#media literacy challenge go!

[detectivekirigirislays]

"izuocha is canon because ochako likes izuku!" OK WELL IF THATS THE CASE, THEN ISNT TOGACHAKO TECHNICALLY CANON BECAUSE TOGA CANONICALLY HAS FEELINGS OF LOVE. LITERAL LOVE. FOR OCHAKO???

[sadko101]

today i made the mistake of arguing with an ascended astarion fan on tiktok

//just a rant//

they said he deserved ascension after all he went through and i replied that "he doesn't, he deserves better than becoming an abuser and loosing himself" and now everyone is telling me im shaming someone for stating the FACT that astarions bad ending is ascension and that him being a spawn is a better one. i also said that he was no longer astarion and just a husk of his former fear and motivations.

do not make my mistake friends, stay away from ascended astarion fans

some of the arguments were:

"he suffers everyday as a spawn" yeah i suppose he does with his hunger and inability to go in the sun, but he is clearly happy in the epilogue, he accepts his struggles and is still HAPPY!! stupid argument

"he is safer as an ascendant" nuh uh, he is powerful now, known and powerful making him a target for other powerful people or beings. objectively it puts him on the map and makes him a target. whose to say in years to come someone he possibly enslaved gains the power to turn on him as well and he ends in a similar way to how cazador did.

the genral "he loves tav/durge" no. no he doesn't. i dont need to elaborate

(also i wasnt telling them to NOT ascend astarion, i was just correcting them when the suggested it was a good outcome for him when it is objectively not. ascend him if you want guys!!!)

[gwenene]

Sorry but I genuinely hate people who dumb down Heizou’s character as sexual just because of his slightly suggestive voicelines. I know fandoms making characters seem very one-dimensional is common but like. Did we not play the same hangout.

[cartoonchaos]

“gee i wonder why there’s still so much more fanfiction about male characters” “we need more morally complex female characters” “i love relationships that are doomed by the narrative” “more stories need to treat mentally ill characters with compassion and respect” “all his problems could’ve been fixed if he only went to therapy” you fuckers can’t even handle the ending of fionna and cake

[zeb-z]

the sooner badboyhalo viewers realize he’s an unreliable narrator the sooner I’ll be able to sleep at night

[sleepboysummer]

i just opened twitter for the first time and i already hate it on there.. why are people saying that there is IMPLIED BESTIALITY ??? ? in RTC? ?? like god damn hellio he is not actually fucking cats

[magnetothemagnificent]

The world is so hostile to tweens.....

Like we joke about how our schools growing up would ban the latest toy trends, but that reality genuinely horrific when you think about it. Like maybe 1% of the bans were based on safety, but the rest cited reasoning like

-"kids were bartering for collectibles" (kids learning about economics and product value)

-"kids were wearing them and the colors were too flashy" (kids experimenting with self expression and fashion)

-"kids were playing with them during lunch and recess instead of using our rusted safety hazard playground" (kids utilizing their free time to do what helps *them* unwind).

Play areas specifically geared towards children and especially towards teens are constantly being shut down. "Oh kids today are always on their phones!" Maybe because

-there are barely any arcades left and even less arcades that aren't adult-oriented,

-public pools and gyms are underfunded and shut down,

-"no loitering" laws prevent kids and teens from just hanging out,

-movie theatres only play the latest films and ticket prices are only rising,

-parks and playgrounds are either neglected or replaced with gear only directed at toddlers and unsuitable for anyone older

-genuine children's and young teen media is being phased out in favour of media directed only at very small children or older teens and adults.

-suburbs and even cities are becoming more and more hostile to pedestrians, it's just not safe for kids to walk to or ride their bikes to their friends' houses or other play destinations

Children's agency is hardly ever respected. Kids between the ages of 9-13 are either treated as babies or as full-grown adults, with no in-between. When they ask to be given more independence, they are either scoffed at or given more responsibilities than are reasonable for a child their age.

This is even evident in the fashion scene.

Clothing stores and brands like Justice and Gap are either closing or rebranding to either exclusively adult clothing or young children's clothes, with no middle ground for tweens. Tweens have to choose between clothes designed for adults that are too large and/or too mature for their age and bodies, or more clothes they feel are far too childish. For tween girls especially it's either a frilly pinafore dress with pigtails or a woman's size dress with cleavage. No wonder tween girls these days dress like they're older, it's because their other option is little girl clothes and they don't want to feel childish.

And then when tweens go to school, the books they want to read aren't available because they cover "mature" topics (read: oh no two people kissed and they weren't straight or oh no menstruation was mentioned or oh no a religion other than Christianity is depicted), so kids are left with books for way below their reading level. No wonder kids today are struggling with literacy, it's because they can't exercise and expand their reading skills with age-appropriate books. Readers need to be challenged with new words and concepts in order to grow in their skills, only letting tween read Dr. Seuss and nursery rhymes doesn't let them learn.

Discussions about substance use, reproduction, and sexuality aren't taught at an age-appropriate level in school or even by children's parents, so they either grow up ignorant and more vulnerable to abuse, or they seek out information elsewhere that is delivered in a less-than-age-appropriate manner. It shouldn't be a coin-toss between "I didn't know what sex was until I was 18 and in college" or "my first exposure to sex as a tween was through porn" or "I didn't know what sex was so I didn't know I was being sexually abused as a kid."

