#the opposite of fandom. this is hatedom

[six-demon-bag]

i need ,to be committed

[dotthings]

"Open to interpretation" does not mean you get to tell Destiel shippers how to see the canon, Karen

After the spntwit drama this week I think it matters to emphasize again how hard the antidestiel hatedom was going against how Jensen rolls when it comes to interpretation.

antidestiels continue to behave as if they believe "open to interpretation" means they themselves can dictate to other fans how to see the canon, and they call Destiel shippers and Misha "disgusting" just for speaking our viewpoints of the canon.

Destiel shippers give our take on the text and antis go "well you can't because JENSEN SAID--"

They very obviously do not listen to what Jensen says. Here is Jensen at Dencon 2021, where he pretty much clears the runway for fans to interpret however we please and his praise and appreciation for those readings: “This is the great thing about the show and I think the relationships and some of these characters is that they’re open for interpretation. If you find identity in a character because of whatever reason, fantastic! Great! If that encourages you to be a better person, or to love someone a little harder, to forgive someone for something, fantastic. That’s—that’s I think that’s one of the beautiful things about what we do is that we get to encourage people on a variety of levels.” -Jensen Ackles, DenCon October 2021

(Antis: But you CAN'T, because JENSEN SAID--)

Antis are stuck in a loop of their own making.

This is not the first time Jensen has conveyed his support for fan interpretation.

Jibcon 2015:

We also know from reports from a virtual m&g a short while after SPN ended that Jensen said he and Misha talked about the confession scene beforehand, and they "didn't want to over-define it" and "the artist isn't going to stand next to that piece of art and tell you what to see. You should be able to see, and it should be able to mean what it means to you and that's--that's the beautiful thing about art." (There is no video, this is pulled from fan reports, but as far as we know this is accurate reporting).

Antis: but you can't because Jensen SAID--

blah blah blah

Yes we can and it's not that we need Jensen's--or anyone's permission--however it's just so heinous how severely antidestiels stomp all over Jensen's respectfulness and protection of fan readings and his appreciation of that, and their lying about how he rolls. They are making very negative insinuations of him, yet somehow everyone else in fandom is the problem but them.

It doesn't add up.

"But you can't say Destiel is real and there was queer coding because JENSEN SAID--"

But Jensen said he's completely cool with how we see it.

He said so.

I have a permit. Jensen signed it. See?

Get over it. Find a new hobby. Move along.

A further thing--note my highlighting on excerpts from an interview with Jensen Ackles about Big Sky concerning the Beau/Jenny relationship. (TV Insider, 1.18.2023)

The phrasing should sound familiar.

Yes, that's right, he's used similar language to speak about Dean and Cas. And this is for a het ship.

"leave the audience wanting more" "we gave just a little bit" "but do we need to play it out in a graphic sex scene?" "a kiss wasn't necessarily needed" "let's tiptoe for now" "fired it up in a way that made it not so sexual...two humans really, truly connecting. It wasn't just like, oh, let's rip each other's clothes off."

Put that next to "I don’t think lust is involved with the romanticism" "there's some people that might try to sexualize that" "it was two sentient beings essentially" (Dencon 2021, Vancon 2022)

Isn't that interesting. (Also isn't it interesting he called it "romanticism"?)

Jensen also said something somewhere about how he would like to do a romantic comedy so long as it involves killing zombies. He doesn't hate romance. It's just that he likes genre and action stuff. He's not against, whether it's queer or straight romances.

He's also said he'd like to do a rom-com slash western playing opposite Misha Collins.

Not telling Destiel shippers what to do, but along with antidestiel misinformation spread, the Destiel lane is justly notorious for flinging accusations at him and I think it's relevant that he speaks about a het ship using similar language, and it's relevant how supportive he is of queer readings.

one last thing, this is old, from Jensen's time on Days of our Lives, but he wasn't against playing a queer character.

[matt0044]

Fandom is weirdly incurious.

That seems to be a fandom phenomenon in where the CinemaSins mode of thinking limits the imagination. As in everything in the fantasy world must be detailed and explained to us with little ambiguity to it. Otherwise a fan’s inference is just meaningless.

Hypocritically these same viewers would call out the show for any such exposition so clunky and obvious in intention to educate the viewers.

See… one of the things I liked about The Legend of Korra fandom back when the show was airing (despite Nick’s best efforts) was that fans thrived with making analytical text posts out of the blanks the show left. The Fridge Brilliance page for the show could be overblown but it was clear that the staff wanted to invite viewers to take a closer look.

For every ATLA purist, there were those who read Korra’s Season 1 arc as opening her Chakras and culminating in achieving the Avatar State. Many who saw Mako as a person who did hurt others but without realizing and honestly being more of a dork at the end of the day.

