#and i'm not really trying to start discourse

[lexosaurus]

No lol I'll always appreciate a good metaphor. And I do appreciate the civil discourse too.

I do think it's the quickest and easiest current solution, even if it's not the solution I like. Clearly the sitting back and politely waiting while reblogging a tag guide every few months has not been successful. I get that very much.

Also, I just want to say that I really don't like the perception that we're trying to police like this is an isolated thing, when really we're just following what other fandoms everywhere on Tumblr do. Like when I started DP x The Martian content, it was a drop in the bucket for the DP tag, but it absolutely flooded The Martian tag. People in that fandom asked me to not tag the main The Martian tag with the crossover content, and I was like yup sure no problem 👍 I untagged my stuff, and we all went on our merry ways.

So this is just a common courtesy thing that fandoms everywhere on this webbed site do.

But like obviously, in this case, that concepts not taking. I really really don't want to start blocking people because as I said, that would suck majorly for community events. If this is what people vote is the best solution, sure I'll adopt it. And I have seen the genuine consideration that Jack has taken with the pros and cons. Even if it's annoying for me personally, which like I get I'm just one person lol, I get where people are coming from where the pros outweigh the cons.

This would be used in addition to the danny phantom tag, turning it into a true umbrella tag for everything related to Danny Phantom, while having a few major sub-tags for people to find exactly what they want.

---

After some more discussion with members of the fandom in the notes of my poll asking about a community and elsewhere, it seems like the better option for everyone might actually be a new tag, so I'm making a new poll here!

Some answers to questions I think people might have are below the readmore:

Q: Why are all of these only one word?

A: For the same reason the dpxdc tag is only one word! Tumblr's tagging implementation is Not Good. Tags with spaces don't play well with it, and especially don't play well with blocked tags. If someone wants to block non-crossover Danny Phantom content, we want to make it as painless as possible for them.

Q: What issues were raised around communities?

A: A few! To name some of them:

Limited interactions with posts: Communities only let you react with emoji and leave comments on posts reblogged into them. Not great, if we want to have long reblog chains riffing on one another

Original Posters aren't notified if someone else reblogs their post into a community, even if it's public. So if someone reblogged your post into the community for you, you wouldn't know about it -- or know to look for people interacting with it.

Communities have mods, and therefore would need trustworthy, engaged mods to make it work. Over a short time frame, we could probably manage it! But over a longer one, a community for an entire fandom would probably have moderator drama. That could lead to fracturing, or people leaving specifically because they don't like the mods, etc. A tag is a lot less active maintenance.

A few people also expressed a general dislike for the feature, even if they were willing to move to one. This seems like a much smaller change that will let those people stay away from a feature they don't like, while interacting with the content they do.

Q: What about less-common crossovers? Won't those get excluded from this tag?

A: They will. I'm asking about this poll first because I figured getting the community to make a decision about the other crossovers would be easier if we'd already decided on the non-crossovers.

The current idea is to move those to their own tag as well, so they can get dedicated attention from the crossover enthusiasts who love them. One of the people I talked to about this runs the niche-dp-crossovers blog, so it's on the radar. If you have concerns or suggestions about that, the notes on this post is as good a place as any to suggest them!

[mythals-whore]

I want to say more about the Davrin romance but if people didn't get what i was trying to say in my last post, i don't think there's more i can say and it's just going to make me more sad

[littlespoonevan]

i think the thing for me and the thing that's actually bothering me the most in general is that i don't think any show in 911's category that i've ever watched (that is: network tv shows that run on a weekly basis for most of the year with no definitive or planned ending until cancellation) has gotten better after killing off a main character

[asneakyfox]

well, let's say someone responds to you so consistently in such an annoying way that you start hesitating to post anything at all, because every time you draft a post, you imagine the exact very annoying argument they're going to start over it, and you find yourself engaging less and less with the fandom - if you just go along with that impulse, i think, you're letting that person control your own role in the discourse (whether or not you think they're actually trying to; it doesn't really matter if it's intentional or not here), and that's not good. i think the whole community is worse if people end up pulling away for that kind of reason. so i think that in those situations it's much better to block.

