#this is about fandom discourse

[suffersinfandom]

Maybe I fucking will quit fandom. Most of my interactions with canyon folks are perfectly normal -- nice, even! -- but some of them have been trashfires (especially recently) and I don't understand why people are so mean. Are you so miserable that you need to drag everyone down with you? Is this fun? Did ruining my day make yours better?

ETA: Things are cool, and please don't go picking fights with anyone. You never know what someone's going through, y'know? Life's hard. This time of year absolutely sucks rocks for a lot of people. I know that I've been unintentionally condescending and rude on a few occasions, and I'm grateful for anyone who has granted me grace when that happened.

If I'm not around for a few days, don't worry. I think I'm gonna take a little pre-holiday break from fan spaces.

[lizzyflowers]

I don't know anymore. I just don't.

I know that you should block those you know you just won't get along with, or have very conflicting views that just won't work well if you interacted with them.

I mean sure, they might be like that now but what if they changed? What if i blocked them now because they thought that people like me deserve the worst even when my views are as complicated at theirs?

Don't they have real problems to deal with that fight people on the internet? Why criticise when we can just tolerate?

Don't you have like, i don't know, rent, jobs, and other real world problems that matter more than this? Why do you care more for these fictional characters that you are so willing to hurt real people for?

But what if they changed? What if they've matured and grown enough that they no longer hold those views? Would we get along then? But i blocked them.

I wouldn't know, and i'm certainly glad they won't be able to interact with me now while they hold the views that will certainly hurt me. But maybe we could've been friends.

Maybe if i had a bit of hope for them that they'd change and just didn't press that block button we would talk and sympathise and try to understand each other.

Just maybe.

[crymeariveronceagain]

Me, coming up with sick burns to people whose takes I don't like, mentally starting discourse, but never posting or writing any of it down: cat eye sharp enough to kill a man. You did some bad things but I'm the worst of them.

Me, keeping scrolling past what annoyed me without engaging: on my vigilante shit again

[cardentist]

hey, so people need to be aware that youtube is now (randomly) holding basic features for ransom (such as being able to pin comments under your own videos) in exchange for Your State ID/Drivers License, or a 30 Second Video Of Your Face.

not to pull a "think of the children," but No Actually. I've been making videos as a hobby since 2015 (and I've had my channel since middle school), I was a minor when I started and I'm not sure I would have understood the kind of damage something a seemingly simple as a video of your face can do.

this is a Massive breach of privacy and over-reach on google's part No Matter What, but if they're going to randomly demand a state ID or license then they absolutely should not allow minors to be creators.

google having a stockpile of identifying information on teenagers is bad enough, but the Alternative of recording your face and handing it over to be filed away is Alarming considering it opens the gates for minors who Aren't old enough to have a license.

and yes, there is a third option, but it's intentionally obtuse. a long wait period (2 months), with no guarantee of access (unlike, say, the convenience of using your phone's cameras for either of the other two), with absolutely No elaboration on what the criteria is or how it's being measured.

it's the same psychological effect that mobile games rely on. offer a slow, unreliable solution with no payment to make the Paid instant gratification look more appealing (the "payment" in this case being You. you are the product being offered).

and it's Particularly a system that (I think intentionally) disadvantages people who don't treat their channels like a job. hobbyists or niche creators who don't create regularly enough or aren't popular enough to meet whatever Vague criteria needs to be met to pass.

markiplier would have no problem passing, your little brother might not be able to. and while Mark's name is already out there there's no reason why your little brother's should be too.

something like pinned comments may seem simple, you don't technically Need it. but it's a feature that's been available for years. most people don't look at descriptions anymore. so when there's relevant information that needs to be delivered then the pinned comment is usually the go to.

for my little channel that information is about the niche series I create for. guides on how to get into the series, sources on where to find the content At All (and reliably so). for other creators it can be used for things Much More Important.

Moreover, if we let them get away with cutting away "small" features and selling it back to you for the price of your privacy, then they Will creep further. they Will take more.

Note: I have an update to this post here: [Link]

[hiveswap]

?

[puzzlekink]

i feel like im getting old sometimes i see posts on here or tweet screenshots and the topic is something so insignificant that has unironic discourse about it. some people care way too much about what strangers on the internet think.