Basically they used their imagination. Headcanons and theories are the backbone of fandom. Some are weird ideas while others take stock of what the show presents us and make reasonable deductions.

Yet for the other side of the coin, it’s always “Here’s how it doesn’t work for me” yet they hesitate to ask, “Why does this hit the spot for others?” There’s a lack of curiosity to look outside their bubble despite insisting that they’re not closed minded.

Like CinemaWins released his video on The Rise of Skywalker, a unilaterally hated movie, and explained why he liked it. He also explained his understanding of why others didn’t like it and it was so much better than the millionth video of somebody thrashing it.

Even if you don’t like something, that doesn’t mean opposite perspectives aren’t valuable. Craftsdwarf on YouTube has videos exploring Sword Art Online and takes it seriously compared to a lot of the hatedom that formed around it.

I don’t fully agree with them myself but it was so much more refreshing than the dime a dozen hate pieces. There’s a market for positive stuff out there but negativity, by its more unfiltered nature, draws more attention by “saying the quiet part outloud.”

I highly recommend Zoe Bee's eye opening video essay: "YouTube and the Death of Media Literacy." It touches around the thirty minute mark how some ambiguity, blank spaces if you will, in a story isn't a bad thing actually.

[lore-gore]

Hii, I'm sorry if this is a weird ask or comes off as aggressive, I want you to know it's not my intention to come off that way and that this is 100% a genuine question:

I saw your post recently about debunking someone's points about Viv being a bad person, and I'm curious as to what the debunks were? I always hear people say stuff is "debunked" in regards to her, but never have I seen any actual arguments that prove anything is debunked, they just say, "Oh, [x] is lying" or "Oh, all the screenshots of conversations with Viv are fake" which imo isn't really a debunk, it just makes things a "he-said-she-said"... And as someone who's read the whole KenDraws document as well as his rebuttals to the false rumour Viv spread of him being a predator, it really doesn't make her look good? Not to mention that she directly victim-blamed a child that her employee sexually harassed, like, that's something she did very, very recently and very, very blatantly.

Again I'm really sorry if this comes off as confrontational or something, I'm just really tired of seeing the word "debunked" thrown around without any actual reasons to WHY stuff is debunked, so that's why I was curious about the conversation you mentioned in that post

Here is the link debunking many of the dramas. As for the ones you mentioned, I have not heard about thrm till now. If they are true that is very disappointing. Still, my main problem is people acting like just because a creator is problematic people should hate the work. It's a toxic mindset and annoying for someone who just wants to enjoy the shows. Not to mention the amount of hate is disproportionate. They hate her like you would a politician and it's concerning.

Edit: looking a bit into this using posts from both viv stans and antis, all I have to say is this: if KenDraws can be slandered by an ex friend, so can Vivziepop. All we have for proof is discord messages, which aren't very solid. In any case, separate the art from the artist. Like what you like. Enjoy your life. Join fandoms, not hatedoms.

Edit 2:

Here is a vivziepop fans opinion on it, which makes a lot of good points. That being said, none of this is hard proof, and I do not expect this to change your mind. It is simply a perspective from the opposite side.

[rwbyuser24]

About infamous opinions and the exaggeration of the people in the RWBY community

Has it ever happened to you that people start threads like…

"Put your opinion that got you like this?"

And then people in the thread post opinions that wouldn't put them in this situation? I mean, a lot of people think their opinions are infamous, or that they'll get people to harass them. People want to feel special, believing their opinions are unpopular.

No, my friend, being a BB fan isn't going to put you in that situation. Saying you're a fan of the show isn't going to put you in that situation either. Neither is saying the opposite.

Before you participate in a thread of unpopular opinions, think about it, how many people would support you if you posted your supposedly "unpopular opinion"? If it's a lot, then you should consider if it really is an unpopular opinion.

People exaggerate in the Fandom. RWDE and Anti-RWDE.

For many RWDE members the fandom is surrounded by annoying and radical fanatics. People generalize, for them, because a few have been aggressive, it means that the entire FNDM is like that. The worst thing is their way of treating the FNDM as a group with a single mentality, "FNDM is toxic". No, man, there are simply toxic people within the fandom, which is different. Another thing, saying "Monty was a bad writer" or "I don't like this reactor's opinions" is not being an aggressor.

