#fndm discourse

[howlingday]

FNDM be like...

"Look at this and tell me Jaune doesn't get too much screen time~! Jaune has way too many lines~!"

Ruby: You get all the love and I get squat!

Jaune: ...Ruby, you do realize that most of my clips involve me being hurt or humiliated.

[matt0044]

I feel like the "Ruby should be more like a real protagonist" is the opposite end of the "main characters hog all the spot light while potentially interesting side characters get shafted" of fandom discourse.

Like there's obviously a middle ground but Shonen Titles like Dragon Ball have often been riffed on for always having it come down to the protagonist at the end of the day. It's why Plot Armor is so memed on.

Lord knows that if they made Ruby Rose all Shonen-kun with her Silver Eyes finishing the job, well, the Mary Sue thing is still being pushed by chuds sadly. This is why the "Jaune stealing screentime" discourse never rubbed me the right way. I like it when Ruby is an ensemble cast type of story where other people from other walks of life in Remnant get some focus.

Frankly, it would've beefed up the Beacon arc to see some of the teams that are shown in Before The Dawn dealing with their heavy losses. ESPECIALLY the one huntsman who survived out of his team. Putting budgetary constraints aside for just as second.

[rwac96]

Something I made for the r/fnki SubReddit.

[werewolf-cuddles]

>goes into Blacksun tag

>immediately sees post bitching about Bumbleby being canon

>closes Blacksun tag

I see we're still doing this stupid petty "my ship is better than your ship" shit huh?

[hyperfixation-hideout]

No offense to RWBY or the fandom, but sometimes I come across fanfics that make my skin crawl with how misogynistically the women are written by people who claim that their fanfics are somehow better than the show.

As I've not personally delved enough into the fanfic scene (despite writing some myself), I feel I can't provide much insight here :P I can imagine misogyny being unfortunately common, as it is irl, and that sucks you've come across enough of it for it to be an issue :/

I won't defend arrogance or shitting on others, but pride in one's work -- even to the point of preferring it to the source material -- isn't an inherently bad thing! It's a great feeling to take something you're invested with and recreate it or expand on it through your own lenses, and if that enjoyment surpasses that which you get from the show's canon, more power to ya!

But "better" is subjective af, and from the way you phrase it it sounds like those creators are being more condescending than healthily proud. In those cases, I shrug it off and move on if I can't determine whether it's in bad faith, knowing I likely won't enjoy something written with the attitude of being superior (ime it usually shows when a fic writer is Like That in their writing; it comes off very holier-and-wiser-than-thou and babies the reader)

[howlingday]

Am... Am I in the dark dimension? Did I just wake up into a dark alternate universe where people are acting the exact opposite of normal?

Some of y'all are getting political for no reason!

Some of y'all are hating things you used to love to the point you're boycotting it!

And it's making me feel like y'all are getting your accounts hacked by antis! Seriously,

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?!

[hyperfixation-hideout]

"my friend is autistic" followed by "Penny can't be autistic because she wants friends" hm... 🤔

Adding on as an autistic person, I wanna second everything OP said. It's a long response, but a good read. I only have a couple thoughts to share:

I have big communication problems and don't like interacting with people because of bullying in the past. Does that make me autistic?

Obviously not. No one was saying that. You're not automatically autistic for having communication problems, but you having them doesn't mean it's not a common autistic experience. Autistic people seeing relatable traits in a character isn't saying everyone with those traits MUST have autism. You're the only one making it about you.

Ruby has some communication problems and don't want to make friends in v1 but it's not autism. It's normal human behavior in unfamiliar environments.

... Implying being autistic isn't normal human behavior? Things like that CAN indicate autism, AND they could be a neurotypical/allistic person reacting "normally," because guess what? Autistic and allistic experiences, emotions, actions, and reactions have overlap. We're not some entirely separate species. Just like you, we behave differently depending on the situation. So headcanoning Ruby as autistic is equally valid to headcanoning her as allistic.

Penny isn't autistic either. She is very energetic and active. She wants to make friends.

Me, an autistic person who's very energetic, active, enthusiastic, emotionally expressive, friendly, somewhat extroverted, and relates HEAVILY to Penny:

She has no experience in life and is a freaking robot. How do robots have autism?

