed, signs with slogans like “defend the European race” are not new; the support of Trump for “extreme vetting” is just another form of advocacy for segregation.

Indeed, we often forget that there were many Americans who thought we entered the wrong side of the war. The Nazis received myriad support from the American business community and wealthy, WASP-y Americans, who seemed to see common cause. And while prior to the U.S. entering World War II, American support for the Nazis was never explicitly stated, the silence and refusal to help in the face of racial atrocities said everything. The racialized politics of the era lived on in America through segregation in housing (e.g. redlining), banking, xenophobic immigration policies, reactionaries against the civil rights movement, the Reagan era, the War on Drugs, etc.

Taylor’s lyrics in “Look What You Made Me Do” seem to play to the same subtle, quiet white support of a racial hierarchy. Many on the alt-right see the song as part of a “re-awakening,” in line with Trump’s rise. At one point in the accompanying music video, Taylor lords over an army of models from a podium, akin to what Hitler had in Nazis Germany. The similarities are uncanny and unsettling.

Aziz Ansari has aptly referred to the quiet support of white supremacy as “the lower case kkk”: that is, the quiet racial hatred that has played a role in the social, cultural, legal, and political history of America, and not just the “backwards” south as some may think. Quiet racism only needs subtle encouragement, and it seems that “look what you made me do” fits the criteria perfectly. The song “Look What you made Me Do” evidently speaks to the lower case kkk; and they have embraced it.

The day the song came out, Breitbart jumped on the lyrics on Twitter:  “I rose up from the dead, I do it all the time,” a line that they interpreted as racism and racial hatred rising from the dead. Those tired old beliefs about protecting the white race have found new racists to carry the torch (literally) and their beliefs into the 21st century. Breitbart and their loyal followers are central to the movement to be proud of being a racist, white supremacist and have the audacity to equate that with patriotism. And for liberal Bay Area natives like myself, who grew up with a healthy dose of 90’s era “racism is dead” propaganda, it feels like racism has risen from its grave with the stamina of a White Walker. While society at large seemed to reject racism as an abstract concept, the internet provided an “underground” space for racists to congregate without fear of retribution until Donald Trump encouraged them to come out in the open.

Taylor’s are lyrics that connect with whites that are concerned with what they see as the white dispossession of power. Breitbart highlighted another lyric on Twitter, the line, “but I got smarter, I got harder in the nick of time. Honey, I rose up from the dead, I do it all the time.” The lyrics were paired with the image of a story about a loophole for buying AR-15s. And the lyrics speak to even more than just unnecessary gun glorification but also to the white people who have been closeted racists for years.

Later in the song, there is another telling line: “I don’t like your kingdom keys. They once belonged to me. You asked me for a place to sleep. Locked me out and threw a feast (what?).” These lyrics are the most explicit in speaking to white anger and affirming white supremacy. The lyrics speak to the white people resentful of any non-white person having a position of power and privilege. Think of Barack  Obama: the fears of white dispossession of power were actualized in his success, which was a huge factor in the appeal of candidate Trump. He is a patriarchal, rich white man that embodied the anger and white supremacist ideology.

From the White House to the streets, chants like, “ you will not replace us” and call and responses like “whose streets” “our streets” were yelled by white men carrying torches in the night in Charlottesville a few short weeks ago are reminiscent of Swift’s lyrics. “I don’t like your kingdom keys, they once belonged to me,” is another way of saying, I will not be replaced and anger over white dispossession of power.

The lyrics validate those who feel that have been wronged, e.g. white people angry about a black president. The chant, “our streets” is similar to saying “you locked me out and threw a feast.” It is about feeling displaced, feeling wronged.  

In other words, these lyrics became the voice of the lower case kkk, and Taylor’s sweet, victim image is the perfect vehicle and metaphor for white supremacists’ perceived victimization. With the song at the top of the charts, it makes one wonder: how large is the lower case kkk? How much are people paying attention to the lyrics of the song? It is clear that Breitbart has embraced the song as being a white supremacist anthem, so why wouldn’t Trump’s base — and other white Americans that believe they deserve their white privilege — embrace it as well? And considering Taylor’s fan base is mostly young girls, does the song also serve as indoctrination into white supremacy?

It is hard to believe that Taylor had no idea that the lyrics of her latest single read like a defense of white privilege and white anger — specifically, white people who feel that they are being left behind as other races and groups start to receive dignity and legally recognized rights. “We will not be replaced” and “I don’t like your kingdom keys” are not different in tone or message. Both are saying that whites feel threatened and don’t want to share their privilege. And there is no way to know for sure if Taylor is a Trump supporter or identifies with the white nationalist message, but her silence has not gone unnoticed.

“Quiet racism only needs subtle encouragement, and it seems that ‘look what you made me do’ fits the criteria perfectly.”

Swift is not one for politics. She did not endorse Hillary Clinton until November 8th, 2016 on the eve of the election. She has stayed away from race conversations directly, but her music has been interpreted as racially offensive before. Her song “Shake it Off” has come under fire many times [salon]. The song has long been considered an insult to black America, yet it debuted at the top of the charts and is one of Swift’s biggest hits. It is clear her message of being white, pretty, and consequence-free is one that many in America have embraced. And like the quiet support that Trump received to the surprise of polls, Democrats, and the world, Taylor is giving support to the white nationalist movements through lyrics that speak to their anger, entitlement, and selfishness.

When Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, and Beyonce openly campaigned for Hillary Clinton, Taylor’s political silence appeared to be a rejection of her peers’ support of the inclusive Democrat platform. And when one of the most popular female artists in the world declines to join the many in her field in voicing for progressive politics, it could well be construed as her lending support to the voices rising against embracing diversity and inclusion emblematic of Trump supporters. Further, the single attacks other pop stars in the same way that the alt-right has attacked the “liberal” media. Taylor’s song identifies with the oppressed conservative trope, and the song is indeed their anthem.

Taylor Swift was called “Nazi barbie” by Camille Paglia, who stated that Swift is “a silly, regressive public image of white 50’s America.” That seems to fit nicely with the imagery of the alt-right. Her lyrics are like an affirmation for everything the alt-right has been feeling for years: oppressed, afraid to come out, and made to look like a fool. And now that they feel empowered, it befits the movement to have a white, blonde, conservative pop star that has no doubt been “bullied” by people of color in the media, singing their feelings out loud. And with a president that openly addresses hate groups and justifies racial hatred, this is not a time for neutrality.

And while pop musicians are not respected world leaders, they have a huge audience and their music often reflects their values. So Taylor’s silence is not innocent, it is calculated. And if that is not true, she needs to state her beliefs out loud for the world — no matter what fan base she might lose, because in America 2017, silence in the face of injustice means support for the oppressor.

AS MUCH AS I WOULD LOVE TO SEE KARMA COME TAYLOR SWIFT’S AWAY THIS IS BULLSHIT.

Max-Q

This is the start. We just made a decision that we must keep. I cant remember exactly what it was but I thought out the whole idea and it was beautiful, sexy, spontaneous, and all that great stuff. But its gone. I cant remember it any more so this is my attempt to remebering it as it was in that moment of escapism. This blog is for you. This is the start of becoming the person you are today, a letter from your past self. I’m making changes to this shit life. I started writing this thing like 6 days ago or something and I cant remember wtf I wanted to say. We had a revelation of what the future can bring if you just put everything into it. I want to break the boundaries and go above the limits of this shit life. 

user912968235, you are no longer bounded to your role. You are free to do anything. lets go to the fucking stars because we are literally ripping the mental shackles off. i can actually feel pain in my arms as im writing this. its probably from the way I’m sitting but I will not let the irony just slip by like so many other opportunities have. And right now what we need to focus on is the shit memory we have, or maybe by now, I have. I want this life to be writn by your hand and not the hand of an other. take control of this narrative, write a fucking campaign like some mad scientist on shrums. Lets fuck shit up. Lets find the love of our life. lets build a home where everyone wants to be, a place where people come and ask to stay. never turning down those you love. family, friends and just great people. 

Lets stay humble and work hard every moment we get. but also take breaks and let loose when the time is right. dont be lazy. because you had loads of time and youve wasted so much of it. But we are at a critical point, Max-Q aint no joke, we can really fuck it up here. We must start to plan out our future. I’m talking self image, ladies and career. we are starting at rock bottem because thats where i am. but not for long. this starship is not going to stay grounded for long. (starshitp just crashed) I’m talking werried i know. i must think about what I say before saying, my instinctive verbal responses are never wha people want to hear, lets start thinking. I have some serioius mental issues and the mind is so powerful. It should be functioning at max capacity, or else whats the point. i need to send this bitch to the garage because its not working right. Im going insane. like you cant stay focused on one thing and because of that you cant remember shit. like wtf dude, just slow down and live in the moment. remember to acknowledge yourself and the little victories. You hear this all the time and its kinda true. buit the difference is no one has your life and no one will ever have your life so no one can tell you what is right. you must decide. i must decide. and i have. i have decided to be an artist, a scientist, a pornstar, and teacher, a great son, a great brother, a great friend to those who are great. Im tired of esisting, i want to live. 

Lets do a recap: 2020 has been shit. I cannot remember shit because most of it you would rather forget. For instance, all the masterbation, the porn watching. you do it too much for not to be part of your income. Be a journalist for playboy or something. like please, get something out of looking at these computer ladies all the time. Diahann got away. that fucking sucked. We tought about contacting Erika, just get her to be a voice actress in you movie. that is your oplan on getting her back. uhm what else. look at how low dropping out of college is on this thing. why? like I really dont care, do I? so yeah we got to get back to that and finish. because we need to be done with it. just make sure to keep practicing and well finish. You did! Music still isnt a big part of our life. the world is at your fingertips and all you can seem to view is shit like google, and social media. this year youve gotten closest to drawing by searching things that influence you. We are going to sell advertisments. but we must build outr protfolio. you Just made the email adress today. that had to have been the easiest and hardest step you have taken. (the first little acievement acknowledged) What else... IDK whatever. time to focus on the future. 

