#and then say ''actually fuck the creator his intent doesn't matter'' IN THE SAME POST

[stairset]

For the record I’m not gonna add more to that post cause internet arguments are dumb and pointless especially if it’s about Star Wars and normally I just avoid them but I’m tired and got annoyed but I don’t wanna keep bothering that person nor do I want them to keep bothering me but just know that they got to the point where they started blatantly contradicting themselves and couldn’t even decide which canon they’re talking about which means I automatically win

[mariaiscrafting]

You know, what think I like when you are critical of a content creator is that you know how to separate a fact from especulation, unlike a blog out there that took especulation as facts.

Example, that night when we were critical of Karl, or any instance you have discussed about him, a lot of anons were saying that he gave them clout chaser vibes to them, and despite your opinion, you expressed that those were only especulation and not the truth, and to keep that in mind. That's good critical thinking.

But this blog had some similar anons, saying that he only is friends with the Feral Boys gro clout- In fact, they said the Feral Boys were only in it to benefit from clout and money. And they took it as a truth. I know you instance on them is neutral, but come one, they are friends. All of them. Karl isn't friends with them for clout. Like today Karl was playing golf with salad gang plus Sapnap and George at first and then Quackity and Dream joined bc they had spared time and it all devolved into typical chaos (Poor Corpse and Tina and Brook, had to endure those children lol/lh /j). Like, the stream wasn't planned with the 5/5 yet they joined, missing Karl and just having fun.

Idk, I guess that blog's superiority (They were a SBI focused blog) just irritated me. It's as if they were putting both groups at each other as if those streamers aren't friends or close. They were singing prayers of one while shunning the other based from especulation. Criticissism is fine, in fact recommended to be critical of your interests, but taking rumors as facts to base your crit is yikes. It's as if I wanted to crit SBI and base it only of "Philza hanging only with people younger than him is kinda weird ngl.." or "Sbi doesn't care about Tommy cuz he joined late" like that dumb Tumblr post did or some fuckers in Twitter imply.

The main reason I take so much care to separate speculation from evidence-backed theories and confirmed truths is because I feel like that separation is what distinguishes us from mcyttwt the most. One of the main reasons for mcyttwt's toxicity, imo - for its relentless cancelling of everyone, for its bandwagon campaigns - is that people oftentimes criticize and defend based on their personal feelings rather than rationale or evidence.

For example, I complain a lot about Dream stans on here, but you know the reason I didn't stop watching Dream directly after the cheating scandal broke loose, even though I thought he cheated? Because of mcytblr Dream stans. Mcytblr Dream stans engaged with me in discussion, both publicly and in DMs, about the cheating scandal, and even those who eventually came to the conclusion that Dream didn't cheat accepted the facts and statistics they were given and kept a healthy skepticism throughout the process. On Twitter, Dream stans were defending him before he even made a video following up to the mods' initial accusations because they felt that Dream wasn't the kind of guy to lie or cheat. They were replying to screenshots of statistical analyses from subreddits and to articles from mathematicians and staticians with extremely reactionary responses because of that feeling, which they believed in so adamantly, they had accepted it as fact. The thing is, to believe that Dream didn't cheat in the face of all the statistical and rhetorical evidence to the contrary is, in itself, speculative. Usually we think of speculation as a baseless theory that something is a positive truth- that is to say, that something did happen. But speculation also applies to those theories of someone not having done something, when the opposite has been nearly proven to be true.

For this same reason, I chose not to ignore the anti-technotwt threads with screenshots of Techno's old tweets in them. For me to have simply ignored these screenshots and continued supposing that Techno never expressed bigoted beliefs and/or currently doesn't would have been speculative on my part, and to boot, blatantly wrong, given the evidence to the contrary.

People in this fandom, and in all RPF/RPF-adjacent fandoms need to understand that almost everything they believe about the CCs they watch is speculative, at least to some extent, because of the nature of the content they make. Even if someone, in your opinion, displays evidence of some aspect of their personality - whether that be some form of bigoted, sweet, rude, clout-chasing, or anything else - because of the extremely one-sided nature of sharing one's life through a screen, that theory of ours will almost alwyas only ever be speculation, not a solid conclusion that can be drawn. We will never know these people's true intentions behind something shared to us via the Internet.

