foundingfatherfest

[foundingfatherfest]

rammstein - mein teil, bruxelles, stade roi baudouin

[foundingfatherfest]

There comes a time when fandom becomes less of an escape from anxiety to being the source of anxiety. Sometimes I need to remind myself what’s important to focus on, and I made this chart to help me with that. 

(Posting this at the request of a few people. The design/concept was inspired by an instagram post about covid-19 located here). 

[foundingfatherfest]

hands are safe places

[foundingfatherfest]

Word of the day…..

[foundingfatherfest]

everyone wonders why trees are so big, but I know.

[foundingfatherfest]

me: huh damn i’m bored

the 2% of my brain that isn’t actively sabotaging me: do your assignments. read a book. take a fucking shower

me:

[foundingfatherfest]

sorry folk’s it’s discourse night on this blog

@tin-tower

tin-tower said: t Well, for sure I’m getting a crash course in fandom discourse and culture! I’m not talking about debating what is hot or not (I agree a debate on that seems pointless). A discussion is not a debate, and not every fic is a pwp where it’s only merits lie in its hotness. If I read a book, it’s rare that the whole book from cover to cover disgusts me. Even if there are elements that disgust, it would not be weird to me if someone else explained what they liked about the book.

tin-tower said: For example: I didn’t care for the detailed description of the murder either, but I liked the athmospherics of the description of Berlin, or I liked the writing. Most works of fiction contain more than one element.

There’s a big difference between fic discussion and squick discussion. I am not talking about discussion of fics in general at all. 

We’re talking about discussion of squicks.  A squick is a person’s feeling of dislike or disgust for certain subject matter in a fic or other piece of media.

This is a discussion of a fic.

Person: I was enjoying the relationship development in the fic, but child death is my squick so I couldn’t get through the rest of it. Other Person: Oh, yeah, that part was pretty brutal. But I also enjoyed the relationship development. I cried at the art gallery scene.  This is a discussion of a squick. Person: I was enjoying the relationship development in the fic, but child death is my squick so I couldn’t get through the rest of it. Other Person: Child death is your squick? Why? Is there some personal reason behind it? I thought that it really added to the drama. Let’s talk more about your feelings on child death and why it makes you uncomfortable to the point that you consider it one of your squicks.

It’s possible to discuss one’s squicks, but very often trying to discuss someone else’s squicks is going to come off as combative no matter what you do.  If someone is uncomfortable enough with a subject that they don’t want to read about it in a fic, then they probably don’t want to get into the details of why.  Maybe they are comfortable with it, but you’re still asking someone to talk about their personal feelings, psychology, etc. 

So, if someone calls squick on a fic, it could be ofcourse that everything in that story disgusts them for personal and sensitive reasons - or it could be that there’s a certain element in it they don’t like. Where’s the rudeness/weirdness in asking what the reason for the dislike is?

I’m not clear on what you mean by ‘calls squick on a fic’.  A fic isn’t a squick. A fic may or may not contain someone’s squicks.  

A person would either A) Mention the fic contains one or more of their squicks without specifying the details of those squicks, or B) Mention the specific squicks the fic contains that turn them off.

In scenario A, you can ask them what specific squicks  of theirs popped up in the fic, and they may or may not tell you them. In scenario B, you already know what content the fic contains that the person doesn’t like, ‘cause they told you what squicks of theirs were in the fic.

‘The point of a discussion to me is not to convince the other, it’s to understand their point of view. And to be able to understand someone’s perspective, I at least usually need more information than one word. ‘

‘Point of view’. ‘understand someone’s perspective’. Thinking terminology. Great for discussing one’s opinions on a work of fiction. Not so useful for discussing the squicks of a specific person.

Warning, I talk a bit about my own squicks bluntly below, mostly torture. Maybe don’t read if sensitive. 

A real squick of mine is poop. Also graphic, detailed torture. You wanna have a discussion with me about my perspective on poop? Should we go into gritty detail over whether I think fingernails being ripped off to limbs being bent backward is more uncomfortable to read? Like, I mean, does this sound like it’s going to lead down a road to enlightened discourse to you? 

Do I need to write an essay on my exact feelings and visceral reactions to different poop and torture related scenarios for you to feel satisfied you understand my point of view?

‘Cause I’d rather say ‘poop and torture are squicks for me’ and have done with it. Much more concise. 

[foundingfatherfest]

You’re not getting what a squick is; I can tell ‘cause you’re using the words ‘think’ and ‘opinion’. Calling something a squick isn’t saying, “This is a thing I disapprove of and have opinions on that you are not allowed to question.” It’s saying, “Ew, not my thing. No thanks.”

I mean, if I say have a squick for, say, a particular sexual act in erotic fiction, feel free to exercise your free speech and try to engage me in a debate about why that sexual act is totally hot in fic. But it will be a waste of your time, cause I’ll just say, “Well, I’m glad you get enjoyment out of that content but I still don’t like it.”

‘But what do I know’

Not the actual definition of squick I guess?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Maybe some more research will help inform that ‘ignorant mind‘ you’re dealing with.