(one example of this sort of thing, fwiw, is the situation that prevailed in ofmd fandom with the canyon in, say, much of 2023 before s2 dropped; there was a good while where if you posted anything about izzy that wasn't fully canyon-compliant several canyon accounts would reliably descend upon you and argue so aggressively that most people outside the canyon just avoided ever mentioning izzy at all. i thought that was a bad situation, and that's the reason i ever started posting meta - i didn't want them controlling the conversation, so i started blocking the canyon and i resolved that if i had something to say about izzy i would say it, and people immediately started dming me to say how relieved they felt to see someone say what they'd been thinking. and the fandom only became a place where it was possible to talk about izzy after we all started blocking them. i think it was a big improvement when we did that, because he's an interesting character who can be fun to talk about!)

as far as vaguing and accusations go, like, ok, yes i'm thinking of a couple of specific people here, and i'm sure it's possible to figure out who they are. (the people in question have been 100% certain i was vaguing them before when i absolutely wasn't at all, so i'll be surprised if they can't figure out when it actually is happening!) so in that sense i'm not going to claim that it's not a vague, and if people don't like vaguing they can be mad at me if they want. but also vaguing specific people is not really the point here. i don't want to say who i'm talking about here because then the focus would be on whom i'm accusing and whether the accusation is justified, but i actually mean this as advice. i think you should follow this advice whether or not the people you need to block are the same people i would block. if anyone reading this finds that the person who makes you reluctant to post is me, then i think you should block me, and no hard feelings!

fox guide to dealing with people who keep trying to control the fandom discourse & silence any opinion that disagrees with them:

say whatever you want

when they complain block/mute them

say it again

[chamerionwrites]

[Gonna say that a cw for historical racism/slavery/graphic violence as portrayed in Black Sails is appropriate here]

I am very much a Bloodied Flint Enjoyer, also a Morally Dubious Flint Enjoyer. That said I do find it sort of wild that the full context for one of the images most commonly included in gifsets of him being positively-drenched-in-blood is that the captain of a slave ship has violently coerced a man into blowing himself up in a suicide attack and Flint had a near enough miss that he's coated in the fine red mist aftermath of uhh.........that.

Which is ultimately very meta-narratively appropriate to the show's themes (all appearances to the contrary it is not the blood-soaked pirate who has perpetrated the violence here), but. Not always intentionally so on the part of gifset makers, I feel!

[torchickentacos]

The pokemon anime subreddit fascinates and frustrates me on equally deep levels

[parkissat]

I will forever miss the black bowlcut. It was iconic, cute, silly, and sexy all at the same time, it went with every and any outfit, and it was just very *him*

But yeah okay fine the blond look does work specifically with the black cropped jacket, I see it...

More than anything though I like seeing him in whatever brings him confidence and joy, his happy smiles are beautiful ;u;

[sugarycandle]

so i read a new release by a really popular queer author. and it was fun, wasn't my favorite book by them but it was definitely better than the most popular one imho. there's a lot of sex which is totally fine and it was kinda fun, but some parts made me feel a bit iffy bc it felt very much like "yeah everybody likes to fuck" and like okay. but then they literally said that "the human condition" is loving and having sex, and i was like oh. and then i realized that despite all of the queerness which is diverse otherwise (not always handled well tho), none of their books ever even mention asexuality and aromanticism, and it just made me feel really weird. because obviously you're not required to write aspec characters but yeah idk, it made me kind of sad

[idontwanttospoiltheparty]

I try to keep tumblr arguments in replies, because I'm having a conversation with someone, not purposely repeatedly putting them on blast – but it does mean that one time someone claimed to me that Please Please Me was a gender neutral love song (when it in fact rhymes "girl" with "girl" in its first two lines) – and probably only I saw it?