That vagueness leads to virtually every viewer creating a different theory in our heads about the CCs we watch, and we can't treat those theories as facts, especially not when sharing them with the rest of a fandom. I'm not a very big blog, but I consider even over 50 followers to be way too many people to spread a theory too, without at least clarifying that what I'm posting is speculation. If I have evidence, I like to list it or, if I can, provide sources; but otherwise, I take care to qualify most things with phrases or disclaimers that will clue followers into the speculative nature of whatever it is I'm saying. This is because theories and "feelings" can blaze through a fandom like wildfire, especially somewhere like Twitter, where so many things are word-of-mouth or based on summary due to character limitation.

You know why mcyttwt was cancelling Andi? Only a handful of original Tweeters under the cancel Andi hashtags actually knew what clips or tweets to criticize her for, or tried to elaborate on that criticism. But because every other mcyttwt user was getting bombarded by their mutuals hate-posting about Andi on their TLs, the "negative feeling" towards Andi grew and grew, even if most people didn't even know what they were supposed to feel negative about, exactly. Our judgement works on a quick trigger on the Internet because of the amount of information we're receiving, and so, even a single bad word against someone you don't have too strong of an opinion on can fundamentally alter your perception of them, usually subconsciously. If the first thing you see about Andi, who you've only seen on a couple LOH's or a couple Punz streams before then, is a tweet along the lines of, "disappointed in Andi for her homophobia and joking about suicide," despite you having no context, you will most likely be pushed to the negative side of her. Thus begins the cycle of hatred, building up and up, leading to you searching for more and more criticism about Andi, whether speculative or not, until you solidly and genuinely believe she is a Horrible Person. It all starts with the vaguest fucking feeling, because that's all speculation has to go off of, and it snowballs into a fucking wildfire across an entire fandom. I'm not about to be another person to let feelings snowball and spread like that.

Now, I don't know what exact blog you're referring to, but as an adamant SBI enthusiast, let me flip the argument many SBI stans have for their speculation upon the genuity of Karl's friendship with the Feral Bois, onto SBI. What do we have to go off of for the genuity of SBI's friendship, anyways? Our perceived brother dynamic between Tommy and Wilbur could very well just be Tommy capitalizing on Wilbur's brand and continuing the charade until now because it's been profitable. Maybe Techno only continues to associate with SBI because he knows how much his fanbase likes headcanon'ing about SBI, so he puts up with streams with them so he can continue to feed his fanbase with dynamics he knows they're obsessed with. Maybe Phil would rather play MC with people his age, and actually dislikes that he's friends with a teenager, but sticks around because he profitted so much off of Dream SMP and SBI-related content. And what could any SBI stan have to argue with me on any of these theories? Just because SBI laughs around each other and seems fond of each other doesn't mean they're actually like that behind the cameras. They so seldomly stream or make videos together anymore, anyways, so maybe they've grown tired of keeping up the dynamic.

Everything I said could be interpreted as utter bullshit, and that's because it fucking is. I don't actually know what Techno wants to do with his life, or how Wilbur and Tommy actually feel about each other, or who Phil wants to fucking befriend. The same goes for Feral Boys. There's nothing wrong with stating your theories or speculation, but to treat them as fact or not at least qualify such posts with the fact that this is all based on your bias and opinion, and no substantive evidence, is irresponsible. Just because you feel like one or more of the Feral Boys is "clout-chasing" doesn't mean you have the right to tout that feeling as truth. I feel a lot of things about a lot of CCs, both negative and positive, but no matter how strong my feelings, unless they have substantive evidence backing them up, I have no right to treat them as facts with my followers.

[a-blu-jay]

In the light of the whole doomsday arc and chaos I think it's important to like,,, clarify ? Some points ppl r makin even tho theyre prob not gonna see it.

Also!! This is all /roleplay and talking about the characters not the content creators

Yes, everyone has fucked up. That's what they're ALL going for, especially the ppl takin the lead when it comes to the writin of the script. Everyone is a fucked up character and everyone is a good character with the exception of Dream.