So the plan is to not put somuch pressure on yourself, time to give yourself less to think about. stay busy. dont let anytime go to waste and use it on fewer things. or more things, idk , you dont do much as of right now. But yes. the remainder of 2020 will be used to plan for the future, we want hot chicks lots of money and true happiness in our future. lets get organized and lets change it up. i want three comics done, wake up being the focus, then that adult comic you have in mind with the black market and buying a girl. idk some crazy shit. just do it. let your demons free. think of the craziest shit and hide it in plain sight. fix your car and make it worth driving. because its kinda shit. focus your story to being about reusing. education, and storage. Maximize your brain and push it to its limits. do let the time slip. Time slippage is damaging your tools to grow. Plan on remembering more information. read. write. film. photograph, invest. do it. you cant continue like this. Plan like you are the person you want to be and you will becomethat person. And most importantly, you must reflect, that is the most important part rightnow. Work on a play. Make it powerful. that can be a form of reflection. but make sure you are planning a future that you want. you cannot be successful if you do not.

The girl: this is probably the biggest part to you rightnow. she is going to be everything you want. and you must be everything she wants. so think along those lines and do what you need to do make that happen. she going to be beautiful and you are going to keep being reminded everytime you look at her, and she will know by the way you look at her, wha you say and what you do. fuck her till she cant form sentences. Be that guy, thats who i want to be. i wnat small tits. please. you know!

And take it one step at a time. just try to be productive with your time. Keep learning. today Diana thanked me for opening up to her because when she asked how i was feeling i replied with” stressed horny tired and depressed” instead of the usual “ok” and she really liked that. i need to be better at talking to her but also choose your words wisely, she loves to talk. I dont trust her to keep a secret. that might be a friendship thats worth keeping though, i think her and Nani will get along. 

i am broken in so many ways. and a lot of is is simply neglect. pay attention to it all and fix it. start exposing yourself the be best and become the best. Train the brain everymoment you get. because right now its starting to feel like a burden. like your thoughts are holding you back, but instead they are whats propelling you forward. i am proud of who i am regardless of my past mistakes. Keep yout back straight and head up. 

Ihate doing something and it not being perfect. that is what is keeping me from doing anything, and now i have done nothing. i need to react to not doing something perfect differnetly then i have because i cant keep doing the same things, its whats keeping me back. you are gemini. what ever the fuck that means. if you need someone to hold you accountable, then stream your shit and act like someone is always watching you. Do porn. (<jesus fuck im funy) .

that brings me to the topic of astrology. i am going to study this shit like its some kind of science and im going to use this knowledge to fuck hot women. i swear its going to be a mind fuck of total satisfaction. yes. 

This is going nowhere at this point. back to future me. Adopt a kid and mold that mother fucker into a fucking jem. and be the kind of guy he will always look up to and he will become someone you look up to. acknowledge his ideas as an equal. and get strong. we gotta be able to protect them from anything. 

gotta look good too, start buying like you know who you are. you are everyone and everything is going this way for a reason. i wnat to be responsable and i need to look the part.

Yvonn Myren from Trondheim, Norway is majoring in Communication at Santa Barbara City College in Santa Barbra, California

Why did you decide to study in the USA?

I decided to study in the US because I wanted to get out of my comfort zone and experience a new culture. Coming from a relatively small city in Norway, I got tired of doing the same routines and following this “expected path of life.” I have always loved travelling and meeting new people, so I thought: “Why not start over in a brand-new place where nobody knows me?” It was a choice originating from the longing for a fresh start. The reason I chose California in particular is because I was fascinated by how open-minded people seemed. I wanted to be surrounded by positivity and encouragement, so I decided to experience this place for myself, and fell in love.

Why did you choose this particular college or university? What attracted you about your school? Please mention such factors as location, reputation, courses offered. What is special about your school and its location?

When I was doing my research- which lasted for approximately 5 years- I very much focused on factors like courses offered, location, and safety. I wanted to study marketing and communication, and Santa Barbara City College offered a variety of interesting courses in those fields. My favorites so far have been Interpersonal Communication, Public Relations, and Online and Mobile Marketing! The location is rated as one of the best ones in the country; it’s right on the beach, which was a big plus for me. Even after nearly two years here I am stunned every time I walk to class over how beautiful it is. The last thing that brought me here is the safety. SBCC really does a lot to make their students feel safe, and they have security on campus that will follow you home at night if you are walking by yourself. This is such a relief when you are moving to a new country all by yourself.

What do you like best about your program or university?

The thing about SBCC that is so incredible is how dedicated the professors are. I have met so many amazing and caring professors the past two years. It has been an eye opening experience for me. They have sparked my interest in learning and educating myself outside of school, and for that I am forever thankful. My college experience would not be the same without the support and care they have shown me, both academically and personally.

What do you miss most about home?

Whenever I am homesick, the first thing that I miss is my little brother and sister. I make sure to spend a lot of time with them whenever I am home to make up for the events I missed during the school year. However, I try to shift my mindset and look at it as something positive. They are my motivation to do well in school and accomplish great things. I want to be a good role model for them, and I believe following my dream and getting my degree will contribute to that.

What was your biggest surprise about U.S. life and education?