[kenneth-black]

I think Eddie feels the most comfortable and at home with his abuela because growing up, she was probably the only person in his family who allowed him to be a child while everyone else expected him to be the man of the house. She let him be her little Eddito… 🥺🙃

[gif made by the talented @housewifebuck 🤍]

[dunyun-rings]

I saw a post that said “Dragon Age discourse walked so that Baldurs Gate 3 discourse could run” and that’s absolutely false. Dragon Age discourse sprinted, foaming at the mouth, so that BG3 discourse could skip happily through a meadow

[krstsole]

Just wanna say that I think Ekko and Mel slander makes sense when you understand that 85% of the Arcane fandom views both of them as characters less worthy of fandom attention.

In their eyes, they are afterthoughts to more interesting relationships, so when someone in the 15% dares to give them anything outside of dutiful lamentations ("Mel and Ekko deserved better!"), they can't help but feel those analysis would be better suited for a character they *actually* like and so they lash out.

Fans of both characters have to constantly argue that these characters have loved and have been loved. They want Mel "independent" because she doesn't "need love" and they want Ekko focused on The Tree and the unnamed Firelights because they want it to be easier to carve both of them out of the interpersonal narratives that attaches fandoms to characters in the first place.

They want Mel and Ekko to "save the day" because they don't want their roles in the story to interfere with other characters that they like. Better for them to beat the Bad Guys™ than to be given more material that would validate their personal connections with other characters in ways that the fandom would prefer to ignore.

And the fact that Ekko and Mel are completely different characters who have never once interacted with each other and yet somehow both of them are being treated the same way with how the fandom constantly diminishes their relationships with the rest of the main cast leads me to believe that it does have something to do with the One Trait they do share.

[butterflyinthewell]

[kimkhimhant]

to reiterate: an autistic fan headcanoning a character they like and relate to as being autistic is not armchair diagnosing anyone and is not harming anyone. it is not an insult for a character to be headcanoned as autistic, it is not the fan claiming their experience as being the only autistic experience, it is not claiming that there cannot be other interpretations.

an autistic person seeing a character's traits as similar to their own and finding comfort in that is not an insult to that character or to other fans.

an autistic fan headcanoning their favorite character as autistic is not a personal attack against you and your experiences and preferences

it feels incredibly ableist and dismissive to tell autistic fans that headcanoning a character as autistic is Problematic. Autism is not an insult.

[bixels]

The Ryoko Kui interview's reception is such a disaster over a pretty normal (yet still flawed) interview between a non-Japanese fan and Japanese artistic. This is discourse for discourse's sake, and it's no surprise that almost every Twitter user I've looked at who's using this interview to parade Kui around as a goated mangaka standing strong against Western ideology is anti-trans.

Like, I do think the interview was kinda wonky with its focus on fandom culture, which Kui clearly didn't have much interest in. But sometimes that happens. Sometimes interactions between two people, especially a fan and a creator, two people who view and interact with a piece of media in completely opposite perspectives, don't click. Does this really need to get blown up into a "West vs. East culture war" issue.

Anyways, Kui saying "I don't consider my audience's interpretations when writing. I leave it to their imaginations, but I have my own read on things too" is the healthiest, most normal thing an artist/writer who wants a non-parasocial audience could say. Artists and writers use this line all the time. If Kui didn't enjoy autistic Laius or Farcille headcanons, she would have probably voiced/signalled her discomfort, like she did on the topic of Senshi fanservice. Overall, Kui handled the interview really well. Props to her to sticking to her guns and keeping a healthy disconnect from the fandom. While I think the interviewer could've/should've been more tactful and restrained, the flaws in their questions is not a symptom of the woke mind virus trying to wriggle its way into the pure Japanese psyche. It's the sign of an over-eager fan who sees a piece of fiction differently than its creator.

[synchodai]

I get this impression that House of the Dragon doesn't get that "named" heirs aren't really the norm in Westeros. If it were that easy for someone to just give everything to their favorite child, Randall Tarly wouldn't have needed to force Sam to go to the Wall and Tywin could have simply chosen Cersei over Tyrion as heir of Casterly Rock.