[thevegetablewhichnoonedaresname]

tonight I go to bed grateful not to be in my bnha phase right now

[ancientrimer]

i can't believe this keeps happening to me. i figure out a theory i think i might want to apply in my thesis, go look at the text that has the theory, and find that that text already mentions jane eyre

[starlene]

Having a chat about the Barbie movie with @neroushalvaus helped me to put something that bothers me about the movie to words.

At the end of the movie, when Barbie becomes a human, we see her dressed in beige, sensible clothing. Symbolically, she has grown up into a woman – and as a woman, she no longer wears the bright, pink, girly clothing she used to wear earlier.

Meanwhile, in our reality, women come to watch this movie all dolled up in their best pinks and glitters – a movie that ends with Barbie, a world-famous emblem of femininity, leaving neon pink behind her and choosing to wear muted colours instead.

Somehow, in this regard, I feel like the real-life response to the movie is more uplifting than the movie itself. In real life, adult women are celebrating the movie by wearing girly clothing, and they’re feeling happy and confident while doing so. If bright, girlish aesthetic makes you feel good, growing up doesn’t mean you have to leave it behind.

The costume design makes sense for Barbie’s character arc, sure, but on a symbolic level... I don’t really like what it says about the relationship between girlish/hyper-feminine aesthetic and adulthood, and I guess it just makes me a little bit sad how that part of the story and the real-life response to the movie clash.

[queer-book-character-tournament]

Homestuck can be purchased in bookstores too

okay? homestuck isn't on the debate table; no one ever submitted it, so it's not in the discussion. i'm not about to engage in discourse about it.

i presume this is in response to this

[luckycharming]

This is kinda ranty, so feel free to ignore. But! Shipping/fandom culture on TikTok is so damn toxic! And yes, fandom spaces can be like that no matter the platform, I know that, but it seriously is different on TikTok. Like, it's their etiquette or lack of etiquette that baffles me. People say stupid, weird shit on here, for example, but at least there's a level of awareness with that. On TikTok, it's like they can't understand or don't want to understand why they can't just say whatever comes to mind that's rude. Or like, it's the perceived familiarity they think they have to act like that with people that grates my skin. I want to participate in fandom spaces there but it's so genuinely weird and hellish that it's not worth the effort.

[smartzelda]

Okay, so now that I've taken a metaphorical drag of my cigarette and stared off into the diatance for a while, I'm gonna unpack this piece by piece

ㅤ

"a new interesting queerbaiting offshoot is happening"

Hi, so (respectfully), what you've described here isn't a new phenomenon.

Let us for instance look upon House MD (2004), because I saw a couple people in the notes mention it.

House MD has background queer characters (as well as other minorities present) in its 8 seasons ("background" in this case referring to the cast that changes with the episodic nature of the A plotlines). Episode 4, "Maternity" aired in December 2004 and featured a lesbian couple who were soon to be parents.

Remy "Thirteen" Hadley was a main character who entered the show in episode 2 of season 4 in October 2007, and (though she would not remain a main character in every single season following) does make it past the series finale. While hints were given in the series prior (her actor gave an official statement as well), Thirteen was canonically confirmed to be bisexual in the show itself in Season 4 Episode 12, which aired in February 2008. Thirteen calls herself bisexual on multiple occassions during the show, dated Eric Foreman (one of the main male cast members) for a time, was allowed to be sexually interested/involved with both men and women, and closed out the show with a canonical girlfriend (thus making her a main character who is allowed to just be gay/queer).

And then, of course, we have Hilson (a pairing of two main characters that is a topic of queerbaiting discourse to this day). They're arguably the most popular gay pairing among fans, there are multiple jokes about them being gay for each other in the show itself, the actors did a "bromance" interview, one time they played something like gay chicken and had a false proposal scene, etc etc yadda yadda. There's a lot there to talk about. Point is, the pairing was popular, had good canon basis, seemed to be supported reading wise by Hugh Laurie (who played Gregory House), canon joked about them being a thing on multiple occassions, and ultimately the series closed out with the pairing being noncanon.