Tweenhood is already such a volatile and confusing time for kids, their bodies are changing and they're transitioning from elementary to middle to high school. It's hard enough for them in this stage, but it's made worse by how society devalues and fails them.

We talk about the disappearance of teenagehood, and maybe that's gonna happen in the future, but the erasure of tweenhood is happing in real time, and it's having and going to have major consequences for next generation's adults.

[daaedearest]

the great thing about being on poto tumblr is that you see actually nuanced takes and analysis of characters and the different interpretations actors make of them instead of having an idiot with no media literacy spit out another bad take bc Women Bad For Enjoying Media Portraying Toxic Relationships™️

[johannestevans]

Addressing Common Arguments Against “Consuming Harmful Content”

Challenging purity culture in online spaces and their fears of “problematic media”.

Read this piece on Medium. / / Leave a tip.

Photo by Ethan Will via Pexels.

Constant and continuous arguments endure on social media about the dreaded and frightening spectre of problematic media — from television shows that supposedly “glorify” unhealthy relationships or “sexualise” and “excuse” abusive relationships; to erotica, adult books, and 18+ fanfiction that supposedly teach teenagers bad life lessons and impact their ethics; to anime and manga that surely must be the cause of child abuse the world over. 

I wrote an in-depth essay about the intellectual flaws in these reactionary assumptions, delving into their roots in lacking media literacy and rising anti-sex attitudes here: 

The above essay discusses at length many of the fears and anxieties that lead to this reactionary thinking, but does not challenge or explore the echo chambers that can arise in online spaces, particularly in aggressive environments such as Twitter/X, and for young or isolated individuals who are particularly vulnerable to peer pressure and fears of ostracisation if they admit to the “wrong” opinions.

Many of these arguments are used by “anti-shippers” within fandom and online spaces, the term commonly shortened as “antis” — if you’re unfamiliar with the term, these are people who define themselves as opposing one or more specific ships, fandoms, tropes, or kinks, often due to what they perceive to be their “problematic” or inherently “harmful” elements when engaged with or portrayed in various forms of media and art. Because of the virulent and highly aggressive nature of these online communities, these people — many of them young or isolated, often marginalised and disenfranchised from in-person, supportive environments — can become radicalised, and can experience great fear and anxiety at the premise of others holding different opinions or perspectives from the ones these online communities have impressed upon them should be held immutably by all.

In this piece I’m going to be addressing common arguments and assumptions seen on social media one by one — it is not really intended to convert the above, often radicalised individuals, but to provide support and guidance in understanding why their perspectives can be flawed, and how to engage with and deconstruct those arguments. 

It is also intended to provide support and structure to begin to engage with and potentially challenge or affirm your own beliefs and ideas about fiction, art, and other forms of media, and the extent of the impact it can have on you or others — this piece is me addressing these arguments with my own perspective, but I would encourage people to disagree with and critique my rebuttals!

The goal here is always more critical thought, analysis, and understanding, and that doesn’t come from automatically following another person’s line of thought or argument just because it’s well-poised or you particularly respect or like them — no matter who that person or people may be. 

--

“Depicting [a theme] in media is the same as glorifying it!”

Let’s first engage with what people might be discussing when they panic about “harmful content” and “problematic” ships or pieces of fiction.

They might worry about people reading or watching works that discuss or depict anything from violence, incest, sexual assault, age gaps, BDSM, kinky sex, child sexual abuse, trauma recovery, rape, rape recovery, drug use, bestiality, to abusive relationships or anything else, will encourage people to think positively about those acts, those traumas, and those experiences. 

You might look at the list of things I just wrote there and go, “Um, there are big differences between some of those things and the others!”

And yet the same consideration still applies. 

Just because a theme or idea is present in a work, or is depicted in it implicitly or explicitly, doesn’t mean it’s being “glorified” and portrayed as overwhelmingly positive — and even if a theme or aspect is being glorified, this does not mean we shall simply unthinkingly absorb that perspective.

Reading a story that contains something doesn’t mean I’ll automatically think that thing is good or bad, regardless of how it’s portrayed in fiction — the media and art we engage with doesn’t wholly change and adjust our own ethics and morals as soon as we’ve interacted with it. 

We might play a videogame and disagree with the way some themes are presented, have criticisms of them, whilst enjoying and appreciating others; we might read a piece of erotica and find some parts about it very hot, but find others disturbing and a little uncomfortable; we might watch a TV show and just think it’s in very poor taste, despite theoretically being up for the premise. 

Engaging with media does not turn off and on switches in our brains that make us completely “pro” or completely “anti” one premise or other. 

People are more complicated than that. 

We have complex and layered feelings about every argument and perspective there is, every experience there is, because human beings are social animals, and we experience very few things through an uncomplicated, binary lens. 

For me personally, I often seek out works that cover the same traumas and harms I’ve experienced — why? Because seeking out those themes helps me process and better understand what has happened to me, and how I’ve felt about it, how I’ve responded. 

“I don’t have a problem with people writing about certain harmful topics to show them as bad, but some people sexualise or fetishise them!”

I’m sure you’re right. 

Some people might write about rape to work out a complex trauma recovery narrative — others might write about rape in a work as kink. An author might well write with both goals in mind in the same work. 

