#( ps; I'm not saying anyone should or shouldn't like certain characters

[ashleywool]

This is ABSOLUTELY true and it is ABSOLUTELY ableist.

But I do also think people's "amazement" at our interactions could be a teaching moment because it's a testament to the unique relationship the seven of us in particular have with our fans compared to folks in other Broadway shows.

The thing is, autistic (and otherwise disabled) superfans have LONG been the unsung heroes of pretty much every single piece of media that's ever existed. Partly because when we love stuff we love it hard, but also because the nature of our marginalization often gives us more "free time" than our non-disabled peers.

Everyone knows that autistic people are passionate evangelizers of everything they love, and the Internet has blessed us with the ability to find community with other people who love the same things we love if we don't have access to those people in our non-Internet lives (or worse, if we are ostracized in our non-Internet lives for the things we love).

But disabled people with higher support needs (especially those who don't communicate verbally) are the most ostracized and marginalized of any of us. If they're on federal disability in the US, they can't work more than part-time (even at jobs they're fully capable of doing full-time) and even if they work more often, they can't be paid over a certain salary without losing their disability benefits. In How to Dance in Ohio, Mel tells Ashley, "Making sub-minimum wage for years because I'm disabled sucks." It's legal to pay disabled people less than minimum wage for doing the same job as their non-disabled colleagues.

To put that in perspective: if any of the autistic actors in our show were receiving SSDI, we wouldn't be allowed to earn the money we earn at our full-time jobs playing disabled characters. (This is another reason why I consistently push back against nonunion national tours--because without a union in place, that is exactly what would happen--legally--to disabled actors hired to play disabled characters. But that's another soapbox for another day.)

Of course we stop and talk to the fans. We appreciate every single one of them. That should hopefully go without saying.

But we stop and talk to the autistic fans because we are them. What they are to us, I was to Rent in 2002. And to Hanson in 1997.

And we talk to the higher-support-needs disabled fans because we know better than anyone that any of us are one accident or illness or bigoted piece of legislation away from being them. We give them our attention and respect because we know what it's like to be denied those things. We talk to them as equals because they are. Because none of us are free until all of us are free, even if their shackles look different from ours.

Acknowledging that doesn't make us "amazing." It shouldn't amaze people.

But it does amaze people because this is the first Broadway show where embracing and affirming the disability community in all its diversity is THE POINT OF THE WHOLE THING.

It's natural to be amazed and inspired when you encounter things you've never encountered before, and I've never been interested in demonizing people for being new to a conversation.

But take that amazement and do something with it. Ask yourself whose voices are going unheard in your workplace, your family, your friend circles. Ask yourself what biases are holding you back from hearing these voices, or actively seeking their contributions.

Ask yourself what you can do to normalize and desensationalize the things you find amazing.

PS/disclaimer: None of us owe anyone a relationship beyond artist/fan. We care deeply about our fans as human beings, and we care deeply about how our advocacy work affects them. But part of that care also means maintaining an awareness of the power dynamics that come with being any kind of public figure, and setting boundaries with fans accordingly. Equitably assuming positive intent goes hand in hand with equitably avoiding or disengaging from problematic fan behavior.

People really need to stop praising people for showing basic ass respect. The other day, I was having a conversation with an AAC user at the stage door and some audience members kept interrupting to try talking to me, but I told them to hold on, since I was talking to someone already.

After our conversation, some audience members were coming up to me like "wow, you're so amazing for stopping to speak to them" like why wouldn't I? I stop to speak to audience members, that's what I do. I shouldn't be praised for speaking to someone because they communicate in a different way to me.

Start treating other people with respect although they may be different than you. It's basic human decency. I wasn't "going out of my way" to talk to them. It was a regular ass conversation. It wasn't a bother to me. I wasn't in a rush.

Stop praising non-disabled people for interacting with disabled people. Also stop praising disabled people for interacting with disabled people that have higher support needs than them. It's the bare minimum.

Like seriously. It's ableist.

[hcpefulmarshmallow]

Hello friends, I just wanted to make a quick case for some of the lesser-liked characters in the series. Mostly our blackened, but pretty much anyone who does something morally questionable, directly related to the killing game. There are a lot of people in this fandom who are highly critical of some of them - which is fine, it’s okay to be critical of your media. But there are some important things to remember I just wanted to bring up:

 (Oh, and I’m mostly talking about 1 & 2 because hoo boy v3 is on a whole other level and gets SO much more complicated)

 --These people were kids at the time. Even though technically they were older than they thought they were, their memories had been wiped, and their minds (and in some cases, bodies) were reverted to their 16/17 year old selves. 