The same goes for Anti RWDE. For many of them, the RWDE is full of people who insult the writers, who offend them, people who hate the series, people with bigotry and so on. They tend to treat RWDE as people who only have one opinion. No dude, a lot of RWDE doesn't consider Ruby's group to be the villain. There are those who like BB (just not their execution). And they're not full of homophobic, misogynistic people, and so on. I'm not saying that all of them are perfect, but come on, a lot of them are good people. Another thing, just because some don't like BB, it doesn't mean that "They don't care about bisexuals or lesbians." You can't say the worst about them just because they don't like your ship.

"We shouldn't associate with them." Look, if for you, you don't want to associate with them, no problem. But don't try to generalize them all.

What pisses me off the most, is their tendency to exaggerate in both groups.

I once read on Spacebattleforums someone saying that the majority of the RWBY fandom was a Hatedom. Basically because of the criticism of the series. Dude, don't you realize that for every person who criticizes the series there is someone else who defends it? Don't you realize that many of those who criticize the series are just fans who obviously can't like everything?

Or those who treat fandom as a group with a cult mentality.

And even worse is the attitude of some to control what people can like or not.

"People like Ironwood and Adam?" What do you care?! Let them be fans of whatever they want. As long as they don't hurt anyone, why bother them? "They have no right to like a pedophile and a genocidal maniac." Dude, they are fictional characters. It's not like Adam's fans like him being a pedophile. And Ironwood's fans don't support him with his genocide on Mantle either.

"But RWBY fans support a company that exploits its workers and is toxic!" Yeah, so what? They are free to invest their money in whatever they want. Or what? Do you think that the day they stop supporting the series, the world will magically be better? What are you contributing to the world by making fun of them? By making memes insulting them? I don't give a shit about whether they supported a bigoted company.(RT)

I know I sound aggressive, but I really needed to get this off my chest.

[axel-ambassador]

In your opinion; Which Total Drama characters do you think they have the most insane fandom and hatedom?

im not too caught up in fandom opinions but I'll give it a shot

Does Gwanon count lol. Ik they're a bunch of trolls bit I think they take the cake with how the manage to harass any at all blog that dares breathe at Gwen the wrong way.

Gwen and Courtney haters also are a bit extreme I think, especially when their faves are the opposite, and they go to war with each other. As someone who loves them both it's kinda painful to see.

Ik the Noco stans can get pretty wild when people say they don't prefer the ship, isn't there a copypasta about or something?

And ik some of the axel fans get a bit toxic when she's paired with ripper, or any other guy really, calling people homophobic and such. While I personally think axel is a lesbian, some people don't, and some axel fans don't really appreciate that.

So yeah that's all I can think of rn, hope that answers your question anon, and I'm sorry if it doesn't 😅

[anghraine]

Yesterday, I was talking about how some bad P&P takes got me thinking about Legend of Korra's Mako and his bizarrely overwrought hatedom. I said I'd talk later about what on Earth that had to do with P&P, so ... here goes.

The Mako post is pretty long, but in summary, I have a theory that part of the reason his post-Book 1 hatedom was so intense was as a (very exaggerated, poor faith) response to the peculiar structure of his characterization in B1 in particular. Many of the more broadly sympathetic aspects of his character were concentrated into the first few episodes. Meanwhile, many of his later "character moments" were bound up in an unpopular love triangle in which the audience was continually reminded of his flaws while the early reasons for sympathy were mostly either resolved or relegated to the background.

The other part of the reason the hatedom was so off the wall is that ATLA/LOK fandom is just Like That (and often fandom in general, but Avatar fandom is particularly prone to this kind of excess).

Okay, so what does this have to do with P&P? Well, I find it interesting that Austen essentially makes the exact opposite choice with Darcy.

The post that got me thinking about all this is one that highlighted the multiple occasions in which Darcy is sympathetic to women and listens to what they have to say. All of the direct quotes came from after his first proposal, ranging from references to his affection and value for his sister, to his attempt to extricate Lydia from marrying Wickham, to various details later in the novel. A bunch of people pointed out that all of these quotes were taken from after the Hunsford proposal and argued that this isn't how he was all along, but a product of his character growth after Elizabeth's rejection.

I consider these bad takes on P&P because they ignored something that I think is important in terms of how his arc is crafted. Although many of the most sympathetic lines about Darcy come from after the first proposal, quite a few refer to pre-existing qualities or opinions or conduct.

For instance, Elizabeth's memory of his overt affection for the then-absent Georgiana is described after the proposal, yes, but the behavior happened before it. While we did see an example of him sticking up for Georgiana in the narrative, it wasn't given much emphasis at the time, and Elizabeth didn't seem to really register it as significant until she later recalls the pattern of behavior it represented. His emphasis on Georgiana's choice to tell him about Wickham occurs in the letter that Darcy writes almost immediately after the proposal, and seems to reflect his established way of thinking about what happened, not some great change in his opinion of Georgiana.

