#fan culture is important!

[finalgirlsamwinchester]

guy who so desperately tries to find god. who wants to have faith in a higher authority to guide him out of the hole he's in. from the weight of guilt from simply existing, as the person he is. but every time he thinks he's answered his higher calling it turns out he's made the Morally Incorrect choice and his path to goodness and holiness was the road to the devil all along

[starlooove]

“Fandom isn’t fun anymore fandom isn’t fun anymore” tbh it just feels like white racist “normies” jumped in as opposed to white racist nerds and for me personally u can feeeel it kinda but it doesn’t change much

[billfarrah]

I wanted to highlight this portion of Omar’s new interview because I think it’s really important. I’ve seen a lot of people in the fandom use the word queer to describe Omar even though he has never personally used those words to describe himself and while I understand there is never any malicious intent there, queer is still a label and labels are still very, very personal for people and Omar has stated many times he does not wish to label himself or talk about his personal life. I think he made it clear here he does not wish to be referred to as queer. He is setting a personal boundary and that is extremely important to respect. Queer should not be used as an umbrella term for anyone who doesn’t fit into heteronormative structures and reading into and projecting onto people who fall outside that norm actually can be harmful.

I’m gonna bring back what Tyler James Williams had to say on the subject:

I’m not saying that it’s dangerous in this case, or in every case, but it can be and I think it’s important to remember that the public figures we follow do not owe their fans any explanation regarding who they are or what they identify as or who they date. They should be free to speak about it if they choose to.

[fiftytwoeightythree]

things that annoy the hell out of me in the atla fandom and when i see them i start screaming in the void:

• claiming that suki's part wasn't that important: she can easily be eradicated from the story and wouldn't change much.

• how iroh should've also supported azula not just zuko and how problematic was of him to only be near his nephew.

• who is the biggest mysogynist: sokka, zuko or aang. (season this with the "all atla girls are perfect and innocent" take).

• who apologized and who hasn't throughout the show and why this is damaging and bad for the youths.

• that aang basically sexually assaulted katara at ember island and always forced himself at her.

• that zutara is a canon ship (lmao) and just overall the kataang and zutara shipping war (where the main debate is on how zuko's character and age matches katara better than aang's)

• the iroh is bad vs iroh is good debate (i've covered it already, and that's the first and last issue i'm gonna comment on in this fandom)

• that how kiyi is a replacement for azula.

• that how katara snapping at zuko when he joined the gaang was out of line.

• that aang not being able to fully master and own the avatar state was pathetic and barely believeable.

not in particular order. and this list is way longer, these are just things i've seen recently.

[sjbattleangel]

Public Service Announcement: Please, stay away away from HellYeahHeroes, Ubernegro, Chadfarsight*, KK4EverStuff, and Cohore.

*I'm aware Chadfaresight doesn't speak to HellYeahHeroes anymore but she's still responsible for spewing the very same toxicity.

HellYeahHeroes/HellYeahTeenSuperHeroes, Ubernegro, Chadfarsight, Cohore and others are the most vile, most pettiest, most hateful people who have no right to call themselves "comic fans".

[Trigger warning for screencaps in the links] They will personally target comic writers using hyperbolic, personal attacks on them: Disgusting insults, making horrible assumptions of them like calling them "Hacks" multiple times, along with "Pussys", "eugenists", "homophobes", "perverts", "mysoginysts", "sex offenders", "cowards", "rape apologists", "fascist sympathizers", "Nazi apologists", "dog f***ers", telling them to "lick goats" and more.

The way they talk about writers like Jason Aaron, Jonathan Hickman, Ed Brisson, Matthew Rosenburg, Dan Slott, Donny Cates, Brian Michael Bendis, James Tynion IV, Scott Snyder, Joshua Williamson and others, it's clear that they hate them solely as people. In fact, they have held a deep personal hatred for them WAY before they read any of their works. Yet they will happily mask what is clearly a bloody vendetta against people ,who never harmed them, under a smokescreen of "criticising crappy writing" and wanting their favourite characters "treated with respect".

KK4EverStuff has gone on to send death threats and wish harm upon creators, it's very possible HellYeahHeroes, Ubernegro, Cohore and Chadfarisght have done so too.

Please, report and block them. They are the most hate-filled toxic people to ever exist in the comic fandom.

Eventually, My friend Samasmith23 and I bumped into @Majingojira and told him HellYeahHeroes and co.'s behaviour since he is their friend. Because of his more chilled, open-minded attitude, we thought he would listen to us and condemn this behaviour but instead...

