#nobody is doing anything wrong or anything and I know I'm being overly sensitive

[neathbound-fiends]

I think I'm gonna take a little hiatus from this blog for a bit. Feel free to hit me up on Discord if you need anything or wanna chat

[a-froger-epic]

I decided to make this post because I think it's important in light of the fact that I will be hosting Freddie Mercury Weekend, and I am asking all authors not to engage with hateful, provocative or distressing comments.

However, as an author myself, I know I often feel unsure about not engaging, deleting or ignoring comments even if they do distress me.

because I don't feel justified in disengaging

because it isn't really "hate"

because maybe I'm just being overly sensitive?

So let us work through two examples here to illustrate when it is okay - and for the sake of the event recommended - not to engage with a comment, even if it isn't hate, and why.

This comment isn't offensive, as such. It's politely worded and it's complimentary in part. It definitely isn't "hate". It didn't particularly distress me, and I did engage with it.

However:

The comment offers no constructive criticism of any kind. There is no explanation given as to what the issue is or how it could be fixed. As the author, you are none the wiser. There is nothing you gain from a comment like this other than the knowledge that somebody didn't like something (you don't know what) about your story. Therefor - during the event and otherwise - you are not ignoring valid criticism by not replying to a comment like this. There is nothing here that you could respond to with anything other than "I'm sorry you feel that way". This is simply somebody telling you, however nicely, that they don't like your story without giving an explanation why. You have every right to delete or not engage with this kind of comment, and you would be justified in doing so.

This comment isn't particularly rude on first sight, it isn't "hate" on first sight, but it is distressing and offensive. I engaged with it, but during the event, I would not and for the sake of the event I ask that you do not, either.

Here is why:

There is no constructive criticism. At no point does this comment explain what, in the text, made the commenter think that Freddie is OOC. The author is left guessing how exactly they are meant to have altered his personality. Furthermore, the comment is full of accusations. It accuses the author of intentionally mischaracterising the character they're writing, which is hurtful. It is also an assumption nobody should ever make about somebody else's writing, as it implies that the author has something to gain from willingly writing a character in a way they know is "wrong". As authors, we all know that it is painful and virtually impossible to intentionally write a character in a way that does not feel right to you.

This comment doesn't use direct insults. But it is hurtful, it is rude, it is accusatory and for the sake of the event you should delete comments of this nature immediately.

Comments don't have to be ad hominem insults or "hate" to be distressing, hurtful or simply unhelpful/unnecessary. You, as the author, are within your right not to tolerate them on your work.

Here is a fantastic guide on how to leave constructive criticism on fic! Only, of course, if an authors states that they are open to it.

[sclfmastery]

I'm glad I'm not the only one to pick up on his BPD traits. It's a large part of why I love his character-because I see my self in him. And quite frankly, with him. Without going into too much detail (because I don't know how Mun feels about such things) it's something of a coping mechanism for my own symptoms. I struggle to maintain real-life relationships because I get overly attached and like him, I'm sensitive to abandonment, whether it's real or imagined. There's a term-Favorite Person(1/2)

I didn’t answer this at first because I wasn’t sure if it would make you feel worse to see a response to something that you found triggering, but I’m gonna proceed cautiously with the understanding that you’re okay with it as long as you remain on anon <3

I have always felt that undiagnosed, not-understood BPD is a major part of the Master’s suffering.  All Masters, although I see it more explicitly acted out in the NuWho Masters.  But it’s what you say, the notion that the “Favorite Person” isn’t solely one of many close relationships, but the definition of all that one is.  It’s the fact that the Doctor has always responded to the Master’s intense attachment with evasion, for a number of potential reasons, both speculative and canonical (not the least of which some of the Doctor’s own nd traits, including debilitating ADHD).  It’s the fact that the Doctor tried actively to replace the Master with beings who are, in their own short-lived way, wonderful, but far less threatening, because they know her less and can be bamboozled and wowed by her: humans (you are totally right imho: that’s why the Master hates humans). 

It’s further the fact that the Master’s sense of inferiority, gleaned from hyper-sensitivity to a thousand little slights (which may not have even occurred to the Doctor), was “confirmed” by learning that the Doctor is a wholly other, mysteriously powerful being from whose genetic code all regeneration derives.  That was the biggest kick in the nuts, and the hearts, yet.  The Master thinks  that he’s not only inferior, he’s also a cast-off, and that his purpose--to be the Doctor’s Foil and Equal--has been erased.  He’s not her first best friend. He’s not her first anything (although....lots of us have theories about the kid who pushed the Timeless Child off that cliff).  

