#Like some of you treat this webcomic like it murdered every one of your relatives and made you watch

[flushed-for-the-trolls]

Boyfriends Webtoons Discourse

The more I read this ‘controversial’ webtoons, the more I’m convinced that the people that are so offended by it have NEVER even read a single chapter in full.

I understand not liking it, that’s fine, the issues people have with the creator are personal and if you can’t forgive X thing that he did, then that’s with you and I won’t bother arguing, since it has the potential to be personal/hit close to home for some.

But, like, when it comes to the ACTUAL webtoons??? Like, have any of you read the basic introductory chapter?

“It’s not serious!” “It’s cringe!” 

Literally the FIRST BF profile card says “Epic Gamer Skillz” “Tweetch Subs” and “D’ARKNESS LV.” Could it be any more obvious??? Of course it’s not serious, of course it has cringey dialogue, the majority of these chapters have memes in them. The point is that it’s NOT serious, and it NEVER pretended to be in the first place. The damn characters speak like personified Discord Servers. “WTF” “EZ”. In a close follow-up chapter one of the characters literally says “OWO Choco?” Like???

So of course it’s not serious, of course it’s over the top and cheesy, to be over the top and cheesy IS THE POINT. But it seems like no one has actually read the comic, they’ve simply seem a few reactions and out of context clips from the comic and decided they know how everything works... Disregarding the fact that they’ve never read it...

Next is people claiming that the comic “fetishizes gay people”.

First of all. The Author is gay. Second of all, literally who cares? If someone is dumb enough to gather all their opinions of gay people based on a webtoons comic that’s basically a longstanding meme, their opinions never mattered to begin with.

Lastly, I get an icky feeling in my stomach whenever I hear this talking point. I remember feeling it back when I was in the hell that was the MHA fandom.

It was during shipping wars when an eerily similar point was made concerning gay couples. “They’re fetishizing gay people!” “All this shipping is because of the Fujoshis!”

You know who was saying all this? STRAIGHT PEOPLE.

Yes, for whatever reason which is beyond my understanding, when the topic of gay couples is brought up, it’s always Heterosexual people who think they know what’s best for the LGBTQ+ community. They often talk over gay people, and what happens when gay people don’t agree with them? “I bet you’re just a Fujoshi!” They say, unaware that this stranger they’ve never even seen the face of, is, in fact, gay and male. 

So even now, I have to wonder if the people that are declaring this as sexualizing gay people are even gay themselves, if they’re not, do they realize that THE CREATOR is gay himself? Not only that, but as a personal account, I can recall many open and proud LGBTQ+ people (primarily gay) that act like stereotypes. There’s NOTHING wrong with how these characters act, nor those very real people. It’s an insult to these people’s real expressions.

Tell me, would you go up to a gay person and tell them that their form of personal expressions are “wrong”? Who on earth would any of us be to talk down to others like that?

That is also to say that LGBTQ+ people are under NO obligation to act “normal”. We should not be expected to suppress our real forms of expression for the sake of “not letting everyone else down”. If we all had to act normal, if no other depictions of being different were allowed, life would be worthless and meaningless.

This partially off topic tangent is to Segway into the talking point (or implied talking point) that this webtoons is publicizing unflattering stereotypes and is therefore bad.

Firstly. If you think this story is some sort of blow to LGBTQ+ Pride, the problem is with you. There’s nothing wrong with how you express yourself so long as it hurts no one. If you think this makes everyone under the rainbow banner look bad, you should look inward and wonder why you need to gatekeep how others express themselves (and to be clear, yes, I know I am referencing fictional characters with no will or mind of their own, but I believe the general point still stand firm when transferred over to real life).

Two, as I covered, these aren’t mythical stereotypes, there are actual people who live like this, and they’re valid and entitled to living how they see fit.

But you know what? I hear you, in spite of the numerous arguments I’ve made, You still have your objections, but here’s where my secret Uno Reverse Card kicks in.

My final argument.

It’s Refrainbow’s webcomic.