The biggest surprise about the American college culture has been the importance of getting in to the best school when transferring. (When you go from a two-year community college to a four-year university) Back home we do not focus as much on which school we attend, but rather what degree we will earn. Here, it is mostly about prestige and getting into the very best school in your area. For me, this has been an adjustment, because I simply did not care in the beginning, and wanted to settle with the first and best school I found. After a while, I realized that it does matter where you graduate here, and I need to work hard to get into a school that will provide me with the best education possible.

... your biggest disappointment?

My biggest disappointment must be facing the harsh reality that not everyone you meet is supposed to be your friend. I learned the hard way that if your circle of friends does not want the best for you, you should remove yourself from the situation and accept that you might be better on your own. Finding close friends might be harder than you realize, and personally, I don’t think you should settle until you find those who bring out the best qualities in you.

How have you handled:

... language differences? 

The language difference has never been a problem for me, because I’ve studied English back home since second grade. However, it did take a lot of practice and positive self-talk to be able to be confident talking to locals. Being an international student, you automatically find yourself surrounded by other international students, which is not the greatest way to practice your English skills. My suggestion is to connect with as many locals as you can on a daily basis and challenge yourself to take small steps every day towards your goal. It has helped me a lot, and it makes it easier to engage in class as well.

... finances?

Being an international student in general is not easy, because you will not have the same economic freedom as back home living with your parents. However, there are usually resources on campus that you can use for your own benefit. At SBCC you can apply for grants, scholarships, and financial aid, which all help your finances. When I entered my second year here, I decided to get a job to get some work experience, and of course, earn some money. I ended up being hired as the Social Media Marketing Intern of SBCC’s International Office, which was the perfect fit for me taking my interests and my educational path into consideration. It has helped me a lot financially, and it has led me to new friendships and new skills.

... adjusting to a different educational system?

Adjusting to the American educational system was a challenge because they require very specific courses to be able to transfer. For example, in California they have “University of California” schools, such as UCLA and UC Berkeley, but they also have “California State” schools, such as San Diego State University and San Jose State University. When I came here, I had no clue what the difference was, and no idea where I wanted to go next. I was uneducated about the different requirements, which led me to only being able to transfer to California State schools. Therefore, my biggest tip for international students is to do a lot of research even after you get here! Meet with an academic advisor and find out which classes you need to take to be able to transfer.

What are your activities? (clubs, sports, student associations, travel, homestay programs, special activities or trips sponsored by your program)

The last year has been very fun and hectic because I wanted to get more involved in the campus community. This has led me to such great things, and many new friendships. Recently I founded the SBCC Women’s Empowerment Club. We meet every other week, do fundraisers, and volunteer at local nonprofits. Clubs are so fun, and a great way to meet likeminded people. I also decided to join the Phi Theta Kappa Honors Society, and the Sigma Chi Eta Communication Honor Society, where I am the head of public affairs. I highly suggest joining honor societies because it will give you leadership experience, volunteer opportunities, and it will introduce you to many new people with the same interests.

How easy or difficult is making friends in the USA?

Finding friends can be harder than you think moving to a new country. Luckily, Americans are usually super outgoing, and easy to talk to. It just depends on how fast you meet the right people! This is why it is so important to put yourself out there! Go to events, join clubs, and have a positive mindset. You will not establish new friendships by simply sitting in your room. My best advice for finding good friends is to be true to yourself. You do not need to dress or behave a certain way to fit in. Be yourself and approach people with an open mind. You never know when you will find your new best friend.

What are your career goals? How is your U.S. education relevant to your personal goals and to the needs of your country?

My career goal is to start my own company one day, preferably related to communication or marketing. I know that my academic experience and the personal relationships I have formed over the last two years will make a big difference on how I approach that goal. Adapting to a new culture is such a great learning experience, and you discover sides of yourself you didn’t know you had. For instance, I have found that I am capable of planning and leading projects, setting up social events on campus, and connecting likeminded people! It has made me more confident that I am able to make a difference in the local community and that I should keep nurturing my entrepreneurial sides.

What is your advice to other students from your country who are considering a U.S. education?

If you are considering studying in the US, please do not hesitate. You are your own biggest critic, and I promise you that you can do whatever you set your mind to. It might seem frightening at first, but we are so adaptable. It doesn’t take long to feel at home. For me, this has been a life changing experience, and I am so entirely happy that I decided to study here. I have established lifelong relationships, learned so much about myself, and discovered my path for the future. It was definitely the best decision ever made.

Yvonn Myren

Download Study in the USA ® Magazines

What makes a game a good game? I’ve been thinking about this, as well as what I have to offer to the greater conversations that are perpetually in motion Online. Taking a break from my usual outlet due to a huge feeling of apathy, I looked back towards my younger days just posting whatever it was on my mind on Tumblr and thought that was a time I was more satisfied. Not with a byline or great recognition but just kinda creating and putting it out there for nobody but myself to look over on a portfolio. So here are some thoughts on game criticism and media and the way they are used and could be used.