How does a robot have a freaking SOUL? It's fiction. Penny is presented as just as much a real girl as Ruby -- nuts, bolts, and all. Therefore, she, like any real girl, could be autistic.

Also, "no experience in life" ??? Neither does a baby but that didn't stop me from popping out the pussy autism-first ✌️

I don't like it when the character's headcanon autism is made into an absolute.

Seems to me you're the one enforcing your hc as absolute. I agree the fndm has a tendency to treat hc as canon, and while that IS a problem that spurns a lot of arguments, I have yet to see anyone try to force an autistic hc onto others. Going "Penny is an autistic icon" or "Ironwood has autistic traits" is not the same as "this character is canonically autistic and if you disagree you're a bigot and wrong" (which is ironically the rhetoric I see from die-hard fans talking about ships, not people interpreting neurodivergence in characters).

I have a friend who is autistic and he has a very difficult time in this life.

Psst, hey, come closer -- no, closer -- not all autistic people are the same. Shockingly, just like ""normal"" people, we have a vast array of traits, experiences, personality, desires, likes/dislikes, beliefs, etc., etc. Can being autistic make it harder to function in an allistic-based and ableist society? Of course it can. But that's not the autism; it's the way the world wasn't built for us.

Being friends with an autistic person doesn't sound like a fun meme from the internet.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say your friend might need a better friend... You make it sound like we're unruly pets you took in and now have to deal with. I'm not gonna shit autism on your carpet, chill

Like OP said, you talk as if autism is a disease or malfunction, some tragic affliction we'd all rather live without. But I love being autistic. It's not something I "have," it's something I am. My brain works differently, and I like the way it works.

There are 2 subsections of hc you're using interchangeably:

people headcanoning a character as autistic for fun and because we relate

people debating and making evidence-backed analyses of why a character exhibits autistic traits to an extent where, intentional or not, they've been written as autistic. (OP called it autistic-coded, but I tend to stray from using "coded" outside intentional instances, since to my understanding, coding is conscious, but maybe the meaning's evolved)

and you're equating both to forcing the hc onto others.

In the first case: why do you care? It's harmless to you. It's fun/cathartic/meaningful to us. Priorities.

In the latter: making an assertion is not the same as telling you what you have to believe. A lot of analyses and discussions (especially when coming from rwde/critics) are automatically taken in bad faith if they don't immediately align with the reader's own opinion/belief. So many people don't even read them, just get angry and refuse to keep an open mind.

Did the writers intend Penny to be autistic and/or trans-coded? Maybe, maybe not. I imagine not, especially given how her being made "human" would send a poor message in both cases (but that's another topic). But is Penny written as an accurate portrayal of some autistic people, and is her narrative strongly aligned with the trans experience? Yes and yes.

Hey I can say that Adam is autistic and that's why he killed people. He's autistic and according to fandom, anything can be forgiven for being autistic.

What. The ever-loving fuck. How does autism link to murder in your eyes? I understand you're going to an extreme to make a point, but your interpretation of fans' arguments is still indicative of some deep-rooted ableism.

I haven't seen posts about or considered Ironwood potentially being autistic (I assume that's what you're referring to based on OP's reply), but come to think of it, I'm not necessarily opposed to the notion... I'll have to think more on that later. Anyway, if you're conflating people discussing how autism might affect a character's actions with "anything can be forgiven for being autistic," you are beyond missing the point — you're outright rejecting it.

I don't like it when the character's headcanon autism is made into an absolute.

I have a friend who is autistic and he has a very difficult time in this life. Being friends with an autistic person doesn't sound like a fun meme from the internet.

But character fans pretend that being autistic is the best thing that ever happened in a character's life. People are willing to make their loved ones autistic to justify them. Or they're willing to say that a quiet character with communication problems is actually autistic. It's annoying. I have big communication problems and don't like interacting with people because of bullying in the past. Does that make me autistic? For example, they call Ruby autistic. Ruby has some communication problems and don't want to make friends in v1 but it's not autism. It's normal human behavior in unfamiliar environments. Penny isn't autistic either. She is very energetic and active. She wants to make friends. She has no experience in life and is a freaking robot. How do robots have autism?