Mrs Reynolds's account of him explicitly encompasses his behavior for the last 24 years, from the time he was a child of four, and does not indicate any noticeable recent change. The account comes late, but refers to long-standing behavior. His attempt to extricate Lydia from her entanglement with Wickham, something he alone considers desirable, parallels his attempt to extricate Georgiana from her entanglement with Wickham. His original, successful attempt was described after the proposal but actually happened a couple of months before he even met Elizabeth. It's by no means clear that his intercession with Lydia represents some drastic change in his perspective on women/girls or what marriage to Wickham would entail.

Some of the quotes did reflect his character growth, because ... it happens, but it was definitely a mix of quotes describing how he'd always behaved, quotes describing his pre-existing opinions, and quotes showing his growth. It's just that many of the quotes themselves are gathered into the later novel, even if they refer to earlier Darcy.

Darcy's characterization is increasingly favorable to him from the letter onwards. We discover basically nothing that makes him look worse and many things that make him look better, both currently and retroactively. Some of these things actually took place on the page earlier, but Austen definitely seems to have deliberately left them understated and un-emphasized to preserve the mid-novel revelation of just how much of what Elizabeth/much of the audience believed about him was either wrong or insufficiently understood.

The worse he looks early on, the better he looks when we discover he's already a deeply principled person (if with the occasional asshole moment). And packing so much favorable information into the back end of the novel, whether it reflects new or retroactive aspects of his characterization, reinforces the favorable impression from the end of the letter over and over, building up and up so that the most recent and most persistent sense of him by the end is of someone who is simultaneously noble, heroic, and willing to listen and improve.

For a minority of readers, this structure can feel unfair and forced—I've seen some critics insist that readers feel their reactions to him and Elizabeth have been hijacked by the letter and the structure that follows. However, most readers don't feel that way, in reality. He's been beloved from the moment of publication—not by everyone, but by a lot of people. There is a reason his characterization and dynamic with Elizabeth are so iconic and influential. He's easily the most popular Austen love interest to a degree that can be overwhelming, and has been for a long time.

And in a way, that kind of echoes the OTT response of LOK fandom to Mako. Arguably, it's just as extreme a reaction, just extremely favorable because Darcy benefits so much from the structure of the novel and of its characterization of him in the second half, which supplies our most lingering impression of him. Whether this is good is subjective, and whether a more Darcy-like characterization structure would have dialed down the Mako hatedom is subjective, to be sure.

Given how much the hatedom seemed to fade as the B3-4 narrative leaned on Mako's loyalty, heroism, and personal foibles while leaving the love triangle behind, I suspect it would have helped, if for no other reason than that people tend to most strongly remember the last thing they saw, heard, or felt. Whatever the flaws in B4, Mako's willingness to sacrifice himself for others is basically the note his character ends on, and the whole "Mako is an abuser" thing became largely a relic of the B1-2 fandom (but esp B1). I don't think it's that the fandom improved, it's that their impression of Mako improved because of what they had most recently seen of him.

The reason I ended up sort of reflecting on this is that, as a writer, I do wonder how much I want to cater to this tendency of audiences, or even how much I want to bear it in mind. But I believe it's important to how many people react to characters, especially love interests.

And I do think Austen is (surprise!) very effective and polished in her execution of the structure she used to win the vast bulk of audiences over to Darcy and Darcy/Elizabeth. You can quibble with it as a thing and a few people do, but IMO, damn she did a good job with it.

[bcomic-blog]

😐

Oh! Maybe you haven't been to the GITP Forum? Possibly the most batshit fandom ever, from those who 100% exonerate Hilgya for political reasons, those who 100% exonerate Miko for basically the opposite politics, those who refuse to entertain that Vaarsuvius could ever be in ANY way redeemable, to those who refuse to acknowledge that the goblins are an obvious allegory of rw bigotry

Still not as insane as Steven Universe hatedom tho lol

hey so we put your morally grey character in a fandom. yeah half the fanbase makes them into a perfect angel who did nothing wrong and the other half depicts them as a cartoonishly evil villain who hurts people for fun. no we dont know how to explain that people can do bad things for good reasons or good things for bad reasons. sorry man

[doubleca5t]

Ik we all make fun of Lily Orchard for having the media literacy of a 12 year old, but is there any reason why adults who exclusively consume children’s media act Like That? I mean, outside of popular franchises, cartoon fandoms are the most aggressive I’ve come across and the ones who make the most outrageous claims (ex, RS being a nazi sympathisier). I wonder how they would react to more adult media b/c they normally trust the consumer more with interpreting politics/good vs evil narratives.

