#it's a safe space ship

[thebasementgirl]

It's a safe space ship 🚀🏴‍☠️

[alahasta]

as of yesterday, one of my bosses follows me on twitter and the other follows me on instagram, so this is my last safe space

[strifesolution]

And if I only could, I'd make a deal with God, and I'd get him to swap our places 🎶

[puppetmaster13u]

Prompt 167

Honestly, Danny is having such a good time right now. He gets to travel with Ellie, explore space, just have fun. Plus his secondary protector-instincts are having soothed despite him not technically doing any hero-ing anymore. Really his sister had the right idea when she decided she wanted to become a doctor, this is honestly a blast.

And if someone does end up passing away, well, Ellie is always happy to help soothe their spirit and guide them to the Realms where they can reach their respective afterlife. Or become a ghost. 

They are completely oblivious to the fact that there are now legends and entire temples dedicated to them now. Apparently accidental ascension is in fact a thing, as Dan later laughs at them about. 

[kiwisandpearls]

really really really hate when people say people shouldn’t ship certain ‘immoral’ ships because it could influences kids.

it is not the responsibility of people in online fandom spaces to restrict what they get ship for the sake of the hypothetical kids.

[bizarrescribblez]

anyways here’s a reminder that i love my non-sharing self shippers so much!! don’t let anybody tell you that you’re irrational or unreasonable or dramatic for being uncomfortable sharing your f/o!! your f/o loves you so so much and wouldn’t want it any other way!! 💕

[littlecrow4]

I have a confession to make…

I unironically ship FiddleStan it is so fucking cute 😭

I stumbled across it and was immediately infatuated with it the shit I’ve seen of it is so damned precious my heart can’t take it

Pls don’t disown me

[anunfortunatekinlist]

marauders fans: we separated the art from the artist, this fandom is completely separate from the source material;

also them, will degrade any writer who doesn't write a coffee shop au, or university au, or jegulus in the only acceptable grumpyboyxsunshineboy trope, bullying artists for drawing sirius with body hair, bullying writers for not writing your exact headcanons, not allowing for people to grow their own opinions (aka. making ATYD the "intro-fic"), and not supporting artists and writers who are not the fandoms "it-person" for the week.

Bro at this point give it back to that ugly terf.

[aaronsinferno]

Just gonna say this…

The BuckTommy hate isn't going to end anytime soon from buddies and it’s definitely going to get more aggressive when the show starts again.

They've been playing at this for six years, fueled by nothing but headcanons, twisted narratives, delusion, and theories that have repeatedly led them astray. So now that another character has swooped in, took the position they thought was reserved for their favorite “queer coded” hetero, and has gained a bit of momentum online, they feel very threatened/insecure and are going to make it everyone’s problem.

We've seen the lengths they’ll go to: from writing and spreading those vile fics to spreading queerphobic rhetoric, harassing cast, crew, and fans, and blatantly ignoring the source material to reimagine the show as they see fit.

If you want to truly enjoy this ship and the spaces you've created and joined to celebrate it, the best thing you can do is exactly that: enjoy it. Ask yourself why you're here, what makes you happy, and then focus entirely on that. Give little to no energy to any of their nonsense. It’s literally the only way we’re going to be able to thrive and actually enjoy ourselves from here on out. Because believe me when I say that they are having the absolute worst time and their behavior proves it.

Lets just have fun, guys

[incorrectcreepypastafam]

Toby: am I breedable?

Toby: to you?

Jeff: it is 8:45 in the morning

[sneezypeasy]

Why I Deliberately Avoided the "Colonizer" Argument in my Zutara Thesis - and Why I'll Continue to Avoid it Forever

This is a question that occasionally comes up under my Zutara video essay, because somehow in 2 hours worth of content I still didn't manage to address everything (lol.) But this argument specifically is one I made a point of avoiding entirely, and there are some slightly complicated reasons behind that. I figure I'll write them all out here.

From a surface-level perspective, Zuko's whole arc, his raison d'etre, is to be a de-colonizer. Zuko's redemption arc is kinda all about being a de-colonizer, and his redemption arc is probably like the most talked about plot point of ATLA, so from a basic media literacy standpoint, the whole argument is unsound in the first place, and on that basis alone I find it childish to even entertain as an argument worth engaging with, to be honest.