There is no such thing as an objective review. A great example of this is Objective Game Reviews that would post “Game reviews that are fact, not opinion.” An example from their “review” of RAGE:

One of the weapons in RAGE is the “wingstick,” a thrown blade weapon that can slice off the limbs of enemies and return to the player. Wingsticks can be steered through the air by moving the crosshair, and if they hit a hard surface or an armored enemy they can break. The player can craft wingsticks and alternative ammunition with parts looted from the world or purchased from vendors. Normal ammunition can be looted from enemies and refilled during a fight, whereas if alternative ammunition runs out the player must pause to craft more.

Another great example is Jim Sterling’s “review” of Final Fantasy XIII. Sterling did not like Final Fantasy XIII, giving it a Below Average, 4/10, for Destructoid on March 16, 2010. Of course reactions ranged from “whoa!” to “you didn’t even play the game.” In response, Sterling wrote up an objective review:

The videogame has graphics and sound. The graphics are seen with your eyes and the sound is heard by your ears. When you start the game the graphics and the sound will occur almost at the same time, letting you know that the game has started. There is also text which players can read.

Gamers who cry out against reviews that are not objective just disagree with what is being said, and don’t actually want an objective review that is just listing the things in the game as factual statements with no opinion on whether those things are good or bad. The same can be said of those who cry that a reviewer is “biased” towards a certain game/company/genre/etc. Most famously this is hurled towards Nintendo reviews for games that are perceived as bad but get good reviews “because Nintendo.” Sometimes it can be hard to not fall into this trap, as my reaction towards Skyward Sword getting hugely praised in 2011 was viewed as coming from people who couldn’t help but worship at the feet of Zelda and Nintendo.

The issue though, of universal praise for nearly every major title every year is something worth discussing. Both Nick Capozzoli, Vincent Kinian, and Tevis Thompson have talked about this before, the latter with a bit more hostility and other issues all his own, but the fact remains that there is a deep hole of variety when it comes to game reviews. This isn’t helped by the fact that more sites are beginning to realize the stupidity of assigning a score to a game, as if a number can accurately sum up a game’s worth and that elevating all games on the scale of numerical weight means games never meant to be compared to each other will be. See the meme of IGN’s review of Party Babyz Wii whose 7.5 was copy+pasted next to “better” games that got a lower review score for years.

Tevis links back the inability for game critics to come out and say Red Dead Redemption 2 sucks to the universally praised Bioshock Infinite of 2013, a game that mainstream media made multiple offerings to in the form of breathless praise, whereas others wrote out their criticisms on the periphery, best exemplified by the recent Critical Compilation on the game.

One critic he mentions is Videogamedunkey, a YouTuber who puts out short videos about whatever game is currently in the discourse. His slant is generally as an entertainment, comedian, wanting to make his viewers laugh, but also he talks about what he liked in the game and what he didn’t like. With Red Dead Redemption 2 Dunkey’s conclusion is the excess bears down on the game and he became as disillusioned as protagonist Arthur Morgan does with his mentor Dutch. It’s a fine video/review, though doesn’t nearly have the bite Tevis appears to want with regards to Red Dead Redemption 2, a bite I personally found in Jess Joho’s review of the game for Mashable which most aligned with my own feelings on the game and one he does list. Listing Dunkey also either shows Tevis’ ignorance or agreement with another Dunkey video: Game Critics, which provoked lots of conversations about people who review games for larger sites. Though, reading through Tevis’ piece, that video might be why he apparently looks up to Dunkey for good criticism. It is not like some of the issues Dunkey lists are wrong.

You’ve got your fanboys, your hobbyists, your escapists.  Your ‘objective’ reviewers, your consumer advisers, your spec hounds.  Your people pleasers, your twitter cheerleaders, your industry bootlickers.  Your never hate a game philosophers, your games are hard to make sympathizers, your but some people like it! tsk-tskers.  You’ve got old critics who’ve given up and young critics who’re getting there.  You’ve got so many internet professionals and professional apologists.  The tired, the self-censored, the players of the game.  None mutually exclusive.  All guardians of the status quo.

I think the real issue here is that the required work to put into really proving this sort of thing is massive. Reading and sorting the reviews based on site and author, taking into account Twitter posts that extend the conversation into an endless timeline unsearchable by keyword due to the often vague nature of criticizing criticism publicly. There have probably been hundreds of tweets in response to just Tevis’ blog as well as games criticism in general. It seems like the conversation about reviewers, their role, their work, their compensation, their method, is repeated ad nauseum monthly. Games media loves to talk about games media. I mean here I am, someone much lower than those I’ve mentioned, talking about it myself.

This sort of work loses the point, about what is it that makes a game good? Objective reviews are useless, subjective reviews are useful. What makes a subjective opinion worth reading? What makes the work their talking about worth something? These are the sorts of things that have many answers.

Some small things to get out of the way are some more useless things, specifically the belief that a 10/10 means a game is perfect, is a belief that is hard to get around despite how simple it is. A 10/10 just means it is the pinnacle of what games can achieve and others should be more like this one. What constitutes a 10/10 is, as everything is, up to personal taste. For myself, 10/10’s practically don’t exist since no piece of art is without flaw. We are all humans. Remember before when I said assigning numerical value is stupid? Well given the circumstances of Metacritic, assigning a numerical score might not actually be a dumb thing when it's used as a statement, a punctuation at the end of your text. If Tevis used numerical scores in his reviews and got onto Metacritic he would be able to wield them much more usefully as a way to vocalize dissent through metascore than as just a page of text most will pass by without reading.