Now to get some more in depth:

Let's start with c!Tubbo. Since the beginning he's been put into tight and bad situations. Watching his friends get exiled, being made a spy for the sake of Intel to win a war which is So Much Pressure, eventually fighting in said war, being made president of the revolutionized country but then immedietly having to rebuild it, later be manipulated to exile his beat friend and brother in arms etc etc. It's a lot of trauma and greif, it's not false to call him a child solider because that's exactly what he is. Schlatt was right, the moment he died the country was doomed, wether that be from Pogtopia, Technoblade, Dream or the inevitability that the leadership would fall onto Tubbo. He's not infallible and he's not experienced. He's a severely Traumatised teenager. But this doesn't necessarily make him a good person.

Next is c!Technoblade because I have some Opinions. He's a fucked up character. Just like everyone else, just in a more transparent way. A lot of the characters hide the bad things they've done in a way to preserve moral righteousness and such. Technoblade has always been clear and transparent he wants nothing more than anarchy, chaos and the fall of L'manburg. Now, acts of terrorism aren't good, they're pretty fucked up. The great thing about his character is that he's so goddman complex. Just like Tubbo and Tommy he's been wronged. And just like Tubbo and Tommy he's a hypocrite. That's what happens when you have morally grey and ambiguous characters. He made his intentions about anarchy clear and Pogtopia made their intentions about Governments clear, they both chose to ignore eachother which in the end made them Hypocrites. A specific point I want to make about Technoblade teaming up with Dream is that Tommy has NEVER been clear with Technoblade with how Dream treated him. Technoblade couldn't have known what Dream did because of Tommy's trauma about speaking about it and Dream's manipulation. Technoblade teamed up with Dream because they shared a common goal, he doesnt trust Dream and has voiced that before. Also! Tommy's point in their argument in the middle of Doomsday was really interesting, he said (I'm paraphrasing) "why can't you just let people love what they love." A thing to note is that Technoblade DID. After the end of the revolution he left to go live in retirment and solitude and let them fight amongst eachother and destroy eachother. The very same Government he predicted to be corrupt then tried to execute him without trial even though they said he'd be given one. Which is a pretty corrupt thing to do. In the end Technoblade was used and just a little bit mistreated but he's not in the right because of that. Again, he can be seen in the lense of a Villain but that doesn't mean he really is one.

Now onto c!Tommy. His character is deffinetly an interesting one! I think his main fault is his own hubris. He's prideful to a default and stubborn when it comes to the idea he could have done something wrong because of how badly he wants to be the/a hero. Now, I'm not saying he HASN'T taken accountability for some things he's said and done because he most certainly has and thus has grown as a character. Another huge fault is his hyperfixation on the emotions and people attached to objects. Honestly? Tubbo logically wasn't wrong, they're just discs. But in Tommy's head they're a symbol of his and Tubbo's friendship. The problem is when he picks these discs over his actual friendship with Tubbo and how Dream has manipulated him. Dream plays a BIG part in why Tommy thinks the discs are so valuable. If you're told enough times and manipulated into thinking objects hold a significant value to the things important to you then eventually they become fiercely important to you and have some weight to them. I think in the beginning, in Tommy's brain destroying the discs meant his and Tubbo's friendship was over because of the part they've played in their friendship. Again, Tubbo only ever saw them as dics, plastic vinyls that drop from mobs and play pretty music. To another point, Tommy is also explicitly Hypocritical, just like Technoblade. He holds onto the fact that Tubbo and L'manburg and it's people are his friends and he cares about him but then calls Technoblade his friend and casts his emotions aside. The problem is the blatant fact that Tommy used Technoblade as a weapon and after being called out that friends don't do that to eachother he ignores it. In this instance he's no better than Technoblade. A kinda big problem is his character development, which really doesn't have a lot to do with c!Tommy and more with how the writers suggest developing him as a character. I think the main thing is that he goes to Tubbo's side saying how the discs never truly mattered to later saying they need the discs. The discs don't matter. What matters is defeating Dream. But just like Tubbo, Tommy is a highly and incredibly traumatised Teenager.

