#i am a very reluctant participant in discourse but if i see something i say something

[thatonebirbnerd]

On Fandom Caucasity

Disclaimer before I begin: I am not infallible and I am not immune to bias. If I have made an error in wording, something just doesn't read the way it should, or if you think this post is pointless or misguided, you are free to tell me without fear of a hostile response and I will act accordingly.

I became acquainted with the term used in this title recently. As a white/Ashkenazi woman, it's almost certainly not mine to use, but as someone who is quite tired of the racist micro- and macroaggressions in the Guild Wars 2 fandom, I would appreciate if I could use it to make a point. Thank you for your understanding.

---

Caucasity rhymes with "audacity" (for good reason) and denotes a stereotypical white person's behavior, most commonly including arrogance and entitlement. More specifically, you might say someone has the caucasity to do something racist and then throw a fit when they're called out for it.

Unfortunately, I have seen this specific scenario play out several times here, most recently with someone who I don't think intended their post to come across as badly as it did. OP in this case devised a well-intentioned headcanon, but fell into a trap of racist implications and got frustrated when they were called out for it. The fallacy they fell to here is the idea that BIPOC have to do something to earn representation in media. To be clear, since this was most likely a product of internalized bias rather than active bigotry, I give said OP the benefit of the doubt, and would merely appreciate it if they apologized to those affected and did some self-reflection. But their response as it stands currently is an example of caucasity in action.

Previous instances have involved things like Braham being drawn or replicated in-game with pale skin, which I see as a more egregious and intentional decision, and a good reason to cease interaction with the people responsible. Maybe his red hair might be tripping some internalized-racist default settings in people's brains, I don't know what their excuses are - but his skin tone is a mellow medium brown, and there is no changing that. There was also another very questionable post about the use of the makeover kit, but I can't recall the exact details right now. I just know that it's always about norn, because apparently people assume they have to be a mono-ethnoculture just because they take heavy inspiration from Norse legend.

Of course, such an assumption ignores the fact that norn culture is also heavily inspired by indigenous American beliefs; sadly, we all know ArenaNet hasn't been the most respectful of that either. I feel it is also worth some note that none of this controversy about Canthan norn previously happened with dark-skinned norn, but I will only leave that there as food for thought rather than making extrapolations.

Anyway. Here's what I have to say about the two most common reactions I see when people are called out.

"Wait, no, I meant this instead!" I understand that it hurts to have your internalized biases exposed; it should be taken for granted that since I'm from a sheltered white upper-middle-class family, I've been there plenty of times. I also understand that if you’re not straight and/or cis, you might assume you are immune to internalized biases since you had to overcome a subset of them to be yourself. (Sorry, but no, you are not immune to further bias; no one is.) I know it’s easy to get upset, especially if you’re rejection-sensitive (hi), but all you have to do is take a deep breath, apologize, learn from your mistakes, and move on.

"Why does it matter?" I hear this most often from Europeans. It's true that different parts of the world have a different idea of racial divides, and that you might see objections as being American-centric. But in doing something like erasing the features Braham got from his dad just because you can't actually look at Borje the Sun Chaser and connect the genetic dots in your head, you're ignoring, erasing, and thus offending the real people behind the screen, around the world, who see themselves represented in Braham. That is why your decisions matter.

The above is also, I would say, also a result of the concept of BIPOC having to work to deserve representation - an idea you will see more boldly visible among, let’s say, fans of The Rings of Power who get angry about seeing dark-skinned elves. And just so I’ve said this out loud: they don't have to do anything. Let them exist, and let them exist on your screen; relinquish the caucasity, the entitlement and arrogance, that makes you get in their way. If that idea threatens you, please do some thinking about it, for all our sakes.

--

Someone else in the GW2 community was the spark for my writing this post and provided a few crucial points, and though they requested anonymity, I'd like to thank them anyway for their contributions and insight.