If we look at the history Westeros borrows from, the concept of "naming" heirs wasn't really a thing in medieval England. Landed gentry didn't have direct say over the order of succession until the Statute of Wills in 1540. Before then, land and subsequent titles could only be inherited through agnatic primogeniture.

Agnatic primogeniture prioritized the living, eldest, trueborn son. Claims can only be passed on patrilineally. This means that a grandaughter can inherit a claim of her grandfather's titles through her father, but a grandson cannot be given the same through his mother. However, if his mother finally does have land and titles under her own name (not under her father's), only then does her son and other children enter the line of succession.

The reason it was like this was because it kept land and titles under one family. Daughters are less preferred because when they are married, they become part of their husband's family — meaning that any titles they receive will be inherited through a new line. This wouldn't be an ideal situation because it gives two families claims to the titles. The more claimants there are, the more unstable the hold the owner has.

In other words, agnatic primogeniture was practiced for stability. Because back in the day, titles weren't just property or land. They came with governorship over a people, so a stable and predictable transfer of titles was necessary to avoid civil conflicts and questions of legitimacy.

A landed lord or lady wasn't given the right to designate heirs for a few reasons:

Most of them were vassals who oversaw the land in the name of someone higher up. It technically isn't even theirs to give away (see: feudal land tenure).

The wishes of a human being are less predictable than having a determined line of succession based on birth order. What if he becomes incapable of declaring an heir either through illness or disability? What if he's captured and a bad actor forces him to name this person heir under threat of violence?

People died unexpectedly all time. This was before germ theory and modern medicine — child mortality was extremely high. With no refrigeration technology, a single poor harvest could mean dying from starvation. Bandits, cutthroats, and raiders were a constant threat. They could not afford to rely on a person choosing a different heir every time the old heir drops dead, because the landed lord/lady could die just as suddenly.

Even 21st century families stab each other in the back over who gets grandma's house — so imagine having an uncertain line of succession in the middle ages over a life-defining lordship and without a modern-day court system to mediate.

Going back to HotD, whenever Targaryens did go against the established line of succession, they could only have done it by consolidating the support of their vassals. Only royalty seemed to have the power to bend agnatic primogeniture, but even then they were beholden to it.

When Jaehaerys I ascended the throne over Aerea, it was mainly because there were those who saw Maegor the Cruel's act of disinheriting Jaehaerys as null and void. This restored Jaehaerys place in the line of succession above Aerea.

And when Rhaenys was passed over for Baelon, Jaehaerys had to convene his lords and offer compelling reasons as to why — her young age, her lack of an heir, her Velaryon last name, etc. It wasn't a given that just because she was a woman that she was ineligible. If he was doing it purely out of misogyny, he still had to legally justify his misogyny in order to strip away her rights.

Even after consolidating support, the book mentions Jaehaerys I and Viserys I's respective hold on the crown was still weakened. Even though their claims were backed by reasons cosigned by a powerful majority, they still had to ensure the security of their rule through other means. There were people who doubted their right to rule, and those people had to be placated with gifts (by Viserys) or intimidated into submission (by Jaehaerys).

So we come to Viserys I who never gave his vassals a reason why Rhaenyra should supercede his three sons other than, "I said so." Had he convened with his lords and maybe made the argument that a first marriage takes precendence over a second one, then maybe he could have set a new precedent and gathered support.

But no, he didn't. He relied on the power of his own words and the lords' personal oaths — oaths that he didn't exactly plan how he would enforce posthumously.

And the Realm did not choose to adopt a different succession law after Jaehaerys's designation of Baelon in 92 AC or the Council of Harrenhal choosing Viserys on 101 AC. If those two events did change anything, it was that now women were exempt from the line of succession for the crown and only the crown. It did not set the precedence that monarchs could freely choose heirs. It did not upend the whole system; it only made a tweak, as most lawful policy-changes do, by carving out at an exception. It was a committee, not a revolution.