Hey I can say that Adam is autistic and that's why he killed people. He's autistic and according to fandom, anything can be forgiven for being autistic.

I'm going to conclude from the fact that you played the "I have an autistic friend" card and the contents of the third paragraph that you are not yourself autistic. So, from one non-autistic person to another:

Step back.

There are three main things your ask is doing that I want to make sure you recognize. If you recognize them and don't care, then this will never go anywhere. Otherwise, I hope this sparks some self-reflection.

You, a non-autistic person, are policing what autistic people can and cannot do in fandom.

You are conflating people critiquing or analyzing writing decisions with people defending a headcanon.

You're framing a personal frustration as a greater problem with the fandom.

The reason you gave for point 1 is this: "I have a friend who is autistic and he has a very difficult time in this life. Being friends with an autistic person doesn't sound like a fun meme from the internet." In other words, you looked at autistic people headcanoning a fictional character as autistic for fun and/or comfort, looked at a friend of yours, and then decided based on your experience as that person's friend that those autistic people on the internet are not allowed to have that headcanon because…I actually can’t figure out the exact reasoning you have here.

What does “being friends with an autistic person” have to do with headcanoning a character as autistic? What does not sounding “like a fun meme from the internet” mean in concrete terms? Are you trying to say that because an autistic person you know is facing struggles, all depictions and personal interpretations of autism in media must fit the mold of those struggles? Genuinely, I cannot understand the point you are trying to make by bringing up your autistic friend.

But if you want to bring him up, let’s engage with that action. You've used your autistic friend as a shield. You've said that he has "a very difficult time in this life." If that's the case, then I hope that things get easier for him. But before you plant his existence between yourself and criticism of your opinions, consider what you're actually doing. Have you ever asked him his opinions on autistic representation in media directly, or have you only ever used him as an excuse to invalidate the the myriad of autistic people expressing opinions you disagree with? Even if he dislikes or disagrees with what another autistic person thinks, that still doesn’t give you carte blanche to bring him up to invalidate other people’s opinions. People within a subgroup disagree all the time.

As for point 2, there is overlap between critiquing the writing decisions and defending a headcanon, yes, but the distinction is important when it comes to recognizing when someone is defending their headcanon and when they are pointing out a negligent-at-best flaw in the writers' material. A lot of what you've interpreted as defending a headcanon (I presume in the RWDE tag, since that's where it crops up the most because of hostile anons, and I have read nearly all of those posts) is actually the former.

Point 3. If you say "I don't headcanon that Ironwood is autistic," very very few people are going to argue with you on that. If you say, "I don't believe Ironwood is autistic-coded," then many people are going to push back on that with evidence. What's the difference? The former is personal preference. The latter is a debate position. If you have read the many essays put forth in the RWDE community explaining how the writers - intentionally or not - coded Ironwood as neurodivergent and still believe that both of those first two statements are identical in purpose and impact, then we cannot have a reasonable discussion.

I want to take a while to address the third paragraph because it is very revealing of your motivations. We’ll start from the beginning and work our way through to keep things comprehensive.

"But character fans pretend that being autistic is the best thing that ever happened in a character's life."

The phrasing here is already questionable - being autistic isn't something that "happens" in someone's life, it's an innate characteristic. To address the statement itself, though: who? Who is doing this? Who is genuinely headcanoning a character they love as autistic and then "pretending" that their headcanon is the best thing to happen to that character? You seem to be missing the fact that, a lot of the time, people headcanon their favorite characters as autistic because those real people are themselves autistic and can already see certain relatable behaviors displayed by the character. They often don't change aspects of the character - they add onto aspects already on display.

"People are willing to make their loved ones autistic to justify them. Or they're willing to say that a quiet character with communication problems is actually autistic. It's annoying."

"Loved ones" is typically used to refer to real-life people and particularly family, but judging by context I think you're still referring to fictional characters. What do you mean by "justify them"? Do you mean, "fans are willing to headcanon their favorite characters as autistic to explain those characters' behaviors"? Because yes, of course they are, that's part of how engaging with fictional characters works. And the next line? As an isolated statement it's just a statement of fact. Yes, people are willing to headcanon that a quiet character with communication problems is autistic because that is a common expression of autism. What's the harm in that?