A traumatic event doesn’t become less traumatic because it sexually aroused us or brought us physical pleasure — in fact, those feelings can add to the impact of a trauma and the inner conflict we experience in the aftermath. 

Some people undercut victims of sexual abuse by saying they “enjoyed” it, pointing out that they orgasmed or showed signs of arousal as signs they “secretly” wanted it, and these feelings can contribute heavily to shame and fear as a victim. 

Sexual arousal is a bodily response. It is not consent, and it’s not an excuse for assault or abuse. Moreover, some people might feel arousal or pleasure but not be fit to consent — for example, if someone is underage, or if someone is drugged or insensible with drink. 

These people cannot give knowledgeable consent, but abusers might still say after an assault that they “enjoyed” it. 

This is purity culture at work — anti-sex attitudes use people’s “enjoyment” of something to undercut their autonomy and right to consent, by implying they “deserve” that abuse — abuse is abuse whether it’s sexualised or not. 

But the thing is, the obverse applies. 

Just as someone’s mixed feelings or sensations of pleasure during a sexual assault does not mean they consented to the assault, or because someone’s feelings of happiness and love for their abuser does not mean they deserved the abusive treatment they experienced from them, a person writing sexually or erotically about a topic, or engaging with art and narratives about that topic, does not mean they actually want that thing to happen in real life, to real people, or to themselves. 

Fiction is not real life. 

We watch a horror film, and it doesn’t mean we want serial killers or demons to run amok, killing teenagers or possessing their victims — similarly, just because we engage with porn or erotica that sexualises certain topics doesn’t mean we’re pro- or in favour of those topics for real people. 

Rape fantasies are incredibly common, despite being highly stigmatised, and just because someone fantasises about this sort of control fantasy does not mean they actually want to abuse someone or be abused. 

“It’s harmful to depict abusive or immoral characters as sexy or desirable.”

If you have never experienced abuse, manipulation, or otherwise poor treatment from someone you thought was attractive, charming, or admirable, if you’ve never been groomed by someone with whom you were enamoured, I’m very glad. 

I’m happy for you, honestly. 

But many of us have. 

People want to believe that all abusers are evil, are ugly, are obvious from a distance, are blatant from the out. People want to believe they can “tell” someone is abusive just from a glance, and write them off — and that anyone who would or might spend time with that person is therefore “asking for it”, or “letting themselves” be abused. 

In actual fact, many abusers aren’t. 

Many abusers are beautiful and charming — some of them draw you in, slowly bring you closer and closer until it’s very difficult to untangle yourself from your need and craving for their approval. They ruin lives, ruin psyches, and they cause unspeakable damage to their victims. 

And yes, victims often feel conflicted in the aftermath of their abuse.

Many of us hero worship or greatly respect our abusers, love them very deeply, crave their good opinion, because we are carefully groomed and manipulated, over time, into relying on their praise and their attention. For victims isolated from other sources of care and support, and especially for young children and teenagers, it can be very difficult to recognise what is happening and has happened to us. 

Even after we know and understand exactly what has happened to us, and also internalised that it was wrong, we can still feel conflicted. 

We are not retroactively deserving of our abuse because we crave our abusers’ good opinion, or their love, still. This instinct does not excuse or justify the abuse we’ve experienced. Victims of abuse are still victims of abuse even if we go back to our abusers, even if we “accept” or attempt to justify our abuse to others, if we try to excuse it, if we don’t ask for help. 

Abuse is never the victim’s fault, no matter how imperfect we are as victims. 

“Writing queer characters as abusive is bad representation!”

If we exclusively write queer characters who are perfect and unimpeachable, we’re not letting ourselves write queer characters who are fully human, with all the flaws and complexities humanity comes with. 

Queer people are not less deserving of this complex representation than cishet people are — and in any case, the purpose of art and media is not exclusively to provide good representation, or to show good moral examples for others.

We create to express ourselves, to reflect the world, to critique it, laugh at it, commiserate over it, to feel our feelings, to connect and communicate with others through shared stories. 

If we only let ourselves do things that might be seen as “good rep”, we rob ourselves of the ability to express ourselves as completely as we might wish to. 

“If you write abusive queer characters, you’re just contributing to homophobia and bigotry in art and media!”

Queer people writing queer stories with queer villains is not the same as cishet people including queer people or queer-coded characters just to be villains. The power dynamic is completely different. 

Queer writers’ writing of queer villainy is often inspired by their own experiences, including of bigotry, and the harm they might do reflects harm by society, the ways harms might be felt more keenly by their victims. 

Writing queer villains as villainous because their queerness makes them (or is used as a shorthand for them being) predatory, cruel, or callous, is homophobic and is often shitty, whether people intend that or not. 

But just having queer villains, having queer characters do bad or abusive things, or just have flaws? 

That’s as much a part of queer humanity as having queer heroes and having queer characters do good and helpful things.

Why would you read about rape when you could read consensual non-consent?

[Consensual non-consent being a kink wherein partners agree to roleplay a non-consensual situation.]

Rape in fiction is a form of consensual non-consent. 

The fictional characters, who are not real and do not have real feelings, are not consenting, but the reader choosing to read is. 