It’s as simple as that. Any content creator is not beholden to their audience and their whims. You can not like the comic, that’s fine, but you’re NOT entitled to changes made at your say-so. People frame their points like they deserve changes made so it can personally appeal to them, but that’s just not the case. If you don’t like the webtoons comic, rewrite it. Make it into something you like, but posting about how all the BFs are going to hell and how you want to run them over with a truck isn’t helping anyone or anything, you’re just being incredibly childish and whiny.

Once again: This is a FREE Webcomic made by a small set of people (I think just two? According to the Webtoons chapter outros at least). This webtoons is not going to revolutionize gay relationships, nor is it reasonable to expect it to. It’s a personal passion project, and it has every right to stay that way and not branch out like so many seem to want it to.

A final few disclaimers.

1. If you’re a straight cis person, just don’t argue. I’m gay, and I’m not about to have a straight person try to talk down to me and tell me I’m wrong, or worse, claim I’m a Fujoshi/Yaoi Loving Fangirl, there’s a reason I stepped away from the MHA fandom ya know.

2. I’m not a dedicated fan of this fic (although I do admit to having a bias, as I enjoy it and find humor in it) or of the author. I personally don’t care about the past controversies, and as I’m not affected by any of them, It’s not my place, duty/obligaton to forgive them on behalf of the people they harmed, that’s not the goal of this conversation. I simply am tired of seeing all this hate, both from arrogant straight people, and this senseless infighting from a section of the LGBTQ+ Community. To me it all seems like trumped up claims that don’t align with the reality of the situation.

Finally: If you like this webtoons, you’re valid. If you don’t like this webtoons, you’re valid, if you harass fans or the creator, you’re invalid, and if you talk over minorities while not being a member of said minority, your opinions, in that situation, are invalid.

[stop-him]

Missing the Forest for the Stumps.

In Which Michael Terracciano Illustrates a Point, Lets it Float Breathtakingly High Over His Head, and Becomes a Prime Example of That Very Same Point in a Sadly All-Too Typical and Un-Self-Aware Manner.

it’s not as if he’s the only one, to be sure. But back up.

Long ago I discovered the webcomic Dominic Deegan after stumbling across some drama related to it and its creator. Eventually, I would start reading the comic Star Power, after Dominic Deegan came to an end. While I normally don’t take much interest in the blogs that Terracciano and his co-creator on Star Power, Garth Graham, write, the headings for those blogs appear below the strip itself on their site’s front page, and once in a blue moon one of them will attract my attention enough for me to click through.

What got my attention this time was a column entitled, A Difference of Opinion in Politics. The title is derived, fittingly enough, from a quote taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, which opens the blog entry:

“I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.” – Thomas Jefferson to William Hamilton, April 22, 1800

To which Terracciano immediately replies:

I don’t like this quote.  It’s well-meaning, and in a friendlier, more reasonable world it would be applicable.  But in today’s politics, and what is being put to vote and debate, I don’t believe this quote holds true.

Well now hold up. Right here, right off the bat, is a juicy misapprehension of the quote itself. Michael seems to be taking it as a maxim, a commandment to others on how to live, and I suppose one could take it that way - but in its original context, it’s Thomas Jefferson describing his own attitude, and how he handles friendships. Jefferson did not allow politics to drive him away from his friends. (So the quote certainly is true in that that’s what he said.) Others, and apparently Michael, may not be made of the same stuff as one of our Founding Fathers. And, you know, who is these days? So for that much we can give him a pass.

But then he cites “today’s politics”, which are so much more terrible and with such higher stakes, one would assume, that Michael can’t bring himself to agree with the sentiments of the quote.

And, well, yeah, Jefferson only had to live through the American Revolution (politics distilled with guns), I’m sure his life just can’t compare to the utter chaos we in the modern world face. It’s not like four years from the time the letter was written, Alexander Hamilton would be shot to death by Aaron Burr after a long political feud, hell, no. Those proper, polite and utterly civilized folks in the 1800s just couldn’t conceive of the raw, hard politics we deal with today.

And certainly nothing since then in politics is a match for today’s burning issues, not the Civil War, not women getting the vote, not civil rights, no. Do you sense a little sarcasm here? It seems insane to me that someone could post a quote with the year 1800 featured in it and with a straight face imply that Jefferson lived in far too gentle of a time for his words to have any relevance today.