I ask that rhetorical question knowing that your statement of "It's annoying" is a segue into the beating heart of your complaint: that you personally cannot see these characters as autistic. Because you are not autistic, all of these autistic headcanons are, on some level, attacks on you personally. These attacks are, somehow, erasing your non-autistic identity. Your example with yourself and your own communication problems, supplemented by bringing up Ruby, shows that you want to see yourself - a non-autistic individual - represented in the show. You want this, but when you see other people making autistic headcanons of characters you want to sympathize with (or otherwise cannot see as autistic), you seem to interpret those headcanons as impinging on your own. Erasing you.

You feel like you're on the defensive and so you treat the fandom as this all-encompassing hive-minded entity when that is not at all the case. The "they," the united fandom, that group hostile to you in your message does not exist in the way your cornered mind wants it to.

Headcanons are not a zero-sum game. Someone headcanoning a character as autistic doesn't mean you cannot headcanon them as something else. You are free to think that Penny is not autistic, that Ironwood is not autistic, and so on even if two hundred or ten thousand other people think that they are. That's your choice. If people having autistic headcanons for these characters is annoying to you, then block the blogs saying those things. Or, perhaps, acknowledge that you may have an opinion that differs from the majority of people around you and carry on. Fandom is a community but enjoyment is individual. If fandom is impinging on your enjoyment, disengage from fandom.

"...but it's not autism. It's normal human behavior in unfamiliar environments."

The idea of "normal human behavior" is spectacularly difficult to pin down. And just because something is common ("normal") doesn't mean that it cannot be a behavior shared by neurotypical and autistic individuals. One demonstrating some trait does not preclude the other doing the same.

Moving to Penny, you say the following: “Penny isn’t autistic either. She is very energetic and active. She wants to make friends.” Do you think that autistic people cannot share these traits? Do you think that all autistic people are lethargic loners? Do you hear yourself?

Your words again: “She…is a freaking robot. How do robots have autism?”

If I wanted to be snarky, my only response to this would be "There is this thing called implication" - but I'm making an effort, so I'll provide something marginally more involved.

Things in fiction do not have to have a 1:1 mapping to reality in order for people to find common ground with characters in that fiction. George Orwell’s Animal Farm is not derided as a meaningless story about farm animals being communists because people can see the reflections of actual society and real individuals superimposed onto those animals. If this figurative concept is still confusing to you, please research what fables and allegories are on your own time.

To even ask "How do robots have autism?" is to indicate a staggering lack of knowledge of how representation in media works. It's not my job to educate you, but less than two minutes of searching online brought up resources I can share: this paper exploring harmful autistic representation in media through music, this video discussing one of the most popular autistic robots (Data), and this video talking about representation more broadly (talk of autistic and autistic-coded characters starts at about 7:00). And for that last video, after you watch it, take what you said about Penny - "How do robots have autism?" - and apply it to the gems. Hopefully then you can see how absurd that question is. If you still need more material, do your own research.

Of course, there are multiple perspectives around autistic coding in fiction and I don't mean to say that any one perspective is "right." For some, autistic-coded characters often being depicted as nonhuman carries with it the dehumanizing implication that autistic people are "other" and/or that they are lacking something non-autistic people posses (which the aforementioned paper explores in depth). For others, seeing autistic-coded nonhuman characters existing, happy, comfortable with themselves, and/or still being treated with love by characters or the narrative can be a comfort. From my layman outsider perspective, it seems to come down to personal preference.

I want to circle back to point 1 to finish. I've been relatively polite in this response because I want to operate under the assumption that you're genuinely explaining your position and not trolling, but your message? Its implications? Incredibly impolite. Rude, overbearing, and overstepping, to say the least. It's not your responsibility - nor should it be - to decide what autistic character headcanons are and are not okay.

Depictions of autistic people as inherently violent, as dangerous, are too common. You, intentionally or negligently, reference these depictions with that last stray shot at Adam. What you’ve failed to heed is that these kinds of conversations require empathy, nuance, and the ability to listen and learn. The only ability you’ve demonstrated thus far is careless and callous disregard.