To be completely honest, I think it's less a consequence of watching only children's media and more a consequence of how fandom really encourages Tall Poppy Syndrome. I think in fandom spaces because people get so passionate about the things they like and share so much content about it, if you end up in fandom circles where everyone is SUPER hype on some piece of media that you're not that into, you start to *really* resent the media in question.

So because Steven Universe got so big, anyone who was in like... queer cartoon circles was probably inundated with content about how great the show was and if you didn't like the show for one reason or another, you'd start to develop an equal and opposite amout of hate for it. You see this with a lot of other fandoms where the ones that get the largest tend breed massive hatedoms, regardless of the actual quality of the show.

The other dynamic at play here is that fandom people have a habit of pitching shows based on the fact that they're really progressive and have good representation, and Steven Universe (I imagine) would have been a prime example of this. And so because people recommend content based mostly on social justice qualities rather than like... the plot or characters, when people want to impune a show they don't like, the social justice stuff is the first thing they reach for. It makes sense too - why make an argument based on your personal tastes in content when you can make an argument that the show is LITERALLY immoral. Isn't that a lot more convincing?

So you've got a) a bunch of people with a massive hate boner for whatever the most popular thing is at any given moment and b) the instinct to label anything they don't like as "problematic" to give merit to their tastes and that's how you end up with people watching a little cartoon about peace and love and gay nonbinary space rocks and coming away with the conclusion that the showrunner is literally a fascist

[sytokun]

"Don't you dare insult my friends. Do me a favor and don't bother watching my show." - Monty Oum. (Funny how you think the friends he chose to help him create RWBY are somehow defiling his vision when you happily shit on it with your garbage "rewrite" that makes all the male characters the REAL protagonists.)

Hi Seeker, or Lilith. It doesn't really matter because you two and your little club are peas in a pod - being anonymous doesn't really hide how obvious your tells are and the collective defective brain cell you share.

Fuck off with your high horse bullshit. Shane was Monty's friend too, and Sheena too - his wife no less. Funny that never comes up. Funny how Monty never actually mentions which friends these are but you immediately take the side that best fits your narrative, but you think I'm the one misrepresenting him. Funny how you quickly take the opposite side - the shit-eating company still directly profiting from RWBY, instead of the ones pressured on all sides to leave RWBY's production, one of them having to release a document that probably blacklisted himself from the industry altogether just to be heard by anyone at all. You know? Like all the 40+ other people who were silenced about their mistreatment at RT until now?

Don't pretend you care about Monty's friends, or even basic ethics. You just care about continuing this fandom-hatedom war bullshit so you have something to do while cleaning the taste of leather sole off your mouth. If you think what I'm saying is insulting, you'd think that being completely sabotaged and shut out from any communication or involvement in your late friend's work sounds like a way bigger insult than whatever you're soiling yourself over reading in my blog (which is all just fake info you read from each other's blogs anyway).

Grow the hell up. I know well enough none of these words are going to stick in that thick head of yours but really, grow up. I'm not some bogeyman out to get you or whatever school bully you're projecting onto me. You're the only reason you're suffering this much reading posts you don't want to look at. Grow a spine and block the tag.

[ilikekidsshows]

The thing I don't like from the senti theory that been going around lately in the fandom is that some people like to simplified and reduce Adrien's reaction and act simply because Gabriel create him that way. Adrien having trouble to express his anger? Oh it's because he's created that way. Adrien is a people pleaser? Yeah that's because Gabriel create him that way. Adrien can't talk back to his father? Gabriel made him can't do it by twisting his ring! Gabriel commanded Adrien and he comply? That's because Gabriel has his amok! They agree that Adrien is abused but most of them also agree that Adrien's inability to fight back Gabriel command is solely because of the amok not a trauma respond or at least mostly the former.

I'm a firm believer that senti Adrien is a big bullshit because if Gabriel has that power to control Adrien 24/7 then he would do it without hesitation, he won't need to wait until Adrien show a sign of rebelling to use it. He would do it every fucking single time! This is Gabriel, the same person who mock Ladybug and Cat Noir for getting sentimental over a sentimonster after all.

If I have a power that could control my son-puppet emotion, feeling and action, I wouldn't bother to manipulate-gaslight him. It's a waste of time and energy. He doesn't like the pancake I made? Twist the amok and he would eat it without protest. No effort needed. Unless this is the whole Even Evil Has Standard but I doubt it is.

This is another case of the Senti Stans being completely unaware of the implications of the things they’re saying. Like, they do not mean to imply the things they imply, you’ll see this in how genuinely angry and defensive they get every time someone points out said implications. This doesn’t change the fact that almost every single time a new defense of SentiAdrien shows up, it does indeed imply some stuff that really grinds people’s gears.