Next is c!Ranboo, the mad lad! I don't really have a whole lot to say? Just some quick analysis of what his characters ideals are and his actions in everything. Looking at his character he's incredibly paranoid, anxious and probably Traumatised from things we the audience don't know. At the end of the day he's a true neutral character. In one of the tweets cc!Ranboo sent it said that as long as Dream isn't hurting the people he (character Ranboo) directly cares about, he doesn't care what Dream does. For a good portion he was against Dream because he cared about everyone nd dream was hurting everyone. He's joined Technoblade and Ph1lza in the Arctic because he thinks that Dream has gotten what he wants, he doesn't know anything about Dream and Tommy's conversation by the end of Doomsday. Also! Ranboo's ideals/beliefs are anarchist by nature and principle. The reason he has a problem with choosing sides between L'manburg and Dream is because of the hierarchy within those sides, and the obligation that you have to fight that comes with picking those sides. Technoblade and Ph1lza both chose to fight under free will and because they chose too without coercion. Everyone is equal there. There's a really good post somewhere talking about it that'll I'll look for that explains it very well. (EDIT: found the post also hopefully i did the link right)

This is getting painfully long so I'm wrapping it up here with a few last things. Everything has always come down to Dream. The reason L'manburg was built was to get away from the oppressive power that is Dream (another point for Technoblade teaming up w dream, he wasn't there for Dreams stuff, he only knew of Schlatt but I digress). Dream has manipulated everyone, he's running the puppet show with the strings tied to his fingers. He's manipulated Tubbo, Tommy, Ranboo, Technoblade, Schlatt, EVERYONE. He's pitted everyone against eachother because he loves the chaos. Because he knows that if they weaken eachother it'll be a lot easier to take control with less effort put in from his part. Dream has always been the main antagonist from the very very beginning. Sure some could say Tommy started it with the discs but Dream was the one who took them in the first place etc.

He's also pitted the audience against eachother. It's really interesting in how he's actually manipulated the audience. It doesn't matter who's on what side or who's wronged who when the cause for all their greif has always been Dream. The fandom is fighting over traitors and betrayals and villain arcs. It doesn't matter, not when Dream is runnin free with the amount of power that he has.

[bicurioustomhardy]

[image id: the first screenshot is of a tumblr post of a twitter screenshot. the tweet reads: People are far too concerned with criticizing art based on whether the "wrong people" will enjoy it or get the "wrong idea" from it. What we really need is not death of the author but Death of the Audience [last four words capitalized for emphasis]. end tweet. the op of the tumblr post comments: bingo. the second screenshot is of an addition to the original post of an excerpt of an article by Kat Rosenfield called What We Sacrifice to be Seen. the excerpt reads: The quest for control is convoluted. If another person is thinking incorrectly, it's already too late: we need to intervene earlier, to stop dangerous ideas at their source, before they go viral and take root in the fertile darkness of an unenlightened mind. The pop culture discourse in 2020 is remarkably haunted by the specter of the Cultural Idiot [last two words capitalized for emphasis], an ultra-impressionable boogeyman nobody ever seems to have met but who we're sure exists. He's out there somewhere, just waiting for someone to drop an ideological engine into the empty chassis of his brain. He will read this book, watch that film, and get the Wrong Idea About Things [last four words capitalized for emphasis]. end image id.]

rant and context below

aside from the original tweet just being a shitbrained take that tries to present an Entire historical strain of literary criticism as a new hot take, that being that authorial intent is the most important thing in criticism, fun fact! from that same article that's excerpted, rosenfield also has this to say about a scene from a show where the creator made up a brutal event supposed to take place during the holocaust that was condemned by the actual fucking auschwitz memorial.

"David Weil, the showrunner of Hunters, defended this scene as 'representationally truthful' - and indeed, what's depicted in it is hardly more shocking than countless documented horrors that took place in the camps...But the looming threat of the Cultural Idiot means that it doesn't matter. To create gut-wrenching fiction surrounding an atrocity might encourage someone, somewhere, to believe that the atrocity might be fake..."

slightly less important but still breathtaking in its smarmy ignorance of material forces beyond the social realm, rosenfield inserts her opinions on "gender discourse", saying that enforcing pronouns, so to speak, is "fueled by an earnest belief, so prevalent in certain progressive spaces, that changing the way people think is best begun by policing the way they speak [emphasis added by me]."

there's other bullshit she throws in there, that criticisms of the limits of white empathy for minorities generated by fictional representations are not, in fact, criticisms and analyses of real world institutions that materially affect the way minorities live but instead examples of some generalized universal (read: white) preobsession with "controlling the way we're perceived".

the person who added the excerpt to the original post for sure had to have read the entire article or at least the very beginning of it (which might i add, the article very nearly opens with the auschwitz anecdote). but they were counting on the fact that people wouldn't look it up beyond that. read your fucking sources people