...he just kept shifting the goalposts; using whataboutisms: Like "Oh, HYH doesn't talk about comics anymore", "KK isn't a member of our group", "That was old stuff", "he (Samasmith) should hold SJBattleAngel to a similar standard", "Screencaps as ammunition is a C*micsgate tactic" and others.

He then suggested that I "fabricated" the screenshots.

But worst of all?

He made excuses for their abhorrent behaviour towards creators. He dismissed our calls for acountability as "tone-policing", being "puritanical", operating under "Tumblr Morality" ect.

He even excused HYH and co's attacking of comic writers by saying: "Complaining about insults towards creators is rich when creators themselves are generally okay with its existence. Just don't do it to their face."

NO.

Calling for innocent creators to be fired is NEVER "okay"!

Telling them to "lick goats" is NEVER "okay"!

Attacking them as "perverts", "eugenists", "fascism apologists" is NEVER "okay"!

Encouuraging harrasment against them NEVER, NEVER "okay"!

Sending them literal death threats is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER "okay"!

Majingojira turns a blind eye to toxic fan harassment and, by doing so, enables it. Stay away from him.

I've wrote to multiple comic/nerd/fandom blogs on Tumblr, telling them about HellYeahHeroes's and his friend's toxicity; asking them to shame this sort of behaviour. But most never reply back. They probably think I'm some sort of "troll" trying to "start drama". And I don't blame them, HellYeahHeroes, Majingojira, Ubernegro and others are some of the most beloved, well-respected comics/social justice bloggers on this website, I understand looking up to someone thinking they could never do any wrong. I know because I was once one of those people.

You know, this takes a toll on my mental health: Trying to tell people that some of the most revered members of our communities are actually horrible pieces of work, but they don't believe you. It's like being trapped in a room all alone, with no door. You scream the truth at the walls, hoping a door will appear. But it never does, and you're stuck forever with no-one to hear your cries. And it hurts. This pain of never being believed.

I hope you all understand.

I just want our community to be safe and healthy. Please, believe me.

Dear @Hellyeahheroes, @ubernegro, @farsight-the-char @Cohore,

The way you targeted and demonized creators like Dan Slott, Tom King, Donny Cates, Jonathan Hickman, Ed Brisson, Matthew Rosenburg, Grant Morrison, Jason Aaron, Brian Micheal Bendis, Adam Glass, Tom Taylor, Scott Snyder, James Tynion IV, Joshua Williamson, Rian Johnson, Neil Druckman was just disgusting and horrible. You have every right to dislike their work but to personally attack and vilify them is unacceptable! They are not "misogynists", they are not "creeps", "they are not "racists", they are not "antisemites", they are not "eugenists", they are not "fascist sympathizers", they are not "Nazi apologists", they are not "closeted Neo-Nazis" but most of all: They are not "hacks!"

To @Hellyeahheroes, @ubernegro, @farsight-the-char, @Cohore,: Seeing your disturbing parasoical hatred of creators like Slott, King, Cates, Hickman, Brisson, Rosenburg, Aaron, Bendis, Snyder, Tynion Williamson, it's clear that outside of comics, way before you read any of their work you've always held a personal vendetta against them as people.

Why? Did they personally hurt you or your loved ones? Did they ruin your lives? Even if they did, that gives you no right to email them countless death threats!

I don't know what you think but personally attacking these writers and sending them death threats will not magically undo the likes of One More Day, Robin: One Year Later, Avengers Academy: Arena, Avengers Undercover, Heroes In Crisis! No! Your actions are the very reason people see nerd fandom as a toxic cesspool of bullying and entitlement. And you're just proving them right!

Apologise, do better or leave.

Tell Lily Orchard, CinemaSins and Mr. Plinkett I said hi.

[musical-chick-13]

Regarding the whole "Fandom Is An Escape, so why should I have to care this much about misogyny/racism/ableism/transphobia/etc." thing. Idk about the rest of you, but it gets kind of hard for me to "escape" when I keep seeing people say the same vile things about characters who share aspects of my identity that I hear all the time in real life.

[fairyhaos]

It's crazy how much Seunghan is getting more hate for having a girlfriend before debut than (...) for wearing a nazi shirt.

look, what she did was really stupid n there was no way she didn't know about that symbol, but I really hope she changed.

What I don't understand is why the public is more upset about Seunghan having a girlfriend and smoking than about someone who promoted naz...