Because, here’s the thing; chalking up Adrien’s trauma responses as being a result of him being a Sentimonster is literally saying that he acts the way he does because he is not human. This idea that his Sentimonster programming informs his behavior is the same thing as saying that these actions make more sense if he’s not human. Said actions being trauma responses creates the implication that people who act like they’ve been traumatized act in unreasonable, weird or inhuman ways. It’s literally othering trauma victims as something other than a “normal” human.

This is why people who are against the SentiAdrien concept say that the concept makes light of Adrien’s story being an abuse story. The Stans can claim until they’re blue in the face that they still view Adrien’s abuse as abuse, but everything else they say creates implications that ring as the opposite, especially when they say that him being a Sentimonster would “explain” his or Gabriel’s behavior, when nothing about their situation is different from a real life abusive relationship.

If something already happens in the real world, unless the fictional universe is changing its mechanics, it requires no fantastical explanation. In the world of Equestria, seasons don't pass naturally, so the ponies need to pull off a Winter Wrap-up to change winter to spring. The only reason Gabriel's abuse and Adrien's responses to it would need to be explained is if neither existed naturally in the world of Miraculous. And, since Miraculous seems to be functioning similarly to our world when it comes to family stuff, that would be like the show was denying the actual existence of abusive families, especially if all the rich/abused kids are Sentimonsters, which is the popular current take on the concept.

In a fandom where people still vilify Adrien for his trauma responses, let’s not give the hatedom even more reasons to demonize him by saying him being a Sentimonster explains jack shit. It just gives people who don’t sympathize or empathize with trauma victims a free pass.

Here’s the thing about Gabriel’s characterization in a SentiAdrien situation: it doesn’t work no matter how you spin it. No matter what he’ll come out of it with inconsistent characterization and his behavior not making sense.

Option one is that Gabriel doesn’t care about Adrien and doesn’t care about Sentimonsters. That means that he would be using the Amok constantly to get out of dealing with Adrien wanting different things than he does, but he doesn’t do that so it’s inconsistent.

Option two is that Gabriel loves Adrien and therefore doesn’t want to control him. Then why is he okay with other people keeping hold of his son’s essence when he couldn’t trust them to begin with (Félix) or is learning he can’t trust them anymore (Nathalie)? It still doesn't make sense.

Either way we spin Gabriel’s relationship to his remote-control robot son, it just doesn’t work. Even if we go back by about a year back to the third option of Gabriel not knowing Adrien is a Sentimonster, that would just make all the Sentimonster “foreshadowing” nonsense.

[coolmika745]

Again I have been around since the beginning of when the original Fairly Oddparents aired. I stopped watching the series in 2008 because poor characterization and poor plot development.

Many characters in the original shows were toss aside and had a faulty continuity. Dale did appear as a cameo in "Channel Chasers" and so that is actually 5 episodes in total and for years I wonder why Doug Dimmadome son just disappeared from the series and that if he was brought back but his son wasn't. All of the other antagonists in the original series were fully developed characters and we got to see their relationship with their families, but Doug Dimmadome wasn't.

The episodes "Engine Blocked" and "Channel Chasers" didn't sit right with me on how Doug is doing business with Vicky in "Engine Blocked", but is going on about how Vicky is evil in Channel Chasers, and later in "Mooooving Day" he controlled her and other citizens mind using genetically modified milk. I am not understanding how he really feels towards his son's captors as it was written so poorly. We know that evil vs evil does exist but the concept it was executed poorly just like any other evil vs evil in the OG show.

Another example Crocker and Foop were on friendly terms in some episodes and form the L.O.S.E.R.S. with Dark Laser, but in other episodes Crocker and Foop antagonized each other and their betrayal wasn't brought up in the subsequent episode when they joined forces with Dark Laser again.

Also has a large hatedom Dale for being a neglectful parent anyway which is the opposite of being fandom's favorite.

Hazel doesn't have any sort of relationship with Dale at all besides him being her stalker and they barely interact, but that might change in the future. I see no problem in having a tragic villain as long as the fans don't excuse their vileness. Also Dale Dimmadome is a bad character and far from the best character.

I don't think it is fair to compare a 22 years old forgotten character to 7 months characters. Although I do think that other forgotten Fairly Oddparents characters need attention too but most people don't remember they exist. A better comparison is comparing the amount of fan content Dale gets compared to AJ, Chester, Elmer, Sanjay, Trixie, and Tootie, and Veronica since they more appearance in the OG show. A lot of people say they are plot devices who don't deserve attention but I don't think so just because Butch Hartman had no more use for them.