Before and after the Dance, no other monarch, lord, or lady "declared" an heir that went against agnatic primogeniture, save for Dornish who have cognatic (equal-gender) primogeniture instead. Ramsay had to get rid of Roose Bolton's living trueborn son AND be legitimized by the crown in order to be recognized as heir (only a crowned monarch can legitimize baseborn children which is another world-building pillar a lot of people miss). Randall basically had to force Sam to abdicate because he wanted his younger brother to inherit instead. And of course, Tywin despite his intense hatred of Tyrion is forced to acknowledge him as his heir.

The rigidity of the line of succession is a major and constant source of conflict in the series, so it baffles me that people really thought that characters could just freely choose their heirs. That's why we have a civil war. It wasn't a misunderstanding. It's the expected consequences of someone carelessly going against a foundational tenent of the society they inhabit.

[rosetterer]

if you are mad that bucktommy is getting more attention than henren, you should be fucking furious that a non-canon mlm ship has been getting more attention than henren for YEARS

[helloyellow17]

Idk man I might get torn to shreds for saying this, but I simply cannot understand the new trend, particularly among younger internet users, where people write a laundry list of their triggers in their bio and then expect everyone to read and cater to said list on a PUBLIC PLATFORM.

This is the same mentality that drives people to attack appropriately tagged fics on AO3 for having x y or z content because “How dare you post this when I have trauma about this???” Obviously if someone is going to write a super heavy and highly sensitive fic and NOT tag it properly, they ought to be called out on it. But this isn’t about that, it’s about the people who don’t curate their own content, it’s about the people who enter public spaces and demand that the general public cater to THEM specifically.

Additionally: Listing out your triggers for everyone to see is just ASKING for trolls to come into your inbox and flood you with triggering content. (Unfortunately, as much as we would like to believe otherwise, the internet is full of selfish jerks who don’t give a crap about anybody’s trauma.) Not only this, but the algorithm does not read your bio. The algorithm does not care about your triggers unless YOU make sure to block specific tags and content.

YOU are responsible for curating your own content, and nobody else.

Obviously this is not to say people shouldn’t try to tag their posts for common triggers, because that’s the common courtesy thing to do. But if Becky has a phobia of bees, it is on her to block that tag and curate her feed around it, and she does not get the exclusive right to suddenly demand that nobody talk about bees within a ten mile radius of her. If Alec has a phobia of dogs, then it is well within his right to avoid contact with them, but he doesn’t get to go to a public park and yell at anybody who brings their dog there. It is his responsibility to know his own limits and seek out parks that are dog-free. (If someone brings a dog to a dog-free area, that’s a whole different issue that I won’t be getting into rn but yes, the person who does that is in the wrong there.)

The internet is widely a public space. If you want to create a safe space completely and utterly free of your specific triggers, you have to put the work in to make that space for yourself. You don’t get to ask other internet strangers to do it for you.

I’m saying this out of genuine concern (and admittedly, frustration) because there are so many young teens in fandom nowadays who don’t understand this, and they end up putting themselves in extremely vulnerable and even downright dangerous situations because they don’t understand that putting your well-being in the hands of a stranger is a terrible idea.

Please be safe, and for the love of all that is holy, be reasonable. Curating your content yourself is just as much a protection for you as it is a vital key that allows public communities to function.

[luckthebard]

Continues to be baffling to me how much of the CR fandom refuses to understand that, by the end of C1 (and frankly way earlier in that campaign than many people realize) Vax’s vow to the Raven Queen was totally voluntary, important and meaningful to him, and not something he wanted a trick or lawyer to “get him out of.”

I guess it surprises me to still see this because an intense disagreement about this was perhaps the biggest point of contention (and indeed one of the most interesting parts) of Vax and Keyleth’s relationship. I loved the disconnect they had about it as characters and that they stayed together in spite of it. (It’s part of what made me such a fan of Vaxleth as a romantic story.) But the Vax side of that disconnect they had about faith and fate and the gods seems to have been totally lost in the fandom memory of the campaign.

Vax does not see his service to his goddess as something he would need “rescuing” from and he would resent the assumption. De-orbed Vax would probably first go back to his duty and service, because that was meaningful to him. Breaking the rules a few times to try to save Keyleth doesn’t negate that, it’s just on-brand for a character who wore his heart on his sleeve and often made brash decisions to protect people he loved without thinking it through.