EDIT: Reblogged this to the wrong blog. Sorry folks.

How was squick used? Like would you tag something you didn't want to see or comment "X is my squick because of Y"?

For the original ask, requesting the definition of squick, please see this post.

Squick is a fun term that was often used as both a noun and a verb. Either X was one of your squicks, or X squicked you, or squicked you out, or squicked you hard.

It was often used in fic exchanges. They would ask for a list of your squicks so that the gifting author would know not to include any hint of them. It was also used in casual conversation with fandom friends, authors, artists, etc. It could be left in comments, or as a reason you just didn’t read your best fandom friend’s latest fic. “Sorry, bff, you know I love your writing, but you have X tagged at the top, and that just squicks me out.” “Hey, no worries, best reader friend! I totally get it. Give this one a pass, but I’ll send you a note when I post my next one! I promise it will be totally X-free!”

Here’s the thing though. In your example, you explain why X is your squick with Y. But the beauty of squick was that (at least in my experience) no explanation was necessary. Not only was it not necessary, it was rarely asked for. A squick is a squick, and there doesn’t have to be any rhyme or reason. In fact, why would you have a rational, bullet-pointed, well-thought-out argument as to why something squicked you out? Very often it’s a visceral reaction, and if you don’t like the thing, you’re likely not going to sit and do deep meditation on why not.

Squicks were respected by fandom. You don’t like the thing, okay, we will tag the thing appropriately, you do not have to read the thing, no judgments on either side. There was no fandom policing, only respect.

And this, I think, is super important, because fandom policing is a problem, especially when it comes to triggers. “Trigger” has become so overused, so all-encompassing, that people feel they have to defend their legitimate triggers. If X triggers you, it triggers you, and you DO NOT need to provide an explanation. But because “trigger” is so often used in place of “squick,” some people feel they have the right to “call out” those who use the word. They want explanations, they want you to tell them what that triggering concept does to you, so they can call bullshit and feel superior. You don’t have to explain either your squicks or your triggers, but using the correct word stops the fandom police from feeling as though they have the right to ask.

Bring “squick” back, people. Don’t devalue triggers, which are horrible, nasty, dangerous things.

[foundingfatherfest]

So I was afraid of them pulling a gotcha like “The assassination of Pink Diamond was fake” or “Pearl did it actually” because I thought it would invalidate a big part of Steven’s character arc by wiping the blood clean from Rose Quartz’ hands

Then I got to watch as the Crewniverse gleefully upended a gigantic bucket of blood over Rose’s hands and face and filthy lying mouth

[foundingfatherfest]

I have a question. Is it bad to like Thomas Jefferson? I'm fond of him and love to write about him a lot (usually about his relationship with his wife, children, and grand-children). I am aware of and do acknowledge all the bad things that he did, as I do with the other founding fathers, but sometimes it feels bad to like particularly him and personally relate to and connect with him due to some of his bad actions.

No, I don’t think so. A person’s beliefs and actions are what define their character. As long as you’re capable of acknowledging the various messed up and immoral things T.J. did in reality , write what you like about him. I might tread pretty carefully if you intend on writing something about Jefferson meant to be published and widely distributed to an audience, because you would want to be extra careful that you don’t whitewash or downplay, well, the real horrors of slavery. But otherwise, I don’t think you’re doing any harm. Follow your heart, use your own judgement. :)

[foundingfatherfest]

A lot of adulthood is shouting “AUGH MY LAUNDRY” hours after you put it in the washer/dryer and running to go fetch it

[foundingfatherfest]

Well it’s probably cursed

[foundingfatherfest]

British taxation on America without sufficient representation: *results in Boston Tea Party, revolution, etc.*

White reactionary: These acts of property damage and militant resistance are justified and good =) because Britain was clearly tyrannical =) liberty needs to be fought for sweaty =)

Eight people control more wealth than half the world's people, climate change threatens to bring catastrophic damage to the planet, and a proto-fascist sexual predator was just made most powerful man in the world: *results in some shattered windows and limo bonfires, calls for revolution, etc.*

White reactionary: Um =\ violence is never the answer =/ protest is good and all =\ but this is taking it too far =/ can't you see you're just hurting any credibility you had =\ protests shouldn't interrupt my day =(

[foundingfatherfest]

Founding Feathers

[foundingfatherfest]

Henry Laurens: Do not get your ass killed.

George Washington: Do not get your ass killed.

Alexander Hamilton: I am sure you will exert yourself to save your country; but do not get your ass killed.

John Laurens: ...

[foundingfatherfest]

You’ve been hit by…

You’ve been struck by….

…a small mineral.

[foundingfatherfest]

I take my turn at the podium during my debate on July 8 with John Dickinson (Doug Thomas). The occasion was the 239th anniversary of the 1st public reading of the #DeclarationOfIndependence , which took place in front of The Pennsylvania State House ( #IndependenceHall ), just outside the doors of where we held our debate, to wit: Congress Hall, Independence National Historical Park. Photo by INDE Park Ranger Tom Tulba. #foundingfathers #YourThomasJefferson #USHistory