Also don't tell me about anti-black racism and misogynoir as I am black and have first experience on it like the stores being closed in our areas and not getting the job I went to school far.

The misogyny in fandoms where they will mostly focus on the male characters for their "good writing", yet neglect the far more important female characters entirely drives me up the wall. I swear you can show a fandom a cardboard cutout of the word "WHITE GUY" and they'll rant and rave about the intricacies and ingenuity of their characters and how they're subtly one of the best characters ever

[true--north]

The amount of contempt for Anna in some part of the fandom, for Anna, the main character of the franchise, still surprises me.

You're telling that you, hatedom, understand Elsa and Anna better than Lee, their very creator? 👽 💀 Look, there is the new book in which the sisters are together and do their new mission together like in F2, and there is no your stuck in the teeth "separation"–like it wasn't in other post F2 content, but still–Queen Anna is needed to be hated and be on the side lines. Because of the in//st ship power dynamic in which Elsa is on top. Anna is not Elsa's puppet as some of your fandom's fanart says, could you ever imagine this? That's she is not her servant? 💁

Anna is educated-she is a princess. And Anna is not Mary Sue, and it's confirmed, because she admits that she has difficulties and needs the advice of Elsa and Mattias. Mary Sues do not do that.

On the contrary, the assumption that Elsa is so perfect that she easily always copes with everything and has never experienced difficulties in being a queen–this makes Elsa Mary Sue herself. Why do some people have an opinion about the immaculate Elsa? Because of the comics? Actually, Anna in post F2 material, such as about queen of Chato, is shown as more involved in her job, whereas in the most of post F1 materials Elsa was...just here.

And more serious, approved works like the Forest of Shadows and The Polar Nights show that Elsa was experiencing difficulties.

I thought I was idealizing Elsa and wanted her to be super powerful, but some make her some kind of flawless empty perfect girl I never imagined. But the perfect girl is gone, she became mature. Now no rights, no wrongs, no rules for her–she is free. Let It Go message 👌

But whoever else Elsa is, the Snow Queen–Frozen it is Snow Queen AU, never forget it, it has nothing to do with Anna's qualities and who she has become.

Anna is a beautiful queen because she loves Arendelle–she was saving the kingdom in the first movie, has anyone forgotten about it? And Anna loves to hear soils fertility report in The Polar Nights because of this love and care for the well being of the kingdom. And because Nature and weather is one of the main themes since F1-so Anna participates in this themes as well as Elsa. It's all about earth, rain, snow, woods, storms, plants etc.

The pictures of The Sister More Like Me show nothing more than the sisters' different personalities in childhood and youth. The fact that Elsa was neat and collected and was sitting in the room (remember why she was sitting there?) and Anna is clumsy and cheerful and sat on the roof (looking at the Kingdom and the people she wanted to be with) shows only the transformation. The pictures, it's the starter point of the story, their point A, from which they need to get to the point B, changing themselves and everything around them. It's called transformation and a journey. Without it, there is no big stories.

And Anna's happy ending, her point B in her receiving the kingdom and marriage is the golden classic fairy tale scheme-because she is the fairy tale's heroine, but she became the queen sovereign, was chosen for it, not because she married some king, but exactly the opposite–and that's the modernity of her story (And who said that Anna should be modern at all?)

Yes, it can be seen that F2 had too difficult a lesson for many–acceptance of change and growth is not easy both on a personal level and in the environment in which society is now. "But you must go on," said Anna herself. Change is beautiful.

[kob131]

Is it cruel or me to say that with all the fire RT is coming under I’m actually relieved with the possibility of RWBY being cancelled?

It’s nothing agains the show itself. I love the show despite its flaws and it’s been my comfort media for years but the fucking fndm is a whole different story…. Every time a new volume comes out there always has to be some kind of drama with the shipping, story/characters, r/wde, et cetera. I just don’t know what is it about this show that brings out the worst in people, but if the show got cancelled all sides can go down and nobody wins. It’s hard enjoying a media you love while the fandom is the complete fucking opposite

Of course there’s the possibility even if RT does shut down somehow they’ll just move RWBY and CRWBY to a different studio to continue there but… won’t even be mad if the death of the show means the death of the shitty fandom. RT shouldn’t have been doing this to themselves, man

No I get it. It's one last 'fuck you' to a group of horrid people. Nobody gets anything, RT dies, the RWBY stans get blue balled forever, the RWBY hatedom gets effectively a monkey paw wish and you can take some catharsis in the rubble.

Honestly, my only regret is that Monty's project could possibly die before being complete. The man deserved to see his project through to the end, good or bad. He couldn't so the next best is that it gets done.