The topic of whether House MD is queerphobic or offensive in some ways with their handlings of their cast members/plots is an entirely separate topic of converation I don't plan to derail and discuss here. My point is that people who lived through it know just how homophobic the 2000s were, and the criteria of fitting the phenomenon denoted in the original post is having characters who were gay and allowed to be gay, as well as a popular pairing which was not explicitly canonized, which the show had. The show ended a full 3 years before gay marriage was fully legalized, and a year before it was legalized in New Jersey, where the show takes place.

This is a tv show that ran from 2004—2012 that fits the criteria of this "new queerbaiting offshoot", and I know there are multiple other similar examples (potentially even earlier ones).

ㅤ

"queerbaiting offshoot"

Okay, let me start by saying that I understand you're not saying that this phenomenon you've described is 1 to 1 the definition of what queerbaiting is.

However, it's the usage of the term in this manner that reminds me of my long held belief at this point that "queerbaiting" needs to go up on the shelf, and is ultimately why I've been trying to avoid queerbaiting discourse as often as I can.

Context, here, matters, and "queerbaiting" is a very specific phenomenon that involves a piece of media where (I am simplifying the explanation a bit here. To get a more accurate explanation than what is commonly used I suggest talking to veterans of the queer community) the relationship between two characters of the same gender is heavily hinted at or implied, but where the producers/creators involved have no intention to ever make it explicitly canon (often even punishing the audience through the ongoing narrative or deriding them within the media itself for ever considering the characters might be gay for each other). This allows the media to draw queer viewership without alienating the general cishet viewerbase. The defining factor that separates "queerbaiting" from "queercoding" is intent. And, in this day and age, it's often hard to prove that everyone involved in the creation of a piece of media is intentionally queerbaiting the audience as opposed to queercoding under the radar or trying to get in whatever their corporate overlords have allowed.

This is why the the context matters though.

Does your piece of media have no explicitly confirmed queer characters (outside of maybe one offs or stereotypes for the audience to laugh at)? Are there several hints in the media itself tying one or more of the main characters to queer culture while building up these characters of the same gender to be the most important people to each other? What you might have here is a case of queercoding. It's entirely possible the writer or writers are trying to get in what they can, but ultimately were not able to get the pairing canonized.

Does your piece of media have one or more explicitly canonical (not completely stereotype filled) queer character, but not confirm a romantic relationship between one of those characters and another main character of their same gender? This is not queerbaiting. Again, context matters.

In some of these cases, the media doesn't show any main characters getting long time romantic partners because it's not relevant to the narrative they're spinning. In some of these cases, some of the queer characters explicity enter relationships and some don't. Depending on the context, it could be a case of not every character entering a romantic relationship before the series end (which is something that is and should be normal. Not every character even in all cishet media ends the media dating someone. We shouldn't be setting the standard that all queer characters need to be in a permanent romantic relationship, or that they need this to be queer). It could also be a case of the queer character(s) having explicit sexual or romantic relationships onscreen, but the creators not choosing to (or not being allowed to) canonize a permanent pairing between that character and another main character.

Does your piece of media (whether it has canonical queer characters or not) have tease moments between a couple characters of the same gender? Maybe there's a moment where two characters suddenly get really close during an event, a joke is added in about them being gay for each other (which either causes the characters to defend themselves or brush off the comment as nothing while embarassed). Does this happen on the occasion with one or more pairings, but ultimately these moments are never followed up on or referenced again in any fashion like a one off deal? Then you may potentially be a victim of "ship baiting". Even media with canonical queer relationships between main characters can do this, and they sometimes spawn off secondary popular pairings for the two characters. There's no intent to canonize the pairing, sure, but it's a tongue in cheek thing. Ship baiting can be done with pairings involving any combination of genders, and it can be as malicious as queerbaiting, or as benign as creators deliberately leaving potential for their fans to have fun with in fandom about.