[patencmarrazzoblog]

Chapter1 : Audience Studies: History and Concept of the Audience (3P18) Blog #1

           Chapter 1 introduces us to the familiar concept of audiences. The practice of the audience occurs every day, daily through viewers online, virtually, and non-virtually. Everyone participates in being a part of an audience. The textbook and the assigned readings discuss the history of the audience. In the 19th-century audience, consumption came in the form of watching battles between knights while the audience sat above. Now in current days, we see the audience coming in a variety of forms. (Sullivan, 2020). The textbook outlines the three models of audiences, which are Outcome, Mass, and Agent. I found these to be concepts apart of the chapter that allows for a better understanding of the concept. The outcome looks at what the type of media consumption does to a person. The effects of the media as a whole. Mass considers how large a collective group of people is. The agent examines the meaning that each person will get from the content, how someone will interpret what they are watching, and if their interpretations are different than other members of the audience. To gather substantial results, large surveys must be made. These surveys should be opinion type surveys, asking people about their standpoint and audience experiences. (Sullivan, pp.8, 2020).  How substantial results are earned is through in person survey techniques. Rather than on the phone survey questions, the chapter suggests in-person protocols should be implemented. The chapter takes on two different scholarly standpoints, one being a more serious informational type and the other understanding the deeper meaning of it all.

           As the chapter progresses, we are introduced to a couple of figures that better explain how an audience receives the communication. Figure 1.1 is the General Model of the Communication Process. This figure shows how it all starts with an information source, moving onto the transmitter, then onto the receiver, and finally reaching the destination. In between the transmitter and receiver, we can see the noise source. This figure represents audience consumption through technology, which we all do regularly. The chapter says that this figure represents the delayed consumption process between the audience and the receiver.

           The chapter also includes a chart that outlines the audience size and the media gap. The information in the chart is information-based from the media gap and the different sources that it impacts in terms of the audiences that consume it. The outlets that it includes are sources such as telephone, radio, letter, movie, and magazine. (Sullivan, pp.10, 2020). The chapter heavily considers the effects of the industrial revolution on media audiences. With industrialization came people of different walks of life moving and migrating into the cities. With this came more small-town people a country-folk becoming introduced with more modern types of lifestyles readily available.

           A very heavily focused term in the chapter is the constructionism within the study of audiences. Constructionism is an approach that looks at the audience as the signifier. This part of the chapter highlights how the study of audiences may need one to look at the discourses of it. One way that the chapter looks at an audience that stood out to me is that the audience is not a set reality, but something made up by our minds. (Sullivan, pp. 11, 2020).

           The chapter does heavily highlights the history of the audience. I find this to be quite beneficial because of how unthought-of it is considering the audience has always been around. The reading, Giving People a Voice: On the Critical Role of the Interview in the History of Audience Research also adds insight to the role of the interview in the study of audiences. The paper considers the key role that the interview plays by examining interviewee knowledge. (Livingstone, 2010).  The purpose of this paper had been to hopefully give power to the audience in a sense. The paper also suggests that researchers have become reluctant to going out into public to speak to the public, who is the audience.

           After reading both the assigned chapter and reading I have become aware of just how deep the history of the audience is. Unless you are the speaker of a class you are always participating in the practice and study of the audience. During recent months we have turned to be an audience that consumes content through technology for the most part. This is obviously due to COVID 19 and the restrictions that have been implemented. My real-life experience for this chapter is the transition from in-person, face to face audience consumption, to virtual. I am a person that respects the rules set up by our government due to COVID but does feel that this transition has had and will continue to harm the public’s mental health. Not getting the chance to interact with people outside of our bubble is different and sad for people like myself. I am interested to see how the next couple of months progress and if we will get the chance to practice being a large audience in a public setting.  

[annashipper]

Spinsie Submission

Hi Anna! Spinsie here, on day-leave from Nanny Prison. They’ve let me out because nannies actually evaporate without Sceptic Discourse.

I want to weigh in on the current BadBatch theory.

There seems to be a lot of rewriting history going on with the Batch marriage recently, and I am worried a few key elements might be sanitized or disappear completely. I am hoping Ballsy and her spreadsheets can confirm (or correct) any thing I use here.

The Showmance created peak scepticism when the marriage was first announced. It came on the back of a few weeks of baiting, and a few sightings of Rachel, who didn’t seem wildly enthused with her new boo. There were no nannies and sceptics in those days, and a lot of people stated pretty freely that it was all for show and an Oscar grab.

The marriage announcement was the clinger for me. It was published in The Times out of the blue, with absolutely no supporting information, and while he was travelling to the US. It appeared he didn’t even know about it. No one knew who she was, and there was no supporting PR material about her, which even the dumbest PR person would know to prepare to support a big new announcement. Apparently Karon was blindsided by it too.

There was a lot of talk at the time that Rachel was a friend of Weinstein’s wife, and that Weinstein had bankrolled one of her (unsuccessful) New York productions. Thus Rachel had a debt to him, and was a reluctant participant.