In the same way that two people playing a CNC roleplay game in the bedroom might be a safe and fun way of experiencing or re-experiencing the fear and trauma of assault with an escape clause (a safeword), a reader can do the same — they can stop reading. 

If a television show, film, or videogame becomes upsetting, again, one can stop watching, stop playing. It is a person’s own responsibility to set safe boundaries for themselves and protect their own mental health. 

“Why would someone write about trauma and abuse when they could write fluff?”

Why would someone watch a horror movie when they could watch a romcom? Why would someone eat cheese when chocolate is an option?

People do not have to choose one or the other — many people like both horror films and romcoms, cheese and chocolate, and reading about both horrible shit and positive things. 

“You mentioned that people might engage with media about dark topics to work through their feelings from their own abuse. How do I know if someone’s actually been abused?”

Why do you think it’s your right to ask that? 

Why are you prioritising your personal comfort and curiosity over that person’s privacy? If your instinct is to try to license who is and isn’t allowed to engage with a piece of art or media, why? 

You are never entitled to the details of someone else’s abuse. Your validation is not important enough to potentially trade for someone’s private traumas and experiences. 

“If you write or create about certain topics as a survivor, you’re just perpetuating abuse and you are as bad as your abuser!”

Creating works of art or fiction about people who are not real experiencing fictional harm that is also not real, is not in any way equivalent to real people doing real harm to others. 

If your support of abuse survivors hinges on how palatable their reaction to their abuse is, and you believe that some abuse survivors “deserve” their abuse for depicting their abuse in art and fiction, you’re not actually supporting survivors. 

If you believe that all abuse survivors do or should act the same way, or respond the same way, to their abuses, you are mistaken. 

If you are effectively angry at someone for not looking enough like a victim, for being “impure”, and therefore the same as their abuser, that is a form of victim blaming. 

Do you hold artists who create media about non-sexual trauma or violence to a different standard than those who write about sexual trauma or violence? 

Why? What is the difference to you?

If someone writing about sexual abuse in media is equivalent to real life abuse, is a fictional murder?

“People shouldn’t write or engage with media about traumatic things, they should just go to therapy!”

Therapy is not a moral machine where bad people with bad thoughts go in and good people with good thoughts go in. 

Good therapy and counselling provides us with the tools to manage our own mental health, our own emotional and psychological needs, heal from our traumas, and so forth. 

Many therapists will actually recommend safe re-exposure to frightening or upsetting topics, and also encourage self-expression on the subject of one’s most impactful experiences, which might include creating art and media to explore and discuss their feelings. 

With that said, therapy is as flawed as any other tools for emotional catharsis and healing — therapy and mental healthcare can be very expensive or inaccessible because of one’s working schedule; some therapists and mental health professionals are abusive or bigoted; some people may not be in the right place for MH care or therapy at this time, et cetera. 

Therapy isn’t a catch-all for anything you disapprove of in someone else, and it’s also not a punishment to force someone to repent for their sins. 

“It’s okay to write a story to cope, but you shouldn’t publish it in case it upsets others!”

So long as the work has appropriate content warnings and/or is published or screened in an appropriate space, it is not inherently harmful. In fact, reading narratives and engaging with those narratives can be valuable for us. 

Engaging with media that bears similarity to our own lives, reflects our own experiences, written by other people who we know understand the complicated emotions of survivors — whilst still condemning the actions of abusers or not — can be extremely validating and offer a lot of assurance. 

This is especially useful in regards to media that shows victims having a codependent relationship with or still loving their abusers, or where their abusers are shown as sympathetic, whilst the narrative still shows the toxicity and pain caused by the relationship. 

Moreover, there can be a sense of reclamation and security in exploring stories about similar harm as we’ve experienced whilst knowing we are now in a place of safety and are free from those past experiences, or that other survivors have escaped and we can too. 

“If children read this work or watch this show or play this game, they might think that the things depicted in it are okay!”

Is the work rated G or PG? 

Is it shown on a children’s TV channel, or appear in a section that is marked for children? Is it put on a children’s website, where the primary audience is children? 

In short, is the work aimed at kids?

If no, then it’s not for kids. 

Particularly if a work is marked for adult audiences only, if it’s labelled erotica, if it’s marked M or E or NC-17, if it says it’s for adults or asks people to check a box agreeing that they’re an adult, then the work in question is most definitely not for children. 

Everything in the world doesn’t have to be child-safe just because children exist.

It is the responsibility of parents and guardians to appropriately supervise their children’s online use, and to teach children and teenagers internet safety, some of which includes setting appropriate boundaries for themselves and not seeking out content that might distress them, or to know what to do if they stumble across content that does distress them — namely, to speak with a trusted adult about their feelings and what they can do to manage them and look after themselves, and be looked after.

It’s not the responsibility of random other adults in the world not to make horror movies or watch porn or play adult videogames or anything else, just because a child could potentially learn of their existence. 

“But someone else engaging with that work might think the things depicted in it are okay!”

You’re right, they might do. 

They might also engage with the work and think things depicted in it are bad. Fiction does not exclusively exist for our moral education. 

“It makes me feel uncomfortable or unsafe that people are writing about [a topic] with a tone or in a manner that seems wrong to me!”

Yes, many of us feel uncomfortable with some topics being depicted in fiction, and might find them viscerally disgusting or triggering, consider them to be in poor taste, badly considered, or similar. 