Not even JK was hated so much when that video of him smoking was leaked. I can't understand why they hate Seunghan so much.

agreed! i literally cannot fathom what's going on either like this is just not on. having antis literally forcing him into a multi-month hiatus and actively promoting the idea of ot6 without seunghan is just????? crazy. kpop fandoms have become so unbelievably toxic and so removed from reality that they genuinely think it's okay to do things like this when it's not.

like this isn't even about the extreme parasocialism anymore (even though that's a whole other dangerous concept by itself), bc this is about fans' entitlement and also the absolute mess that is the kpop industry. "fans" deciding to blacklist seunghan bc he's had a gf before is insane. and sm dropping seunghan just like that was so unexpected and also kind of shows they just don't care? no one is on the idols' side and that's just so scary to me because nothing about this makes sense at all

[carta-velina]

This is not it. Boycott, use the anger and uneasiness towards pressuring institutions, informing those around you and donating.

Sending hate mail, cancelling and harassing a singer and expecting some apologies from them will do nothing if not make you feel better about yourselves - nothing good for the Palestinians will come out of it

[crownedwithstars]

hot take: when the Valar ask Fëanor if he will give up the Silmarils in order to heal the Trees, this is not actually a choice about property.

it's a choice about Fëanor's own soul.

because if you look at the scene and the timeline, it becomes clear that by the time this question is asked, Morgoth has already done away with the Silmarils. even if the Valar went after Morgoth immediately, it seems doubtful they could find him, bring him down and reclaim the Silmarils before the roots of the Trees decayed.

so the Silmarils are already gone, although none apparently know that. but this doesn't mean that Fëanor's choice is less important, because now it's about what course he will take. Does he agree to give up the Silmarils, and free himself from their frankly unwholesome grip over his life, or reassert his property rights in this hour of need?

Tolkien even says that it may seem that Fëanor agreeing or disagreeing wouldn't have made a difference, but still his agreeing would have directed his later actions in some other way.

Fëanor could have saved himself but would not, and that is just as tragic as the death of the Trees.

[what-is-love-babey-dont-hurt-me]

Kirby franchise has been one of my favorites I’ve been a fan of so far, but I gotta admit (compared to my past fandoms I’ve been a part of) the fandom is slightly less fun for me because the fanbase (from what I’ve seen) does not value fan created content nearly as much as other fandoms. Kirby fandom isn’t exactly small and yet so much fic and art I see won’t get any traction or recognition it’s kinda a shame

[fortheturnstiles]

had an absolute whirlwind of an afternoon in class today finding out my film professor is not only a neil young fan but a monkees fan. and like a real die hard michael nesmith guy . isn’t that wild. and i never would have known if i hadn’t brought up the monkees in a conversation that was not about them because i’m a crazy person. he also brought up chrome dreams which completely sent me into the stratosphere i just love music and i love people who love music and that we can share that together as people . isn’t it wonderful. that’s why we’re all here isn’t it

[whositmcwhatsit]

I'd happily stay there even if that bus was moving

[horsegirl-curtis]

wdym people are against slime tutorials

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

Do you think the Taylor NYT piece outed her?

This question can only really be answered alongside a consideration of what it means for a major media entity to out a celebrity.

First there's what outting means for the individual. I do think it's important to distinguish between this article and what The Sun does. Taylor is very definitely not out now.

However, on the individual level there are two aspects of that piece that I think are completely unacceptable, a huge violation of boundaries, and the NYT should never have published them:

A detailed list of why the author thought that a living person who was not out was queer (including a detailed theorising that they might have been planning on coming out and then decided not to).

An extended discussion where the author talked with authority and certainty about the sexuality and experience of the sexuality of a living person who was not out (the last section).

To have those conversations in a cultural forum that has has a huge general audience and authority is a violation - and a conversation in that forum has nothing in common with the way those same discussions have been taking place in queer spaces for as long as they've existed.

I think one of the biggest indicators of the indefensibleness of publishing in the New York Times - was the explaining of 'hairpin drop'. The whole point of a hairpin drop (to quote the article itself) is that only some people will understand it. The audience for a hairpin drop is only the people who already understand it. If you're using broadcast media to explain hairpin drops to a wide audience - then that is a cultural violation as well as an individual violation. It actively kills queer culture whose purpose is to allow queer people to communicate with each other without wider straight culture noticing to write an explainer for straight people about it in NYT.

(I also don't think she did a very good job - I think Taylor has had sex with women - and I was like - none of this is convincing)

********

But I think it's a mistake to think about the media outting as just being about individuals. Media outting also has a policing role - the effect of outting in major media (and often explicitly the purpose) - is to single that someone has crossed a line - and to warn other people that there will be consequences if they cross the same line.