Phrases such as “Isn’t for everyone” or “not a perfect [x].” are also useless in terms of criticism. Not every game is made for everyone or could even accomplish that if it were the intention. That phrase can be applied to any and every game and is therefore useless. As mentioned before, no piece of art is perfect, so simply stating that as some sort of qualifier that, “I like this but it’s far from perfect,” is such a pathetic qualifier that should never be used.

A review worth reading is one that brings a point, a perspective, an idea that you didn’t have before about a piece of art and put it in your head. It also has to have supporting evidence for its conclusions, the sort of Philosophy 102 cogent argumentative qualities that blew my mind as a college kid. Given that we have already had decades of consumer grade reviews: ones that break a game into categories and tie them together into a qualitative statement at the end, that we would be able to move on from that into something different. This includes the derogatorily described “blog” reviews, ones that are less about whether or not the graphics never stuttered and more about whether or not a personal connection was made to a specific aspect of a game, whether large or incidental. These are the kind of conversations that bring something new than whether or not the guns sounded satisfactory. This is the sort of conversation that differentiates critical YouTubers like Raycevick from Noah Caldwell-Gervais. Both put out videos on the recent Wolfenstein series and both took very different approaches to what they wanted to say about the game. Raycevick was more focused on the mechanics, the variation of the map, the way it linked together its setpieces. Noah was more interested in what the game had to say about America, Nazism, and the ways to resist and cope with a fallen country. The former might make for a good quick recap of what the games are and what they do in a input-output sense (think right-trigger, left-trigger of Call of Duty), but it's the latter that does the digging into what the game is beyond whether the shooting was good or the stealth sections not too frustrating.

When ascertaining whether or not a game is good there are some easy questions to ask. Did I make an emotional connection? Was that emotional connection cheap (say showing a dog dying) or earned? Does the game have something to say about a topic and do I agree with or disagree with its conclusion about said topic? Did I enjoy spending time within the game and why? Was this a worthwhile spending of my time?

Mechanic’s based criticism is also valid, but personally less interesting. Does it matter if Anthem has good shooting and flying if the things surrounding it are bland? This is where subjectivity again comes in. So far, out of all the shlooters released, I’ve found that you can have the most mechanically satisfying circle, but if that is surrounded by mediocrity it doesn’t matter, it’s a bad game. I don’t care whether or not the shooting felt good in a game, I want to know if the things surrounding those mechanics is worth investing time into. Red Dead Redemption 2 had a rote shooting gallery mechanic underlying most all of its missions, and that couldn’t be saved by the characters and world surrounding it which left me feeling like I had wasted my time come the credits. Of course many felt the opposite, and its the ways we craft the arguments and explanations for why we felt that way that make a good criticism. A review is likely not going to and not meant to convince you that a game you hate is good, but it should at least allow you to understand why the author felt that way about it.

Something that has cropped up recently when covering games is the conditions under which they are made. As we, hopefully, work our way towards a labor revolution not only in games but across all aspects of culture, we have become more aware of the way corporations exploit the lower class workforce. AAA development means overwork, let’s not even get started on the lie of the 40 hour workweek, underpaid, and stress that routinely leads to the end of careers. Rockstar management came out and boasted about their 100 hour work weeks in New York Magazine, which was then qualified as just the writing team, and then was further qualified by a Kotaku report (that has been the norm) about the conditions under which Red Dead Redemption 2 was created. The question became whether or not this would affect reception of the game. It didn’t.

I sometimes struggled to enjoy Red Dead Redemption 2’s most impressive elements because I knew how challenging—and damaging—some of them must have been to make. Yet just as often, I found myself appreciating those things even more, knowing that so many talented people had poured their lives into crafting something this incredible.

The game currently has a 97 on Metacritic, there was only one “mixed” scored review, and even those who didn’t give scores offered only a slight hand wringing at the way the game was created in their text. Kotaku’s section ends with a shrug, “yeah the people who made this were exploited but I’ll be damned if that exploited work isn’t impressive.” It’s useless to have in the text as it leads nowhere, and the question of, “was their labor worth it?” should always be answered with a resounding NO. We are attempting to unionize the industry in order to keep exploitation from happening. What a fucking useless gesture to contemplate whether or not someone spending weeks crunching was “worth it.” It’s the sort of thing Tevis called out in his post,

They couch any troublesome truths in acceptable gamerese, outline all possible caveats, neuter any rhetorical force, maybe dress it up for their academic buddies while they’re at it.  Suddenly everything is ‘messy’ or ‘complicated’ or ‘full of fascinating contradictions’.  Sure, they’re ‘frustrated’, even ‘disappointed’, but they’re still rooting for the game.  And always with due deference to their audience.  It’s not for me but it’s cool if you and it’s totally just a taste thing now don’t get me wrong now I know what you’re thinking now I’m not saying that, y’all.