(At least one person in my comments pointed out that if any ship's "political implications" are problematic in some way, it really ought to be Maiko, as Mai herself is never shown or suggested to be a strong candidate for being a de-colonizing co-ruler alongside Zuko. If anything her attitudes towards lording over servants/underlings would make her… a less than suitable choice for this role, but I digress.)

But the reason I avoided rebutting this particular argument in my video goes deeper than that. From what I've observed of fandom discourse, I find that the colonizer argument is usually an attempt to smear the ship as "problematic" - i.e., this ship is an immoral dynamic, which would make it problematic to depict as canon (and by extension, if you ship it regardless, you're probably problematic yourself.)

And here is where I end up taking a stand that differentiates me from the more authoritarian sectors of fandom.

I'm not here to be the fandom morality police. When it comes to lit crit, I'm really just here to talk about good vs. bad writing. (And when I say "good", I mean structurally sound, thematically cohesive, etc; works that are well-written - I don't mean works that are morally virtuous. More on this in a minute.) So the whole colonizer angle isn't something I'm interested in discussing, for the same reason that I actually avoided discussing Katara "mothering" Aang or the "problematic" aspects of the Kataang ship (such as how he kissed her twice without her consent). My whole entire sections on "Kataang bad" or "Maiko bad" in my 2 hour video was specifically, "how are they written in a way that did a disservice to the story", and "how making them false leads would have created valuable meaning". I deliberately avoided making an argument that consisted purely of, "here's how Kataang/Maiko toxic and Zutara wholesome, hence Zutara superiority, the end".

Why am I not willing to be the fandom morality police? Two reasons:

I don't really have a refined take on these subjects anyway. Unless a piece of literature or art happens to touch on a particular issue that resonates with me personally, the moral value of art is something that doesn't usually spark my interest, so I rarely have much to say on it to begin with. On the whole "colonizer ship" subject specifically, other people who have more passion and knowledge than me on the topic can (and have) put their arguments into words far better than I ever could. I'm more than happy to defer to their take(s), because honestly, they can do these subjects justice in a way I can't. Passing the mic over to someone else is the most responsible thing I can do here, lol. But more importantly:

I reject the conflation of literary merit with moral virtue. It is my opinion that a good story well-told is not always, and does not have to be, a story free from moral vices/questionable themes. In my opinion, there are good problematic stories and bad "pure" stories and literally everything in between. To go one step further, I believe that there are ways that a romance can come off "icky", and then there are ways that it might actually be bad for the story, and meming/shitposting aside, the fact that these two things don't always neatly align is not only a truth I recognise about art but also one of those truths that makes art incredibly interesting to me! So on the one hand, I don't think it is either fair or accurate to conflate literary "goodness" with moral "goodness". On a more serious note, I not only find this type of conflation unfair/inaccurate, I also find it potentially dangerous - and this is why I am really critical of this mindset beyond just disagreeing with it factually. What I see is that people who espouse this rhetoric tend to encourage (or even personally engage in) wilful blindness one way or the other, because ultimately, viewing art through these lens ends up boxing all art into either "morally permissible" or "morally impermissible" categories, and shames anyone enjoying art in the "morally impermissible" box. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people responding to this by A) making excuses for art that they guiltily love despite its problematic elements and/or B) denying the value of any art that they are unable to defend as free from moral wickedness.

Now, I'm not saying that media shouldn't be critiqued on its moral virtue. I actually think morally critiquing art has its place, and assuming it's being done in good faith, it absolutely should be done, and probably even more often than it is now.

Because here's the truth: Sometimes, a story can be really good. Sometimes, you can have a genuinely amazing story with well developed characters and powerful themes that resonate deeply with anyone who reads it. Sometimes, a story can be all of these things - and still be problematic.*

(Or, sometimes a story can be all of those things, and still be written by a problematic author.)

That's why I say, when people conflate moral art with good art, they become blind to the possibility that the art they like being potentially immoral (or vice versa). If only "bad art" is immoral, how can the art that tells the story hitting all the right beats and with perfect rhythm and emotional depth, be ever problematic?

(And how can the art I love, be ever problematic?)

This is why I reject the idea that literary merit = moral virtue (or vice versa) - because I do care about holding art accountable. Even the art that is "good art". Actually, especially the art that is "good art". Especially the art that is well loved and respected and appreciated. The failure to distinguish literary critique from moral critique bothers me on a personal level because I think that conflating the two results in the detriment of both - the latter being the most concerning to me, actually.