This is normal and okay. 

It’s perfectly natural to have limits on what one can handle in fiction, or to find your ethical considerations don’t match up with the things other people make. 

But it’s our job, as responsible adults who look after our own mental health and consider our own boundaries, to avoid that content. 

You cannot control what other people think about, feel about certain topics, or how they portray them in fiction. You cannot control other people. 

You can only control your environment, your boundaries, and the works you choose to engage with. 

You can limit your time on social media, mute tags or keywords, block particular users or sites, or simply look away or leave the room / close the tab. 

“What about rampant problematic works on Ao3!?”

Works on Ao3 are not a real issue. 

They are not representation. Fanworks and original works on Ao3 are not the mainstream. They are being read exclusively by members of various internet subcultures who read fanfiction in those specific fandoms, after reading the tags. 

This doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t discuss certain tropes and norms in various fandoms — we might address our own biases around race, sexuality, religion, disability, and other characteristics, and how these biases and bigotries can come across in people’s approaches to fandom, the characters and ships they concentrate on, their headcanons, et cetera. 

The same can be said of people’s original creations. 

Ao3 has a robust tagging system, and allows people to mute and block tags they might be upset or triggered by — and in the event one clicks on an explicit work, a window will come up asking people to consent explicitly to moving through to read the work. 

It is people’s own responsibility to set their own limits as to what they can handle in reading fiction — and not to obsess over what other people might or might not be reading, which we cannot control, and is also none of our business. 

“What about loli and shotacon? Isn’t that the same as child pornography?”

“Child pornography” is generally not in use as a term — many people who have been victimised find that terms like “child porn” and CP grate, because “pornography” is work made with willing, adult participants. 

Videos and images produced of children are instead referred to either as CSAM — child sexual abuse materials — or CSEM — child sexual exploitation materials. CSEM is evil because it involves the unspeakable and agonising victimisation of a real life child or children, being abused and manipulated by adults around them, and worse than that initial victimisation, the recording their abuse is another victimisation in itself.

With every share of a piece of this material, that child or children are victimised another time, made vulnerable to more people, and the creation of this material can create more market desire, meaning that other abusers will encourage further abuse and recording of these children’s victimisation, or for the recording abusers to seek out other children to abuse. 

Victims of this sort of exploitation live in terror of the pictures or videos of their worst moments being shared to those they know, of being found by their loved ones, shared to workplaces, disseminated in any community they try to live in and be happy with — it is difficult enough to recover from one’s own abuse without the spectre of it constantly hanging over one’s head. 

People’s cartoons or art of fictional children is not equivalent to CSEM, because there are no real children depicted in it. 

It’s understandable to find these works disgusting or upsetting, triggering, unsettling — but to say that underage art or fiction is the same as or counts as CSEM is patently untrue. As a victim of CSA, it is galling to be told that choices my abuser made to harm and exploit me are equivalent to an abuser choosing to draw or read a comic about a victim that doesn’t actually exist. 

Some final questions to ask yourself: 

None of the above rebuttals are intended to imply people shouldn’t critique or criticise different media or their depictions. 

As well as the initial essay I linked, I actually wrote a big guide on how to approach close reading of text, and I’m working on another about analysing television and film.

In my opinion, it’s really important to be aware of different tropes and themes that you feel are harmful in fiction and art — racist tropes, sexist ones, homophobic ones, and all the rest.

It’s worth considering how works are harmful, and what you actually want to be done about it. 

I personally have criticisms of various tropes in media — I have particular dislike, for example, for the ways in which teacher/student relationships in TV shows and films are portrayed as “forbidden love”, with issue of their positions of power being depicted as one of bureaucracy or technical rules rather than a real power imbalance — I don’t care for the “sexy schoolgirl” trope, and the “barely legal” porn genre unsettles me.

All of the above three tropes often coincide with people’s thinking of teenage girls, especially those in school uniforms, as sex objects, and portraying school uniforms themselves as sexual or deserving of this sort of sexual attention. 

Not all depictions are the same — some works subvert the sexy schoolgirl trope by having those schoolgirls be secret monsters than punish abusers, and some works exist that critique teacher/student dynamics. 

It’s also important to note audience and outreach — a work that’s put on mainstream television channels or put in movie theatres by huge studios have a very different range of impact than an indie published novella, or one person’s fanfic on Ao3. 

Note where you’re holding individual or small studio creators — especially those who are in some way marginalised and are already facing adversity in their work — to higher account than large studios, or fixating on imagined harm their work could potentially cause. 

Is a work harmful, or is it just uncomfortable? Is it harmful, or is it just personally triggering to you? 

Can the work you’re concerned about do as much harm as you’re envisaging? Is it actually reaching the individuals you are worried might be vulnerable to harm as a result of it? Does the work intend to do that harm or hold those harmful views, and are the authors or creators working to address or apologise for that harm?

Is the work discussing, critiquing, or exploring the emotional impact of the dark themes within it? Does it have warnings or disclaimers before the work begins?

If you’re worried about a work “normalising” or “glorifying” a troubling subject — does the work actually do that? What is your evidence for this, having engaged with the text? Is that thing discussed in the text, argued, explored in-depth, or merely mentioned? Do characters show inner conflict and interpersonal conflict over it? Is it actually portrayed as good or normal? Is your concern the characters’ perspectives within the text, or the authors or creators’ opinions? 