I wouldn't call the phenomenon you've described here an "offshoot" of queerbaiting, especially since (depending on the context) the phenomenon can be 1 to 1 applied to popular examples of media people assumed were queerbaiting before the creators confirmed they were queercoding.

Legend of Korra (considered a milestone for queer media (in the USA at least)) ended the series finale with Korra and Asami leaving for the spirit world together. Within the show itself, they do not kiss and them starting a relationship is not explicitly confirmed (this being because at that time the creators did as much as they could by allowing them to end the show together without being paired off with anyone else). It was later in the official comics that the characters were confirmed to have gotten married.

I also got into SPOP right before the final season dropped, and was privy to all the built up discourse before everyone had seen the final season. Though they managed to add in or confirm background queer relationships here and there over the course of the show (and are queer themself), Nate Stevenson had been accused of queerbaiting ships between the main characters pretty much until the end, as people debated over whether there would be a canon main queer pairing and what pairing it would be. Ultimately, despite the years of discourse, Catradora was canonized in the series finale (incl. an onscreen kiss between them), and Stevenson went on to say that he (like other milestone shows which came before) had to fight to get the relationship canonized. He did this partially by intentionally cementing the characters' relationship into the core of the show and building it to the point where canonization was the only answer.

There are more (often more apt) terms than "queerbait" out there for your usage. It's hard to prove that someone is intentionally queerbaiting these days, but it is more common than you'd think for a writer or writers to heavily queercode the cast members or a particular relationship to deal with a particular line drawn by their corporate (or in some cases even showrunner) overlords.

ㅤ

"it's just that the most popular fan pairing is NOT allowed to happen."

Hey, so if this was just an unintentional poor wording moment, no worries. You can assume I'm speaking in general as opposed to you specifically

But "most popular fan pairing" denotes something a bit different than, say, "most hinted at non-canon pairing". Other people have pointed this out on this post prior, but it is not actually a bad thing for creators to not canonize whatever the fandom thinks of as the best pairing.

We have to rid ourselves of this entitled "fans know best" attitude. It ultimately does not matter whether or not you personally believe you or someone else could have written a story/relationship better. Fandoms do not (and should not) get to determine a narrative's course. It is up to the writer(s) to decide the narrative they're to write and whether (or which exactly) relationships fit into the story they are telling.

We have a really big problem in the more queer sides of fandom right now where everything is getting accused of queerbaiting simply because the fans at large got invested in a character relationship, decided the pairing should be canon, and (no matter the circumstances surrounding the media'a creation, political environment, relevance, actual depth of canon potential) then the characters didn't kiss and it pissed them off.

Your investment in a fan pairing should not be entirely contingent on whether you are eventually "rewarded" for it by getting canonization and kisses. Fuck that. Fandom is not about solely indulging in things that "will be canon" and lashing out when things don't go your way. From the beginning till the end of time people will be getting obsessed with relationship dynamics between characters who won't canonically get together. It's unrealistic to expect that they should solely because a lot of people on the internet like the idea. Everything can't be queerbaiting. You have to get used to this.

And, as others have pointed out in the notes already, fandom is hardly trustworthy for deciding what should be canon. Sometimes the fans at large get it right, and the main queer fan pairing has a shit ton of basis in canon, fits the narrative, and on some occassions even becomes canon. However, sometimes the most popular canon pairing is like two guys who held hands once or had a kind of neat character dynamic. These are cases where fans attached onto the first hint of a main character pairing very very hard, and then (rather than update their thoughts and readings of the media as more characters and other even deeper relationships were developed) doubled down in asserting that their beloved main pairing is the only thing which can and should be canon. The fans do not always know what's best for the characters or narrative, and I would hate to live in a world where creators were forced to canonize anything their fans decided would make the story better (or their fans personally like).