So while I respect the inherent value of moral criticism, I'm really not a fan of any argument that presents moral criticism as equivalent to literary criticism, and I will call that out when I see it. And from what I've observed, a lot of the "but Zutara is a colonizer ship" tries to do exactly that, which is why I find it a dishonest and frankly harmful media analysis framework to begin with.

But even when it is done in good faith, moral criticism of art is also just something I personally am neither interested nor good at talking about, and I prefer to talk about the things that I am interested and good at talking about.

(And some people are genuinely good at tackling the moral side of things! I mean, I for one really enjoyed Lindsay Ellis's take on Rent contextualising it within the broader political landscape at the time to show how it's not the progressive queer story it might otherwise appear to be. Moral critique has value, and has its place, and there are definitely circumstances where it can lead to societal progress. Just because I'm not personally interested in addressing it doesn't mean nobody else can do it let alone that nobody else should do it, but also, just because it can and should be done, doesn't mean that it's the only "one true way" to approach lit crit by anyone ever. You know, sometimes... two things… can be true… at once?)

Anyway, if anyone reading this far has recognised that this is basically a variant of the proship vs. antiship debate, you're right, it is. And on that note, I'm just going to leave some links here. I've said about as much as I'm willing/able to say on this subject, but in case anyone is interested in delving deeper into the philosophy behind my convictions, including why I believe leftist authoritarian rhetoric is harmful, and why the whole "but it would be problematic in real life" is an anti-ship argument that doesn't always hold up to scrutiny, I highly recommend these posts/threads:

In general this blog is pretty solid; I agree with almost all of their takes - though they focus more specifically on fanfic/fanart than mainstream media, and I think quite a lot of their arguments are at least somewhat appropriate to extrapolate to mainstream media as well.

I also strongly recommend Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" which the author, a verified giga chad, actually made free to download as a pdf, here. His work focuses primarily on right-wing authoritarians, but a lot of his research and conclusions are, you guessed it, applicable to left-wing authoritarians also.

And if you're an anti yourself, welp, you won't find support from me here. This is not an anti-ship safe space, sorrynotsorry 👆

In conclusion, honestly any "but Zutara is problematic" argument is one I'm likely to consider unsound to begin with, let alone the "Zutara is a colonizer ship" argument - but even if it wasn't, it's not something I'm interested in discussing, even if I recognise there are contexts where these discussions have value. I resent the idea that just because I have refined opinions on one aspect of a discussion means I must have (and be willing to preach) refined opinions on all aspects of said discussion. (I don't mean to sound reproachful here - actually the vast majority of the comments I get on my video/tumblr are really sweet and respectful, but I do get a handful of silly comments here and there and I'm at the point where I do feel like this is something worth saying.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to defer to other analysts who have the passion and knowledge to give complicated topics the justice they deserve. All I request is that care is taken not to conflate literary criticism with moral criticism to the detriment of both - and I think it's important to acknowledge when that is indeed happening. And respectfully, don't expect me to give my own take on the matter when other people are already willing and able to put their thoughts into words so much better than me. Peace ✌

*P.S. This works for real life too, by the way. There are people out there who are genuinely not only charming and likeable, but also generous, charitable and warm to the vast majority of the people they know. They may also be amazing at their work, and if they have a job that involves saving lives like firefighting or surgery or w.e, they may even be the reason dozens of people are still alive today. They may honestly do a lot of things you'd have to concede are "good" deeds.

They may be all of these things, and still be someone's abuser. 🙃

Two things can be true at once. It's important never to forget that.

[domokunrainbowkinz]

You’re wasting all your faith on me

[fuzzylogic-27]

They're the same picture.

[wafflinglumos]

I walk out with a microphone and speak “Stripping away a female character’s traits and personality for a male character is wrong and is not a cool thing to do,” everyone cheers.

“Especially if the male character treated the female character like shit and wished death on her multiple times,” everyone cheers again.

“If the only way you can make your ship work is by completely desecrating one or both of the character’s personalities, maybe it’s not that good of a ship” everyone cheers and claps.

I say “Dramione” and get booed and thrown rotten tomatoes at.

[crab-boy-blues]

I can think of nothing but this man. Look at him. LOOK AT HIM.

[astraerystarr]

I'll finish this one day,,,,,, one day

He's so fun to draw too, the silliest,, come back home Rodan please