Does the work carry ideas that are bigoted or feel like it includes apologism for some shitty ideas or ideology? Is the work a piece of propaganda, or function as propaganda? Do you feel the work is being advertised or pushed to an inappropriate audience for its subject matter?

If you do consider the work to be either likely to be personally distressing or upsetting to you, or potentially harmful because of its troubling or bigoted or just shitty ideas, how do you want to respond? 

If it’s the former, you should set your own boundaries — you should use your mute and block functions, you should avoid the work, you should seek out things that will comfort you, and perhaps discuss the distressing topics with someone you trust, whether that’s a friend or partner, a loved one, or a counsellor or therapist. 

If it’s the latter, you should absolutely deconstruct the piece in question and analyse the ways in which it’s shitty or harmful, or read essays by those who’ve done that work. You can maybe warn your friends about it, or if it’s a work of political concern — if the harm is being done because the work provides financial support to a hate group or a bigoted public persona, for example, you might perform a boycott, or involve yourself in acts of protest in response to the work or its creators. 

If it’s important enough to you and your beliefs that you feel urged to do those things, perhaps you should — if all you feel urged to do is to harass or shout at people online, though, it might be better for your own mental health to take a step back and do something more positive for yourself. 

Sometimes, a piece of work or media will be shitty, and shitty people will love it, and that will kinda suck — God knows I’ll see work that’s really transphobic or homophobic or antisemitic, and it’ll upset me that people I otherwise love and respect seem to be enjoying it so much. 

I can talk to my friends and my family about it, and I’ll do that — and I can mute and block the topic, and critique it in the right circles, or write essays if I’m really inspired to, responding to the work and what I feel its impact is…

But if my instinct becomes to just snipe at people for enjoying it when they really don’t know what the problem is, or have a go at them when they’re doing so unthinkingly, that’s not really helpful to them or to myself. It’s not addressing the harm I feel is being done, and nor is it really constructive. 

I’m an adult, after all — as I’ve said a few times already, it’s our own responsibility to set our own boundaries and consider what we’re doing to safeguard ourselves, and if in setting those boundaries and personal safeguarding limits, whether they’re in line with our own ethics and morality. 

We cannot control other people and their feelings, or the works they create, but we can take care of ourselves, including breaking ourselves out of obsessive moral spirals or anxieties about other people’s thoughts — and personally, I think that’s actually a very revolutionary thing to do given that we exist in a world that constantly tries to encourage (and monetise) that sort of aimless outrage. 

[im-getting-help]

The way people reacted to Saltburn reminded me of a tiktok trend or "challenge" in which you had to watch the opening scene of Nocturnal Animals (2016).

(I'm not going to spoil the movie, go watch it is beautiful.)

It reminded me because the movie is so interesting and enthralling but it was played for jokes. No one was watching the movie, they felt "disgusted and uncomfortable" even though they didn't even tried to watch it.

The commentary of Saltburn was so similar, it really upset me. It was like people were saying "yeah, we watched it this time, it's still too gross".

Nocturnal Animals explores the tense relationship between the protagonists in a very gruesome and violent way. Those choices are not made for shock value, they tell a story. The same way Saltburn showed desire and obsession and in my opinion the perfect representation of unchecked limerence with the bathtub and cemetery scenes.

I have no doubt that in a few years they will be a new tiktok (or new platform) challenge that dares you to record your reaction of the cemetary scene with no context. And it makes me so sad.

It makes me sad not only because of the unappreciation of such amazing movies, but because I feel we are teaching teenagers to not have media literacy. I honestly feel like we're allowing people to just watch movies like they're cocomelon. And I think is dangerous for cinema.

Martin Scorcese shared in a few interviews how he feel that the popular movies are not really cinema, that they fail to convey real emotion and they don't take risks. I think he's right, he makes a direct reference to the MCU but to me he's describing at least 70% of the movies that comes out in a year.

Everything is simple, easy to understand, overly explained. A cast full of well known actors and a beautiful score, or a passable one, and you have a movie. You don't need a new story to tell, not really, you can just reuse an old one. Make a retelling, a remake, a live-action adaptation, a secuel or a prequel with lots of CGI. You got a movie, congrats.

To me the new movies are always disappointing, they're a way to kill time but never a moment to appreciate art.

And this is why the criticism of Saltburn frustrates and saddens me so much. Cause is not a perfect movie (well, to me it is), but is so SO much more than what we're served on a daily basis. It's rich and complex and beautiful to watch. The score is fun and playful and at times heartbreaking and breathtaking. The actors are just incredibly talented and well directed. The clothing and makeup is just a wonder to watch, going from the cringe of 2006 teenage fashion to the opulent gowns and suits. So much of this movie is a pleasure to observe, to discover.

It breaks my heart to think that the future of cinema is... white noise, filler, the equivalent to eating a sandwich instead of cooking a meal cause you're too tired to do more. So much so that when you're presented with a home cooked meal you're unable to enjoy the taste, too accustomed to simplicity.