You looked at autistic people headcanoning characters as autistic based on overlapping experience and/or entertainment, said, “That’s annoying,” and then told them (even if only in the relative privacy of your own head and my inbox) to stop having fun. Moreover, you did it in an incredibly offensive way.

Stop, step back, learn, and do better.

[rwac96]

Regarding Weiss Content

Comment the reason for your choice, or place it in a reblog. Remember to reblog to spread it around.

[asm5129]

"The writers have talked about how important it is not to be an asshole when you're criticizing something, which i think is something most people agree with"--Hbomberguy, in his RWBY video.

Lets determine whether he counts himself among those "most".

No pressure to watch this one. I know the discourse around this sucks

[matt0044]

“Wasted Potential.” What is that? What even is that?

I’ll tell you what it is: some entitled fan who feels a promise by the narrative was broken. A promise that usually was never made to begin with.

And so they vent about it, as they are free to do, but feel the need to try and “legitimize” it as some social ill up there with Donald Trump.

I’m tried of pretending it’s not.

[dextixer]

The hypocritical Woobification of Raven Branwen

I dont think it is a secret to anyone who has followed any RWBY discourse, that female characters are treated VERY differently from male ones in the wider fandom, especially in regards to the morality of their actions. I dare anyone who wishes to enter the words like "Raven" "Ironwood" "Adam" "Cinder: and the like into the search bar of websites like twitter and even Reddit to some extent. What you will find more often than not, besides fan-art and porn are discussions about these characters.

After browsing through these discussions one can quickly notice a pattern. Ironwood and Adam are either demonized or have complicated discussions surrounding them. While characters like Raven and Cinder, while having their detractors mostly have discussions focused on shipping or on justifying/excusing their actions.

Raven Branwen is of course, the most iconic example of this.

Raven Branwen in Canon

In the canon of RWBY, Raven Branwen and her brother Qrow both hail from a bandit tribe. They were sent to Beacon to learn how to kill hunters where they learn the values of family and friendship, with team STRQ becoming close. Raven even marries Tai, her teammate and has a kid with him, then ditches him with the child and leaves Summer to come into the picture while Qrow remains an eternal bachelor.

It is revealed to us that Ozpins tendency to keep secrets is what lead Raven to losing trust and leaving the side of good. That, and feat of Salem who she knows is immortal and thus cannot be killed directly.

She returns to her bandit tribe and becomes a bandit queen, killing entire villages for loot and plunder. One of which we can see in the show.

Her becoming a bandit is not something that was thrust upon her, she was not forced to do it or anything of the sort. She chose to do it under her own volition.

Her only "redeeming" point is not being allied to Salem and having a "I will save you once" rule with those she knows and nothing more.

And yet...

Raven Branwen in Fanon

If we were to follow the most common discussions of Fanon then Raven is a tragic lesbian who could never be with Summer, a mother who understood her limits and wanted her daughter to have a better life than with her and who was forced into the position of providing for her tribe and had absolutely no choice but to raid villages for survival of her poor tribe.

If people arent thirsting over Raven herself and or her "romance" with Summer then one can always find many excuses and people calling her a "tragic" and "understandable" figure. They will say that "Shes not perfect" and things like that when in reality, Raven Branwen is just a straight up evil person in the story. Complicated? Yes. Evil? Also yes.

Her only saving grace is that most of the time she is not an antagonist. And she is not related to Salem and in fact would oppose her if she wasnt a coward. And yet, her actions, her being a literal murderous bandit seem to be ignored by a lot of the fandom.

The same fandom that will give shit to Ironwood for bringing 3 airships to Vale and calling it a "military occupation" and Adam wanting to blow up a train (with its crew) will then turn around and pretend that Raven killing innocent villages for shits and giggles on her own volition never happened.

They will cry about how Ironwood and Adam never deserved redemption! How they are deeply evil and have always been deeply evil people, while convincing everyone that Raven is perfect for redemption and was just "forced" to be a bandit queen.

The hypocricy of the RWBY FNDM is staggering, but not news.

What is worse however is how Raven is seemingly receiving the same if not even faster way of redemption that Emerald has. By now most people have probably seen both the RWBY:Beyond first episode and of course the ending animatic. And who else is there in Vacuo if not Raven. Shes just there. Like she just belongs amongst the heroes despite being a literal BANDIT QUEEN.