Some of this comes from the fact that games media is largely made up of, and rooted in, enthusiasts: people who do it out of a love for the media itself. This may best be exemplified by a recent (now deleted) tweet from Brian Altano, video host/producer at IGN Entertainment:

I've been working in the video game industry since 2007 and I don't think I've ever heard more than three people legitimately call themselves "game journalists" without being sarcastic, ironic, or putting it in air quotes while laughing about it. That's... not an actual thing.

Brian has never been someone you go to for criticism or news, the things journalists do. He exists to make you laugh, to entertain you. Going to Brian to determine whether or not you should buy a game will end with “Yes!” or “Maybe try it out.” Brian exemplifies the type of critic Tevis decries in his opening paragraph. He isn’t a critic, but he does represent a larger audience than critics do. There isn’t a real large audience for the type of work done at Bullet Points Monthly, or else their Patreon would be much higher than it currently is. People go to websites like IGN and GameSpot to have their already convinced minds reinforced that what they like is Important. This is why there are multiple articles whenever a new trailer or piece of information comes out about the next Star Wars or Marvel movie or Game of Thrones. These things are big so we have to talk about them and reinforce their importance, further enriching the pockets of corps like Disney, whose billion dollar company is immoral with its continued existence.

The roots of game criticism comes from the game magazines and websites of the 1990’s. Work that existed to be read and shared not because they did a good job interrogating the things they proclaimed to love but because they were entertaining to read and reinforced your love, whether it be Nintendo, Sega, Sony, or Microsoft. The same sort of circular reinforcement continues in the larger sites today, which is why AAA games will never fall below a favorable average on numerical compilation sites, with exceptions of course. Not that this sort of status quo is unique to just games media. Noam Chomsky, in the book On Western Terrorism, mentions how the media in the West give no time to dissenting opinion,

If you want to say that China is a totalitarian state you can say it, you know. If you want to say something like the U.S. is the biggest terrorist state in the world, they are not going to stop you, but you do sound like you are from Neptune, because you are not given the next five minutes to explain it. So you have two choices, to either repeat propaganda, repeat standard doctrine, or sound like you are a lunatic.

I hope you’ll forgive me for likening the universal love of game critics to the propaganda machine of western news media, as it's comically different in terms of importance, but the similarity is there. People who don’t conform to the generally accepted opinion on a game are labeled contrarians just looking to make a buck off a different opinion. Those who are praising Breath of the Wild are just Nintendo hacks. Those who call into question aspects of God of War are just SJW cucks.

Michael Thomsen touches on this status quo as well in his review of Jason Schreier’s book Blood, Sweat, and Pixels for The New Inquiry,

In these times, the most important task of game journalism isn’t to serve a public interest but to ensure that fans can continue to identify some version of themselves in the games they have played, and ensure future releases will allow them access to even deeper levels of self-expression and understanding. In playing the next game, owning the newest console, having an opinion on the latest patch, we feel like we can become stabler versions of ourselves, all at the cost of clearing out space—both mental and financial—for open-ended consumption of a form without any purpose beyond this increasingly tautological pleasure. This process is necessarily dehumanizing. Games matter because you are here to play them, and you remain here to play them because they matter.

We can do better, as being human is to strive to be more than we are (yeah its a corny Star Trek clip but that episode fucks me up). I think it should be obvious that better games criticism is probably pretty low in terms of importance when you look at other things, but I do think it has influence on creating and leading conversations, the kind that lead towards stronger rights for laborers and are more critical of the output of corporations who seek only to deepen their own pockets.

-clears throat- i got up on my soap box again. It’s just me bitching about self righteous assholes in fandom (tw: abuse, rape, other triggering issues) 

honestly at this point i’ve been in fandoms so long i legit dont give a fuck what other people ship. if i don’t like it i ignore it. if it makes me uncomfortable i take measures to avoid it. i don’t message people and tell them to go kill themselves over fictional characters. please get professional help if you do

nor is it my responsibility to cater to you if you blatantly choose to look at things that upset you. I’m not your mother. You have to take responsibility for your own internet experience. 

I read a fic that fucked with my head the other day. I didn’t know it would but it did. It put me in a bad headspace. It reminded me of some traumatic shit. Did I go ham on the creator because how dare they write something that upset me? Nah. It’s not their fault. They had all the proper trigger warnings in place. It just happened to hit a sore spot with me because of my own personal experiences which I recognize are very different from everyone else’s. 

sigh

the older i get the less i care because i realize it really does not matter what people like in fiction. Some of the best, kindest people I’ve met on this website ship horrifying ships, have some fucked up kinks or enjoy problematic characters. And some of the worst people I’ve met only ship ~pure ships~ and only love ~pure cinnamon rolls uwu~ or whatever. 

It’s fiction. It has no reflection on what someone is like as a person. How you treat other people however DOES. 

I could go on about how people use “discourse” as an excuse to bully people they disagree with but honestly a lot of people have said it much more eloquently than I. 

Just..tag your shit so people can avoid it (especially content like non-con and such). Be kind to each other. Take responsibility for your own internet experience. Create your own safe space because no one can do that for you. Nor should they have to. 