[tainbocuailnge]

it's easy to dunk on people with poor reading comprehension or to look down on them (consciously or not) even if you're not actively shaming them for "not getting it" or "being stupid" but it's not actually helpful. it's a worrying development that many people (particularly many young people) are becoming resistant to the idea that complex and/or challenging books have value but it's also an understandable development, because in many cases it's a reaction to being shamed for their struggles with literacy and not given the help they would've needed to develop an adequate level of literacy.

that's not even going into what should even be considered an "adequate" level of literacy to begin with, because the truth is that a lot of people will simply never be able to read better than absolutely necessary to navigate their daily life, and this shouldn't be treated as some kind of failure on their part. the goal of literacy education should be to give people the tools for self-sufficiency.

what's worrying is not that there are a lot of people who don't engage with complex texts, but that there are a lot of people who refuse to believe that there is something to be gained from engaging with complex texts. someone doesn't have to read or understand shakespeare or kafka or what-have-you in order to live a fulfilling life, but when they become resistant to the idea that a text can have something going on beyond what's immediately apparent on the surface, they become easy targets for deception. this hinders the self-sufficiency that literacy is supposed to provide them with.

the goal of you high school language class is not just to get you to analyze texts, but to introduce you to the idea that texts can be analyzed in the first place, even if you don't go on to be particularly good at actually analyzing them yourself. you don't need to be able to read between the lines to understand that it is possible to read between the lines, and that therefore a text that seems nonsensical to you at first may simply be written for an audience of a different skill level - this is only a problem if there is a mismatch between the complexity of the text and the literacy of its target audience. an inability to read for subtext is not a personal failure, nor does the ability to read for subtext make you a better person than someone who can't. literacy is a skill, and like any skill there are people to whom it comes more easily than others.

calling people who are drawn to anti-intellectual rhetoric due to their struggles with literacy stupid is not going to encourage them to change their mind. developing media literacy and reading comprehension is something that is very difficult to do on your own, and doubly so if any attempt at trying to learn is met with derision for not already being able to do it. the problem is not people who only engage with easy texts, the problem is people growing hostile towards the idea that there is worth in engaging with more complex texts

if reading comprehension has always come naturally to you, it can be difficult to grasp how someone can fail to understand a text that you thought was easy enough to follow. I myself am guilty of snapping at people for misinterpreting me so wildly it seemed like they were doing it on purpose. you need to learn to suppress this kneejerk reaction, and instead see this frustration as common ground: you are both facing a situation where your communication skills are insufficient. what can you do to bridge this gap? how can you present this information in different ways that better suit how the other party processes information? keep in mind that this does not necessarily mean to simplify the information, because nobody likes being condescended to, and being condescended to is in many cases exactly what made these people hostile towards more complex ideas to begin with.

I don't have an easy solution, because this is a complex problem, and what helps some people will inevitably be useless to many others. but I believe fostering a culture where you won't be met with derision or ridicule for not understanding something or needing more explanation will go a long way. next time someone comments on your post with an absolutely baffling take that makes you wonder if they even read what you said, consider that maybe they are trying to engage with a text that is above their reading level, and they genuinely lack the ability to parse and retain the information you presented in the way you presented it. if you're going to respond, try to do so in good faith.

[nightsister-juisid]

“Rhaenyra finally realizing she was groomed”, “I was praying for days like these”…bla bla

1. Rhaenyra never said she was groomed or recognized she was groomed. She wasn’t groomed because they are in the game of thrones universe where Laena was sent to be married with Viserys when she was 12, and where Daemon and most characters were FORCED to be married while they still were KIDS. Everybody “dates” young here! Therefore it doesn’t exist the concept of grooming!!

2. Rhaenyra realized she couldn’t fix someone like Daemon, as much as she had wished it when she was a child. She now notices how broken he actually is and how there is no cure, because she doesn’t need to deal with Daemon’s problems as she, herself, now has challenges of her own in which Daemon should be supporting her.

That’s one thing COMPLETELY different to what antis are understanding (they are so biased, damn)

3. Let’s not forget that their relationship isn’t going to end. Rhaenyra LOVES Daemon as much as he loves her and his family. Daemon WAS MADE FOR RHAENYRA. He was created with the mere purpose of being her consort in the dance of the dragons. Not the other way around.

So stop being delulu and learn some media literacy before posting nonsense

[whoishotteranimepolls]

Like genuinely, I'm so sorry that you're dealing with weirdos out of the wood works. It's not normal behavior to write an unsolicited 5 paragraph essay in someone's ask box. If people don't like the characters you're putting on polls, they should just block and move on, like normal people.

Oh, I know this is not normal behavior, and the only reason I don't think that it's trolls is because I met someone in college who would actually do this. They were also a little nuts as in they interrupted a lecture to yell at the professor that they were going to report them for hate speech for using the term "autistic person" instead of "person with autism". Because that was offensive and then walked out of the class, I'm guessing to go report them. They also made a big deal about refusing to sit next to the guy who was a veteran. After all, they had to be racist because they shot brown people. Funny enough, the guy was a first-generation American and was in the Coast Guard. But that didn't matter to this little activist.