But here is what I want him, and you, to remember. 

He’s wrong. 

He has GREAT value irrespective of the Doctor. He is indomitable and eccentric and ingenious and brave and witty and fierce and wonderful. What’s a genetic sequence got to do with inherent value? Nothing, or racists and eugenicists would be right, and we know they aren’t.   So he can regenerate because her creepy adoptive mother predated on her and killed her repeatedly to figure out how to harness her immortality.  So what, Koschei? Don’t do that monster Tecteun the dignity of believing the Doctor was anything but a frightened, stolen child who, now, I would argue, needs you more than ever. 

Is canon ever going to acknowledge this? No. Because if the Master ever learns that he’s mentally ill, and he needs therapy and counseling and self-care techniques and love and patient acceptance, then one of the most illustrious villains of a 60-year mega-franchise is going to turn into something Unknown, and potentially not fiscally marketable (bullshit: nothing’s better than a great redemption story, but ....nobody seems to get this anymore). 

That’s where it’s up to us.

It’s up to us to give the Master his would-be healing.  That’s why I’m here, and since you reached out to me, chances are, it’s why you’re here too. We can catch the Master in the act of self-sabotage, through our own muses, through our art or essays or would-be fanfic or other writing scenarios.  We can make him self-aware.  We can give him what he needs.  Having BPD shouldn’t be a death sentence.   Having it shouldn’t doom a character or all the people who see him and relate to him to feeling inferior and lonely.  

I really hope that my dumb rp blog gives you some sense of peace, because I actively choose to give the Master his happy ending where he’s loved as he is, with his BPD, and given tools to manage it better. 

[uncloseted]

how do you feel about the discourse on trigger warnings that people use as opposed to people just being uncomfortable / not wanting to talk about something they don’t necessarily agree with? as humans we have to be uncomfortable to grow, we have to be wrong and come into contact with things we don’t agree with to learn, what do you think of this? and i’m not talking about TWs for things like SA, SH, i’m talking about when people trigger warn for like... innocent photos. normal words. situations that are regular situations. do you think something should really necessarily be labeled as a TW if it’s just something that someone doesn’t agree with or makes them less than happy?? i feel like a lot of people throw TW around lately and are very OVERLY sensitive (esp on tumblr) and it honestly just pisses me off with someone who actually has PTSD.

As with a lot of things, I think it's complicated. Triggers aren't cut-and-dry. There are a lot of "innocent" or "normal" things that are legitimate triggers for people because they associate them with a traumatic event. For example, hearing the phrase "I love you" is a somewhat common PTSD trigger for people who have experienced parental or partner abuse. On the flip side, there are lots of things that people just don't want to deal with because they're uncomfortable, which I empathize with. Sometimes I just want to be able to scroll on social media without being reminded that a million horrible things are happening in the world, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I think it's smart to be intentional about the terms of our engagement with uncomfortable topics. You're right that we need to be uncomfortable to grow, but we can't grow if we're uncomfortable all the time. It's kind of like working out, right? We need to exercise our muscles a little bit so that they can get stronger, but if we exercise too much, we damage our muscles to the point where we can't use them at all. It's dangerous to totally shield ourselves from opposing opinions or viewpoints (see: January 6th insurrection, Q-Anon), but it's also dangerous to constantly be inundated with tragedy. Right now it's difficult to reach a happy medium between the two. I do also think it's dangerous how puritanical certain online groups have become, and how those groups have discouraged admitting that you disagree or have questions or don't know something or that you're wrong, but I don't think that's a trigger warning issue so much as a larger cultural issue within those communities.

I think the real issue here is not how and when people are avoiding content, but rather the imposition it creates for content creators, especially online. Nobody can put a trigger warning for every possible thing a person could be legitimately triggered by, and the attempt to do so creates those weird moments where you see things like "TW: peanut butter, allergies, George Washington Carver, Suriname, Americans" and wonder if anyone actually wanted those warnings to begin with. Some of those topics would maybe be better labeled as "content warnings"- just a head's up as to what's actually in the piece. But that means that we have to decide which triggers are common enough to be "triggers" and what things are commonly avoided enough to be worthy of a "content warning". If we did that, I'm sure people would argue ad nauseum about what should and shouldn't count as one or the other, and I just don't think it would be very productive.

Ultimately, I think the solution is probably technological. If a person can effectively curate their online experience by blocking content that contains topics they don't want to engage in at that moment, content creators don't have to worry about whether or not someone might come across their post and be triggered by peanut butter. And I think that type of curation will become easier as AI gets better and can easily create accurate metadata about the contents of online media.