Creators do not have to make a main fan pairing canon because it's popular. The lack of a canon confirmation for a pairing you like does not automatically mean the characters don't have feelings for each other in the canon or can never get together. You don't need your pairings to be canon to "prove" you were right about a media all along. It is a fact of life that a piece of media will have multiple readings that can be drawn from it, and it is normal to theorize and speculate on things that may never be explicitly confirmed. Embrace that.

ㅤ

"why? well maybe the writers just want u specifically dead"

I get that this is an intentional exaggeration (likely intended to match whatever pairing you're having thoughts and feelings about right now), but genuinely the only answer to "why" the phenomenon you've described occurs isn't that you're being queerbaited by people who hate you.

Like. There's not a 0% chance, I will admit, but it's still not the only explanation. I implore you to consider what else may be going on behind the scenes if the pairing in question genuinely has great basis in the canon (as per the earlier discussion on queerbaiting).

With that being said, this is the best answer I can provide in regards to the phenomenon you've described.

Everything is not as progressive as you seem to believe it is

As sad as it is, just because we can have background relationships or canon queer characters or a piece of media that revolves around a gay relationship does not mean the fight is over and that gay relationships are always acceptable in media now. We still to this day have creators fighting tooth and nail against executives to get canon/explicit/casual queerness in their public, more mainstream media. And just because someone managed to get this to happen does not mean all threats of corporate meddling are gone (and this is me talking about the USA. I haven't even touched on other countries' media.)

The sad truth is that we still live in a reality where media that is not up front about being a queer story from the getgo (such as a movie that is advertised to be about a gay romance at its core) is risky to confirm main queer relationships partway through. Corporations don't want to lose their mainstream cishet audience, and (to them) a "surprise" main gay pairing is something that will run too high a risk of losing them viewers and money. This is why so many main gay pairings are confirmed in the last second. And, on top of that, even media with casual queerness and canon queer relationships have had to deal with censorship around the world, because a company would rather erase or obscure queerness than potentially lose money. We even still deal with tv shows that are up front about their queerness, and that make companies loads of money and get them tons of views getting canceled for...no real discernible reason sometimes.

Yes. Yes it is absolutely possible for a piece of media with background queer rep or a canon gay/trans character to face roadblocks in making those relationships canon between main characters. Sometimes this is because the creators' hands were tied and they added in what they could. Sometimes the creators did this on purpose because they didn't feel canonization of that particular pairing would be right for their characters/narrative (either at this exact moment or in general). Sometimes a show runner has no intention of canonizing anything, but their writing team enjoys adding queercoding and making canon what they can.

It's not always queerbait.

a new interesting queerbaiting offshoot is happening where characters are allowed to be gay it's just that the most popular fan pairing is NOT allowed to happen. why ? well maybe the writers just want u specifically dead

[timeandspacelord]

hey, hi, quick question, just wondering, are you shipping kaz and nikolai, from the tv show, or the book series, just given the age difference in the books, and the way you've been tagging things, is kinda confusing, just thought i'd ask, just in case

I'm going to answer this assuming it's in good faith even though the wording definitely puts me on edge. To me, I don't think it matters that much whether it's the books or the show. It's both, it's whatever makes you more comfortable, especially since a lot of what I've written is AUs.

The age difference in the books is like five years (Wiki says Kaz is 18 in KoS, but that's an estimate and my math - which puts KoS about two years after CK - says he should be 19, maybe even 20). We do not know these characters' birthdays and, more importantly, they are fictional, and I don't have to justify myself to anyone because they are fictional.

I do not want to get embroiled in the pro-shippers vs antis debate because I think it leaves out a lot of nuances and, frankly, I don't have the time or energy to waste on something so ultimately unimportant. I have a job. Writing is my hobby. Pass moral judgement on me if you like, or simply stop engaging if you think it's such a big deal, I do not care ¯\_(ツ)_/¯