Despite Ironwood and Adam turning evil they had a good cause at the end of the day. A cause they wanted to fight for.

And instead the people praise and want the redeption of a terrorist who worked for Salem and a literal bandit queen, both of whom did the things they did out of selfish needs? Seriously?

Whats worse is that it seems that CRWBY is more than okay with that. It seems that this is at least currently one of their goals. Which to me is just staggering.

Conclussion i guess

Sorry for the ranty nature of this post. I know that im preaching to the choir but i just needed to get this out of my chest after seeing 10000000000000 posts about Raven and Summer fucking on twitter. Because yeah, THATS Ravens most identifying feature, being a girlkisser. After fucking years of being called a fascist and a bootliker for simply saying that Ironwoods heel turn was shittily done and that SOME of his plans were good it fucking maddens me to see people simp for a literal BANDIT QUEEN without push-back.

[werewolf-cuddles]

Not Tumblr recommending me another "this is why that one time Yang showed interest in men doesn't count and she's totally a lesbian" post 😩

God, is this fucking fandom just allergic to the idea that a person can be attracted to more than one gender? I've seen people calling Blake a lesbian too despite her having been explicitly said multiple times to be bisexual.

I swear to god, I've lost track of the amount of times I've seen "comphet" used as an argument against the possibility of a character being bi. It's honestly infuriating.

[infoglitch]

(saw your confession on rwby confess) i think the current problem with critics and fans is that *both* sides that go to war (NOT the critics and fans who are minding their business and only occasionally engage, shoutout to them, i love you all) either made their side their whole personality and/or they're actively trying to one-up/destroy the other. you can't post anything without them NOT reading, rather already crafting a response in their mind to counter your point, even if they didn't even read what your point is. it's a really uncomfortable situation because anything you do will put you in this or either side and you cannot get the whole fan experience. i've honestly been afraid of posting knightshade not because i dislike bees (I'm rather indifferent to them) but because i'm afraid of people thinking i hate bees and that it's cheating art and the whole nine yards (saw it happen to many blacksun, dragonslayer and knightshade art). i made ONE joke and people already painted me as a critic and a hater. ONE.

also, while some critics bring very valid points and give excellent food for thought, the majority that goes into forums and twitter usually repeat the same points that have been analysed to death. like, in reality there's always something new to criticize about rwby, but no, in forums it's always the same stuff. it feels like they're fishing for praise or engagement instead of actually posting their thoughts.

anyways good luck with everything

... *Inhale*

FUCKIN YES! THANK YOU!

Finally a anonymous ask that isn't someone being a prick but also engaging with me! You have no idea how happy I am.

Outside of that. THANK YOU, you finally put into words how frustrating this community can be. Like I love this fandom but God damn does it make me wanna pull my hair out.

And it sucks even further since neither side are complete pieces of SHIT! It's just some choose to be the fuckin worst or reiterate on points that don't work! Its just utterly frustrating because I just wanna talk about Rwby and how I view this series but instead you gotta pick a fuckin side because this fandom chooses to act like fuckin toddlers!

I'd like to make a thread out of this but I wanna make it natural. But regardless. THANK YOU!

[werewolf-cuddles]

Not sure why we're trying to hide what show this is when this is obviously about RWBY

Fandom Problem #4667:

I remember seeing a critic of the show I watch say, to paraphrase, "the crew really needs to be given manuals on how to not write a character like so, so this fandom war doesn't happen again" in reference to a certain event: a character, who a portion of the fandom headcanoned as gay because he became friends with one of the male main characters, died at the end of season 7. The fandom collectively imploded and called it "bury your gays" and "queerbaiting", even though he was not confirmed gay.

My issue is the critic thinking it's the writers' fault that 1/8 of the fandom jumped to the conclusion that this character was gay. The writers don't need "manuals", the fandom just needs to stop jumping to such ridiculous conclusions and getting angry over things THEY made up in the first place.

[cherry-bomb-ships]

Yo I bet the City of Townsville Pride goes fucking crazy 💀

[rwac96]

Theory: "Are Weiss & Jaune aware they have feelings for each other?"