So my biggest concern about this article isn't about Taylor (it's never about Taylor). What this article said reasonably explicitly - is that if you engage in any form of queer culture - including culture that has been developed to explicitly talk to queer people in plain sight without being intelligible to a wider culture - then cultural norms about your right to disclose your own sexuality and right not to be outted do not apply to you. But it's not just the fact that the article was making that argument that is the problem. By publishing the article the NYT wasn't just endorsing that argument - it was enacting it.

I think the line that is being policed here is not about queerness directly - but about queer culture. The argument is that closeted people can't and shouldn't engage with any queer culture. That's the message that young queer artists who don't know how they want to discuss their sexuality publicly yet will have gotten loud and clear. It's the message that closeted kids will take - that queer culture is for when you are ready to be public about your sexuality - that it is not yours until you have taken that step - and can't be part of figuring out

That policing is the through line between this NYT pieces and other media outtings. And that is ultimately why I thought that article was destructive and wrong.

[mariathechosen1]

Seeing a lot of people criticize Netflix’s 3 Body Problem for its casting choices (which I understand, they’ve definitely made an…….interesting decision), but when it comes to criticizing it as a show I think many are being a bit unfair.

I get that a lot of people don’t like it when adaptations change elements of their favorite book, but this show was honestly pretty well made! Not to mention visually stunning!

I watched it with my dad, who has read all the books and who’s a really big fan, while I’m only vaguely familiar with the book plot, but we both really liked it! I definitely agree with some critics that the show sometimes struggles (especially in the first episodes) with giving us proper direction and motivation (something/someone to root for ya know?) but that fixed itself a bit as we got to know the main cast more and more. The show’s biggest flaw (except for all the weird af adaptation choices) is that they don’t give us more time with our main cast. They can be a bit flat at times, and I really feel like most of them carry a lot of unexplored potential.

Onto the positives: The way these guys do dialogue is just *chef’s kisses*. It’s smart, it’s layered, it’s funny and they never made exposition boring. I think a lot of the characters were ‘saved’ by just how great the dialogue was. Characters like Wade very quickly became favorites because of just how entertaining they were, while, on the other side, characters like Auggie seemed a bit ‘dull’ at times (though Auggie definitely became better once they gave her more agency). The show’s characters almost seem divided into two categories: Those with emotional depth, but dull dialogue, and those with no depth, but awesome dialogue. Sometimes it balances itself out, other times it’s a bit frustrating.

I was also pleasantly surprised by how they handled the horror element of the story. While probably not as effective as in the original book (converting written to visual horror is a challenge of its own caliber.), there were several scenes that very much scared the shit out of me.

I also cried……several times. Kudos to Alex Sharp for a breathtaking performance.

I think this show is best suited for two types of people: 1) People who haven’t read the books, but who are interested in some nice sci fi, and 2) Book fans…….who aren’t too emotionally attached to the original storyline.

[darabeatha]

ANYWAYS- I don't have much energy in general but I just wanted to drop by and say I had a thought in regards to the rather unique shape of the scar on his forehead in his fate design (which is a reference to the oftentimes more commonly known version of his story that recounts the motif of his death being by dying from his people throwing rocks at him which is the version f.ate seems to have followed) that it's not just there to represent this version of the story but could also be a reference to an iconographic pre-Hispanic attribute from Tezcatlipoca itself that is called the Ezpitzal, which is this:

(though in this piece, Tezca is shown under the guise of Tepeyollotl, it's still tezca) The Ezpitzal is often shown as a stream of blood that emanates from Tezcatlipoca's head. Professor Batalla pointed out that this term also relates to the Nahuatl concept of expressing anger

'it’s worth remembering that Tezcatlipoca was a god notorious for sowing discord and deceit'

So I just thought of how fitting it would be for M.octezuma to have this and how similar it looks to his scar (or well, how fitting it would be to a fictional stylized version of course) as M.octezuma's name is basically a compound of the noun 'lord' and the verb that means 'to frown in anger' which altogether gets interpreted as 'he who frowns like a lord' or 'he who is angry in a noble manner' and well, how this ties back to the Ezpitzal as a symbol that expresses anger

NOW IT COULD just be the shape of his scar and there's no deep meaning behind it but I still think it would be a nice little detail about his design if that was the case (if not then its just me overthinking symbolisms again), not to mention that even after the Spanish conquest took place and how as a consequence, a lot of characteristic traits and symbolisms were lost in regards to images, even then the Ezpitzal was still depicted (though barely there) with these protruding rounded edges