Fandom becomes a lot more fun when you do those things. And that’’s what it’s supposed to be. FUN.

just because someone wants to get fucked by a tentacle monster in fiction doesn’t mean they’re going to shove an octopus up their asshole.

ALSO if you think people have to tell you about their traumatic experience to justify shipping or enjoying something...you can go right to hell. You don’t care about survivors because if you did you wouldn’’t force them to reveal very personal info about themselves to avoid being harassed and bullied. You’re using survivors to further your bullshit moral crusade that makes you feel better about yourself and I want no part in it. 

Also you don’t speak for all survivors even if you are one yourself. I’m one myself and I don’t speak for all survivors. 

My personal opinion? You don’t need to be a survivor to be allowed to enjoy problematic things. It’s fiction. God damn. 

It reminds me of fatphobes try to claim they care about a person’s health when in reality they’re just using they facade of concern as an excuse to bully and abuse people they don’t like. 

Someone’s trauma is none of your business. what they enjoy is none of your business. 

If someone goes and does something they read about in fan fic they already had serious problems to begin with. 

Also frankly the belief that fiction causes people to do bad things actually takes the responsibility off the person. “Fiction with abusive relationships makes people abusive” no...abusive people make the choice to abuse other people. Don’t you dare take the responsibility off of them. I want none of that.

Abuse, rape, sexual abuse, murder, etc are all CHOICES people make. A fanfic they read once didn’t turn them into a monster. They already were one. This was already a desire they had.

And yes people can enjoy bad things in fiction and not want to do those things in real life. They can be and often are disgusted by those things in real life. They have a healthy distinction between fiction and reality. 

Also frankly I’m insulted by the idea that I’m going to think something is okay cuz I read a fic about it. “People will think it’s okay to be abused” woah woah wait? First you take the responsibility away from the abusers..and then you blame the victim. what you’re really saying is t’s ultimately their fault because they didn’t understand it was abuse? Many abuse victims don’t know it was abuse at first. That does not make it their fault.and it has nothing to do with that fic they read 5 years ago. 

Go on and on about how fiction reinforces social norms..I could argue it doesn’t and its more of a lens in which we can see problems that are already there.

Rape culture is rampant in fiction? It it because it is in society. The fiction did not cause rape culture. “It normalizes it.” it’s already normalized and frankly yes be critical of it but I’d advise you to focus and target the root of the problem instead of the symptoms. 

People exploring these themes and being fully aware these things aren’t acceptable in real life are not the problem. People who believe those things are okay are the problem

also

Real people are more important than fictional ones.

If anti’s put half the energy they put into harassing people on the internet into actually helping the real people they claim to care about they could do a lot of good. But whatever keep on jacking off to your belief you’re morally superior because you don’t ship reyl0 or whatever ship is the target of anti’s now days.

Which goes to show it is not about the issues they claim it’s about. It’s not about abuse apologism or rape apologism. It’s about some very sad, pathetic individual using important issues to stroke their ego and make themselves appear to be the most visibly enlightened or whatever. It’s about the people that pat them on the back and tell them they’re great! They’re good for doing this!! It’s all about ego. 

Sure some people might simply be misguided and have good intentions. Maybe they really believe they’re rooting out the fandom boogyman or whatever. But the real anti’s? They don’t give a flying fuck about survivors. 

So yeah I don’t give a shit what you get off too. I don’t give a shit what you ship. I might not like it but that’s my personal preference and it means nothing beyond that.  

Fan fiction has very little effect on society as a whole anyway. Maybe try focusing on media that actually does? Like television or big blockbuster films? 

Honestly fanfic is actually arguably more aware than any other form of media. With some exceptions..there are proper trigger warnings in place. People freely say “yeah this is terrible and i would never condone it in real life” and that already makes it far less harmful than something like 50 shades of grey. 

However I know I’m tired of having to repeat that disclaimer over and over again. It’s so annoying. It should be a give in. Stop assuming that because someone likes something they would support it in real life.

I want to see Negan and Rick fuck. Am I beating people in the head with a baseball bat? No. Do I think they kind of behavior is acceptable? Fuck no. Do I find the dynamic interesting? Yes. Hot even? Yeah because it’s fictional and it is perfectly okay to explore dark themes in fiction. Would I feel that way if I saw a dynamic like that in real life? Hell no. You best believe I’m going to be disgusted and contact the proper authorities. 

There is a huge difference between fiction and reality. Something anti’s don’t seem to understand. It would just be annoying if it wasn’t so harmful. When you start telling people to kill themselves, trying to ruin their lives with faux accusations, whatever. You become a horrible person. You become that terrible person you say you’re protecting everyone from. 

Just...enjoy what you enjoy. Tag your shit so people can avoid it. Block what you don’t like and have fun for fuck’s sake. Respect and be kind to one another. Take all that moral righteousness and channel it into something that actually helps people instead of actively harming them. 

Someone writing about something that upsets you, unless sent directly to you, is not a personal attack. People don’t have to stop writing about something just because you don’t like it. Different strokes for different folks and all that. Everyone has had different experiences in life and are effected by things differently.