But there is a reason I'm doing this. I'm going to University for Media and Mass Communication. So, media literacy is a big part of what I'm studying. Plus, I'm sick and tired of protecting these idiots with zero media literacy, an over-inflated ego, and a savior complex. They need to have their ideas challenged, so maybe they learned something. That's a big reason why I've turned this into a series and want to turn these essays into discussions. Because, again, you're absolutely right. This is not normal behavior, so let's address this as a community. Because, at minimum, they need their ideas challenged because that's how you learn and grow. Their reasoning is flimsy at best, but it usually comes off as an incoherent regurgitation of politically correct buzzwords.

[azelmaandeponine]

I love Stan, but it's the other way around. Stan is the beloved one. Ford is the one everyone lambastes for *checks notes* being an autistic-coded abuse victim that has flaws.

You...you realize he was still mad at Stan because of the betrayal aspect, right? Not because of WCT? (Also I'm pretty sure he knew it existed). Stan was like. The one person Ford thought he could count on. Then Stan betrayed him. It turned out that he DIDN'T love him unconditionally like he thought. (No, Stan didn't ACTUALLY betray Ford, and Ford is WRONG about the idea that Stan doesn't love him but Ford has no way of knowing that).

Ford haters learn media literacy challenge.

Bill WAS abusing Ford. And if you don't think that matters, please never talk to an abuse victim.

Also lol. "I'm not victim blaming!" *proceeds to victim blame*

You literally are basically saying "why did you date him? You were warned he was bad news!"

Shut the fuck up lol.

More victim blaming. Also he thought he was summoning demon google.

And Ford has no way of knowing what Stan's been doing in that timeframe? He's not omniscient.

The apprenticeship was literally about him spending more time with Dipper, but go off I guess. He thought Mabel would be fine. He wasn't being "dismissive of her feelings", he thought highly of her, and thought she would be fine. We have now reached the ableism that Ford haters tend to spew--that is, demonizing him for his neurodivergent traits. Ford isn't emotionally intelligent and has low empathy, so clearly that means he prioritizes work over family and doesn't care about Stan or the twins (objectively untrue).

Yes, clearly the guy who stopped working immediately to play a game with his great nephew prioritizes work over family.

Then that last bit--more gross victim blaming.

"It's his own fault he got abused and tortured!"

Ford haters ARE the most insufferable people in the fandom. They hate autistic-coded abuse victims, and it's clear. Their lack of compassion for abuse victims and the victim blaming is disgusting.

[suffersinfandom]

When it comes to fandom, a thing that is supposed to be fun and not that serious, I'm usually a filthy moderate. I want everyone to feel safe and heard. I'll jump through a hundred hoops to avoid conflict. I only block people who are hostile or triggering because I know being blocked is hurtful to some. I genuinely try get along with everyone, even the folks I disagree with.

In OFMD fandom, I never tag my posts with "Izzy Hands," not even when it's a strictly canonical observation or analysis. I use the "Izzy critical" tag whenever I mention the guy just in case my bias against him shows. I don't outright call him abusive when I'm writing meta because I don't want to stir up drama or tempt anyone to deny my lived experiences of abuse. On the rare occasion when I reply directly to someone I disagree with, I do everything in my power to be neutral, polite, and understanding (when people aren't being overtly racist).

And you know what? It kind of sucks! I'm not having fun!

Every day I get to see people complaining about harassment that (when they link to it or refer to it directly enough for me to figure out what they're talking about) is just... other people disagreeing with them or challenging them. I see all kinds of spite and pettiness aimed at the low-media-literacy idiots who love OFMD, season two, and Ed and Stede. People like me who love Ed are called abuse apologists who're incapable of recognizing that he did things wrong (in spite of the fact that everyone I follow does recognize that, yes, Ed did do things wrong -- we just don't think that he's a monster). I get to see people telling me why Izzy, a man who does and says things that my abusers have done and said to me, is the actual victim, or why he and Ed are soulmates who invented love, or why the show would be better if the season one antagonist who abused the indigenous lead had been centered like he deserves.

Look. I don't care if people like Izzy. That's none of my business and I'm happy to leave Izzy enjoyers alone as long as they aren't being racist (that does happen) or running my mutuals off of social media. I'm not going to hang out with or trust someone who thinks Izzy was in the right, but I'm also not going to bother them. I love not bothering people! I've been doing it since I first poked my head into the fandom in June of 2022!

But, like, If you want the fandom to get along, maybe being a spiteful bully isn't the best way to accomplish that, you know? Maybe you shouldn't call people abuse apologists or idiots who are just too stupid to understand why the show that you're in the fandom of is bad and terribly written and a piece of shit with only the most lukewarm, heterosexual (?) queer representation.

And if the person who came into my inbox and told me that I'm a Zionist bitch who should set myself on fire is reading this, log off. Book a therapist.

[deathdetermineslife]

proshippers stop violating my dni challenge go!

also I don't think I should have to explain he was raped and groomed. "in love" is a funny way to say that.

as someone who is a victim of rape and grooming, saying that someone is "in love" with their assaulter because that's how its seems to you is absolutely abhorrent.

if you had any sort of media literacy at all, you'd understand that. go ask anyone in the fandom and they'll tell you that. what's really disheartening is the amount of people I've spoken to thatve told me they were raped by one of their siblings and believed they were in love with them because of the trauma, and now really really relate to him and see themselves in him. it's just a slap in the face to anyone who sees this kinda talk.

anyways, can you people please leave me alone? it's anti harassment until you don't like that person, right?