 --They were thrust into an extremely difficult situation I challenge any adult to face, and come through morally pure. What passes for ‘good’ in the real world isn’t the same as what’s good in a game where it’s kill or be killed. Can you honestly say that there’s no situation on Earth, even one that seems near impossible, that would push you to go directly against your own moral code?

 --Recall, if you so bravely will, the discourse around the H.unger G.ames when it was first released, and all the discussion about the ethics of the tributes themselves. The general consensus was usually: no, they aren’t evil, they’re children put into an impossible survival situation by adults. Even the careers, who trained for this their whole lives, were brainwashed into believing in the “glory” of being a victor. It’s the adults that sanction the child killings who are evil. The tributes might not all be likable, but that’s not something they deserved to die over.

 --I’m not saying this gives the characters a free pass. It’s still pretty inexcusable to physically or sexually harass someone, but under these circumstances, there are some things that require a closer look. 

 --For instance, Sayaka gets a lot of crap for luring a fan to his death. And yeah, under normal circumstances, that would be an abhorrent things to do. But these aren’t normal circumstances. We have no indication Sayaka planned to kill anybody at the beginning, but that all changed for her rather quickly when she saw her DVD. The game was no longer a game. It was a trolley problem. She had to choose between her band - the people she considered family, who she loved more than anyone in the world - and this group of strangers she thinks she’s never met. Imagine yourself in that context. A teenager, terrified out of your wits, cut off from the outside world, surrounded by people who might try to kill you, and forced to choose between them and your closest loved ones. Again, not exactly righteous, but at least sympathetic. 

 --Let’s take a more grey example. Teruteru, who I personally struggle with and love as a character at the same time. I love the role he plays in the story. From a narrative sense, his character is used well in my opinion. He knew about Nagito’s little plan, but chose to do nothing about it. In fact, he used it to his advantage to commit murder and try to escape the island. He claimed he was just trying to save everyone else from Nagito, but that has a glaringly obvious fallacy: the trial. If he got away with it, everyone else would have died anyway. He could have, and should have, just told the others. I truly believe this lie about ‘saving’ everyone is something Teru told himself to justify his actions. If you recall, he was established early on as being the most terrified. He spent most of his time trying to deny what was before his very eyes, because he was singularly incapable of comprehending any of it. That already makes him the easiest to manipulate, and the quickest to do stupid, thoughtless things. And then he learns that his mother’s life might well be in danger. Once again, he has to make the choice whether to try and save his loved one and sacrifice everyone around him to do it, or...not. And I’m not saying there’s a right answer to this conundrum. Either way, you’re doing something you’ll regret for the rest of your life. But when you factor in his age, his fear, and his love for his mother, his actions become far more understandable. Does this absolve him of his other bad behaviour? Certainly not. It’s entirely valid to be made uncomfortable by a guy who uses a girl’s perceived naivete to coax her into a sexual situation, or speculate about the colour of womens’ panties, no matter how much he loves his mama. But remember, not all immorality is created the same.

 --Does love justify murder in any context? That’s for a higher power than me to say. Danganronpa doesn’t pretend to present a typical good vs evil narrative. It doesn’t try to make it easy for us. It doesn’t try to tell us that all people are good or evil, black or white, one or the other; and the characters that frame the world this way tend to have quite skewed moral compasses themselves. To hate a character isn’t to condemn everything they ever do, and to love a character isn’t to endorse their every action. And you’re allowed to like or dislike whoever, based on whatever you want. 

 --That said, when drawing your own conclusions, take in more than just the characters. Take in their lives, their circumstances, and then make up your mind. You’re also allowed to be sympathetic towards a character you dislike, or find fault in a character you do like. Again, it’s not all up or down here. Take in the type of story this is, and the fact that if all the ‘good guys’ were purely good, it would be a rubbish story. Take in the fact that these terrified kids are being manipulated at every turn, and while that doesn’t heal the damage they do, it certainly makes them more redeemable. Take in the fact that, while they do some messed-up stuff, most of these kids are good and harmless under normal circumstance. The circumstances under which most of us live our lives. They might be somewhat immoral, but we’re not necessarily any better. And the only way to know for sure, is to actually be in that situation. The only way to know your limits, is to find them. And I sincerely hope none of us ever have to find out whether we’d kill or be killed. But if you write off everyone in the story who ever did anything bad, decide that makes that character automatically unworthy of your interest, then you’re missing the best thing about DR, my friend. At least, that’s my tea on the matter. 

Tl;dr: it’s okay if characters in a work of fiction do immoral things, even if those characters are supposed to be the ‘good guys’. There’s no such thing as a morally pure human. Be critical, by all means, but don’t criticize.