[givemegayplease]

The tramp stamps have the opposite of a fandom, like it's a hatedom

[bestworstcase]

gently, algorithmic content recommendation works on an individual basis; what you see at the top of your youtube search results is dependent on what youtube thinks you, personally, are the most interested in based on videos you have watched in the past and, to a lesser extent, what other people with similar viewing histories have watched, liked, and subscribed to. when i search “rwby” on the platform a solid 80% of the results shown to me are positive to neutral and skew toward episode clips and AMVs; of the remaining 20% most are reactors whose opinions on the show i don’t know bc i don’t watch reactors. the front page of my search results includes all of three videos from the hatedom, and all three of them are videos i’ve seen widely and regularly promoted by the rwby fandom.

critical videos do tend to appear with somewhat greater frequency as related videos but a) youtube is not holding a gun to my head to force me to click on them and b) even without actively flagging them as not interested, they remain a minority of videos the youtube algorithm recommends to me because i don’t watch them.

the youtube algorithm can’t tell the difference between watching something because you’re into it and watching something because you want to deliver a devastating takedown of its nonsense. what it can see is that i never watch hour-long screeds about rwby being the worst ever, so the algorithm doesn’t shove them in my face. fandom engagement with the hatedom on youtube—sharing videos, rebutting videos, posting links to videos to encourage hatewatching—has the opposite effect because algorithmic content recommendation does not understand anything except that people are spending a lot of time watching these videos, so hey, would you like some more?

there’s a multitude of problems with algorithmic recommendations across the modern web but the perception that algorithms are completely unresponsive to individual engagement and show everybody exactly the same thing is… not true and would actually defeat the purpose of having an algorithm. the fact that ALL of the hatedom videos shown to me by the youtube algorithm are videos that i recognize from the hatedom-hatedom actively seeking them out to complain about them tells me that the reason this is an issue at all is because the rwby fandom keeps watching these videos.

like, you can simply… not watch them? is the experience of scrolling past a clickbaity hatedom thumbnail really so awful that it merits the level of attention the fandom collectively gives to the problem of a hatedom existing. a boring hatedom, even.

It's often frustrating to be a fan of (or at least be fascinated by) stories that actively don't fit within a comfortable narrative, but surrounded by people who are determined to enforce that every story must neatly fit into expected tropes and stories that are enforced as being "the correct way to be told" by society.

You see this happen so, so often. The Prequel Star Wars stories and how they threw a hissy fit because Anakin wasn't some cool tragic badass, but instead a complicated mess who ultimately brought a lot of his troubles on himself, and the story around him being a decaying democracy brought on by a combination of it's own corruption and decadence with outside manipulations. Metal Gear Solid 2 and Raiden, who people threw a fit about because he wasn't Solid Snake, but instead a traumatized mess with severe identity issues surrounded by conspiracies built on the manipulation of information that people only began to get years AFTER the game was released, and only after his character was superficially changed to be the badass military power fantasy they expected him to be.

And then there's RWBY, which is literally all about challenging and questioning the concept of a narrative, the narratives we tell ourselves and are told by others who manipulate what we hear and see... And then people throw a fit because the story doesn't fit a typical fantasy story of their choice with the occasional edgy "tough decisions" tropes that fit with certain male character archetypes, completely overlooking the value of the women characters simply because they're taking part in the roles that the fans expect others to have while actively challenging and questioning said roles.

It's aggravating, because for every good blog or thinkpiece that exists, there's dozens upon dozens who literally make no effort to understand ANYTHING except to churn out hundreds of the same tropey mush with a different coat of paint. And they tend to be the dominant voice so only their nonsense is heard while anyone who tries to point it out has to wait for years to be considered, if they're not outright sneeringly dismissed for "thinking too deeply" instead of conforming to society's obsession with easy patterns and status quo.

Ugh.

not to be facetious but your experience is not universal. i can’t speak for the other two but the only reason the rwby hatedom feels impossible to avoid is because the rwby fandom constantly platforms it. just… unfollow or block the section of the fandom that participates in the bidirectional parasitic relationship with the hatedom and the hatedom will magically disappear from your fandom experience ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

like there’s a reason most of my grumblings over here are on the subject of the boring and often baseless popular fanon reading of the story and not, like, the vocal minority of people who think the show is bad because it doesn’t pander to the misogynists in the audience, or whatever. the hatedom’s sole impact on my time in this fandom has been observing with morbid fascination while the key figures in the hatedom-hatedom ruin their mental health by obsessively and self-destructively monitoring the hatedom lol

also like. your ‘sneeringly dismissed for thinking too deeply’ is my court jester snfjcjdn embrace having an ego about people who can’t wrap their brains around the idea of things having meaning