There was a blind item at the time too,  widely agreed to be her, suggesting she had some compromising photos of Batch, and that she had taken similar photos before of another UK actor. I still subscribe to this theory (and have done a bit of research about it, and that supports my views).

The actual marriage was an exclusive for Murdoch’s Sun in London, who apparently had some amazing insight into when and where the ultra secret wedding would be held. You don’t have to do much googling to see a) Murdoch’s friendship with Weinstein and b)Murdoch’s ability to spin and interfere with a narrative.

The Sun also got a similar amazing scoop with the first christening.

I am not doubting that Batch is a right pain in the arse when he wants to be. Successful ambitious people in cut-throat industries often are. Rachel could well be the sweetest thing in shoe leather. She might be a great cook and produce some great theatre in the next decade. Who knows what they’re really like? I still don’t see them as being in love with each other. No matter what anyone says, no matter how they try to subtly tweak the details, you can’t erase those first few months of the Batch-Rachel union: they couldn’t hold hands correctly. Their smiles were closed lipped and stiff. They didn’t appear to even know each other very well. True love is instantly simple to spot. We all recognise it immediately.  This pair have never been able to manufacture that.

If I am right, and if this ongoing marriage is predicated on a publicity union and some unwholesome pictures that would cause him embarrassment and possibly taint his career, I think he’s doing okay. He’s taken a hit in terms of fans and popularity and managed to build himself a new and pretty convincing (to the casual observer) image. He’s made some really bold choices with SunnyMarch’s productions, and his risks have brought dimension to his career. And he’s Dr Strange. He is currently estimated to be worth $30 million. Rachel’s life doesn’t seem unpleasant – she’s got more recognition in this marriage than she ever had for her other work, and this union apparently assists her with her own projects (when she’s not – allegedly - wiping little noses and reading story books in French).

I can’t see the Batch PR union as a long term plan. It is a hotpotch of half baked strategies and inconsistent messages, starting with the marriage announcement and Rachel’s first bump reveal. Everything since that time has been hurriedly designed to protect his career with prosaic narratives. It is natural to think that any big news strategy is the result of careful planning and foresight, when in fact they are mostly the result of people doing and saying stupid things, not considering the long term consequences and trying desperately to spin it to their advantage later.

And the constant use of the Batch’s sceptic quote? Well, it’s interesting. That is to say, an on-going argument about the authenticity of the marriage is great for him and any news outlet. To have people vested in both sides of the arguments means all the clicks for all the articles. Meanwhile, the Batch machine keeps on rolling – a sly stream of photos that sceptics can discount and nannies adore, and a stilted public discourse that doesn’t waiver from happy-marriage-many-kids narrative. The sceptics and nannies are all part of the narrative. It’s quite deliberate, in my view – something for everyone.

For anyone who wants to argue or dismiss my views, let me just point you in the direction of the election of current American government. (But her emails!)  Manipulating a narrative is incredibly easy. Persuasive arguments can be bought and administered as a client wishes. Detractors can be trolled and scared off with instant savagery. Most people don’t have the time or interest to interrogate a narrative, so (for example) a successful actor’s death from an overdose is a shock (Heath Ledger). A Government’s claim about increased funds (Brexit) is proved completely implausible and false after the election, to everyone’s dismay. And so on, every day.

Handy hint: you don’t have to believe everything you read in a newspaper. You’re allowed to trust your own instincts. You’re allowed to seek your own facts.

And as for the BadBatch poster – nice try! Very important to emphasise the kids and those maternal instincts, isn’t it? Try harder. I maintain the general sceptic view. I might consider rethinking my views when I see good, hi res photos of their messy kitchen and lots of evidence of two toddlers, including the toddlers themselves, and an authentic copy of Rachel’s airline trips in the last four years. Until that happy day, their history is still unchallenged, and I remain convinced that the marriage is a sham, that they live separately and that he, nice or naughty, has made the best of a challenging situation.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

1.  Spinsie, I love you from the bottom of my black, skeptical heart.  I also agree with every single word you’ve written today.

2.  From what I understand, back in the Eggsy days, even some of the Nannies were throwing shade at the very notion that Weirdo was the secret girlfriend as well.  Among them, one of the BNFs (the biggest as far as I’m concerned).

3.  Ben and Weirdo still can’t hold hands correctly, and their smiles are still stiff.  When they’re bothering to smile while standing next to each other that is.