That’s risible enough. But then to compound it, we’re treated to a brief outline of a ballot question regarding trans rights, upon which Michael says:

I voted to keep it, and I would have readily and happily cut off all communication with anyone I know who voted to remove it.

...

A “difference of political opinion” isn’t just about what gets funding, it’s about acceptance and compassion, and if you don’t have either in your heart then you have no place in my life. 

In other words, not voting for what Michael likes is just cause for him to cease his own acceptance and compassion towards you.

As I said, he’s not the only one to adopt this “you’re either with us or you’re an inhuman monster who must be shunned” stance. Wil Wheaton can make an emotional post asking why online people feel the need to be so casually cruel to him and then without breaking stride describe those whose politics and attitudes he hates to be toxic and evil and Nazis who must be punched. Funny thing, Wil, how people can effortlessly classify other humans as “deserving it”, wonder where they get these ideas.

In Michael’s case, there’s all sorts of layers of irony going on there, considering I discovered his work by virtue of reading discussion about his webcomic that accused him of being seventeen flavors of pervert and/or bigot by virtue of the things he chose to depict in his comic. One might think he’d be a little more circumspect about so easily donning the Judgey McJudgerson robes, but here we are.

What’s more, the quote Michael doesn’t like comes from a letter, which, if you actually read the whole thing, has Jefferson pretty much describing the way politics are shaking out these days, I mean, look at this:

During the ensuing summer came on the war-fever. Those who caught it seemed to consider every man as their personal enemy who would not catch their disorder, and many suffered themselves to think it was a sufficient cause for breaking off society with them. I became sensible of this on my next arrival in town, on percieving that many declined visiting me with whom I had been on terms of the greatest friendship & intimacy.

...

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. During the whole of the last war, which was trying enough, I never deserted a friend because he had taken an opposite side; and those of my own state who joined the British government can attest my unremitting zeal in saving their property, and can point out the laws in our statute books which I drew, and carried through in their favor. However I have seen during the late political paroxysm here, numbers whom I had highly esteemed draw off from me, insomuch as to cross the street to avoid meeting me.

Is that not a reflection of today’s sort of banishment/unpersoning style of politics, online? Could that be the reason Michael doesn’t like the quote? Because it practically describes him, and a host of others?

I mean, really, what’s the functional difference between Michael threatening to socially disown anyone who didn’t vote in step with him, and the ultra-conservative parent who makes it clear that any of their offspring who come out as gay will no longer be welcome at home? It’s the same absolutist, Manichean mindset but with different values plugged in. It’s the retreat to a soothing echo chamber while sneering at other people for being in an echo chamber.

It’s taking everything personally, and to the extreme. Someone can’t disagree with a trans rights law for any reason but that they are literally stabbing MY trans children in the eyeballs while they sleep, or something along those lines. I don’t even know what these “trans rights” are supposed to be (I live in a different state, and Michael does not elaborate), but I’m relatively confident revoking them does not, say, make murdering or assaulting a trans person legal. So it seems a bit over-the-top to claim that whatever rights may be revoked are balanced out by branding a voter with the Scarlet Letter of Shame and banishing them to the woods forever, or whatever.

(And as an aside, I seem to recall, though I can’t be bothered to look it up and confirm it, that the artist on Star Power, Grant, is himself conservative politically. So Michael’s declaration raises the question of just how conservative Grant is, and what his vote on the matter would be (if he lives in the same state, which I don’t know), and whether Michael would in fact sever all ties with his artist over such an issue if it came down to it...)

Cutting such people out of your life is a common theme across the Internet these days, and I’m sure it’s satisfying to some extent, but it strikes me as ultimately unproductive in the long run. Michael Terracciano does not stop people from voting in ways he doesn’t like by this method, he at best only masks them from his view. Refusing to engage abandons any possibility, even if minuscule, of persuasion. And if you alienate a person by making it clear that their political beliefs are unacceptable on any level, that only makes it easier for them to stride even further away from your own political position and towards other positions they may find more welcoming.

And I fear this sort of stance, if let multiply, will not somehow shame or shock people into abandoning Trump and the politics he flourishes in, but will simply drive more people into his fold.