#i do love discussions of morality in the context of media

[daz4i]

tbh i’d argue discussions of good and bad aren’t what matters in bsd. like morality isn’t the topic here

the main characters don’t quite have concrete goals beyond surviving, and the antagonists all have thoroughly explored motives for their actions that you can even easily justify. but because we view the story through the lenses of the detective agency - who are being put at direct risk by said actions - we view said actions as antagonistic

and while some of these actions are Not Great, the story of bsd doesn’t shy away from showing our protagonists do awful things as well. honestly the best way i’ve seen someone put it was ironically in a joke post of atsushi saying smth along the lines of “akutagawa don’t kill these people that’s awful. we should only maim them instead”

i don’t think bsd sets out to say some great message about morality and the greatness of it, at least not as its core theme. i think everyone is morally grey because they’re just... human, and humans are naturally not purely good or purely bad. even the most horrendous acts in history were done for a reason, to the people who did them.

this is why the story is like that. it doesn’t seem exactly purposeful, sort of? like, again, i don’t think it’s meant to be a core theme, more like. this is how the story is because it’s simply well written, and you’re meant to engage with it through the lens of someone who can look past titles like “good” and “bad” and see the people instead. 

while i wouldn’t say it’s exactly pointless to discuss morality in the context of bsd, it’s more like... there’s just better, more relevant things to discuss. even under this topic, i’d say it’s more relevant to go at it from the direction of “why do people do the awful things they do and what does that say about us” rather than “does this person’s reasoning justify their actions”

[commsroom]

as an extension of how hera reads as trans to me, hera/eiffel resonates with me specifically as a relationship between a trans woman and a cis man. loving hera requires eiffel to decentralize his own perspective in a way that ties into both his overall character arc and the themes of the show.

pop culture is baked into the dna of wolf 359, into eiffel’s worldview, and in how it builds off of a sci-fi savvy audience’s assumptions: common character types, plot beats, or dynamics, why would a real person behave this way? how would a real person react to that? eiffel is the “everyman” who assumes himself to be the default. hera is the “AI who is more human than a lot of humans,” but it doesn’t feel patronizing because it isn’t a learned or moral quality; she is a fundamentally human person who is routinely dehumanized and internalizes that.

eiffel/hera as a romance is compelling to me because there is a narrative precedent for some guy/AI or robot woman relationships in a way i think mirrors some attitudes about trans women: it’s a male power fantasy about a subclass of women, or it’s a cautionary tale, or it’s a deconstruction of a power fantasy that criticizes the way men treat women as subservient, as property. but what does that pop culture landscape mean in the context of desire? If you are a regular person, attracted to a regular person, who really does care for you and wants to do right by you, but is deeply saturated in these expectations? how do you navigate that?

I think that, in itself, is an aspect of communication worth exploring. sometimes you won’t get it. sometimes you can’t. and that’s not irreconcilable, either. it’s something wolf 359 is keenly aware of, and, crucially, always sides with hera on. eiffel screws up. he says insensitive things without meaning to. often, hera will call him out on it, and he will defer to her. in the one case where he notably doesn’t, the show calls attention to it and makes him reflect. it’s not a coincidence that the opening of shut up and listen has eiffel being particularly dismissive of hera - the microaggression of separating her from “men and women” and the insistence on using his preferred title over hers. there are things eiffel has just never considered before, and caring for hera the way he does means he has to consider them. he's never met someone like hera, but media has given him a lot of preconceptions about what people like her might be like.

there’s a whole other discussion to be had about the gender dynamics of wolf 359, even in the ways the show tries to avoid directly addressing them, and how sexual autonomy in particular can’t fully be disentangled from explorations of AI women. i don’t think eiffel fully recognizes what comments like “wind-up girl” imply, and the show is not prepared to reconcile with it, but it’s interesting to me. in the context of transness (and also considering hera’s disability, two things i think need to be discussed together), i think it’s worth discussing how hera’s self image is at odds with the way people perceive her, her disconnect from physicality, how she can’t be touched by conventional means, and the ways in which eiffel and hera manage to bridge that gap.

even the desire for embodiment, and the autonomy and type of intimacy that comes with it, means something different when it’s something she has to fight for, to acquire, to become accustomed to, rather than a circumstance of her birth. i suppose the reason i don’t care for half measures in discussions re: hera and embodiment is also because, to me, it is in many ways symbolically a discussion about medical transition, and the social fear of what’s “lost” in transition, whether or not those things were even desired in the first place.

hera’s relationship with eiffel is unquestionably the most supportive and equal one she has, but there are still privileges, freedoms, and abilities he has that she doesn’t, and he forgets that sometimes. he will never share her experiences, but he can choose to defer to her, to unlearn his pop culture biases and instead recognize the real person in front of him, and to use his own privilege as a shield to advocate for her. the point, to me - what’s meaningful about it - is that love isn’t about inherent understanding, it’s about willingness to listen, and to communicate. and that’s very much at the heart of the show.

[celluloidbroomcloset]

Hi! I’m newish to the OFMD family (didn’t start watching until last year), I’m also newly back on tumblr after years of being away. Love your blog especially your text posts with your take on the show. I was hoping you could inform me why Taika gets so much hate. Sorry, I’m not on any other social media so I don’t stay very up to date.

Cheers!

Thank you!

Ah, the whole Taika thing is a bit complicated and there are folks who have a better grasp on everything than I do, so I do invite anyone to link/comment if I misstate here. Generally the current hate surrounding him seems to be based in:

A letter he signed, along with about 300 other celebrities, back at the start of current conflict in Palestine, thanking Biden/urging him to encourage the release of hostages. The wording of the letter was not great in places, but it was mostly "hostages shouldn't be hostages and everyone should be safe." This has been taken to mean that Taika's a Zionist. There is no hard proof of this that I am aware of. The letter itself is not Zionist and came at a time when everyone was calling for the release of hostages. His name doesn't appear on the first page.

A podcast appearance (I think Marc Maron's WTF? podcast) where he talked about the fact that no one can be aware of every issue happening in the world and that people tend to focus on the things that are closest to them. This was taken to be an excuse about him signing that letter, but the conversation was in the context of a discussion of Jojo Rabbit, and he mentions the fact that a lot of people are unaware of ongoing Maori political issues, which others have pointed is where his public political energy seems to reside.

The hate around him has been going on for longer than this—I saw people try to argue that he was a fascist for making Jojo Rabbit, and I've seen people railing against him for things as banal as his opinion about Casablanca, as well as his personal life and relationships.

My personal sense is that he's an intelligent man who talks a lot and does not have a celebrity filter, so he will often say things in the course of a conversation or interview that is basically him voicing thoughts out loud as they come. This is not great for someone in the public eye, and it's also not a crime or an indication of a massive moral failing. Most of the reactions to his statements have both taken those statements out of context and are wildly disproportionate to what is actually said. The accusations of Zionism and the scrutiny of everything he does and says raises very clearly the undercurrents of antisemitism and racism into...overcurrents.

Tl;dr: the hate around him is because he's a very successful Indigenous, Jewish filmmaker who talks a lot, makes jokes a lot, and is a human being.

[lurkingshan]

Only Friends and Engaging with Queer Male Media as a Cishet Woman

I’ve had some good conversations this week with friends as we’ve been unpacking our early reactions to Only Friends, which has only just begun getting into the messy dynamics we know the show is going to explore. One of the things that has come up in conversation is our different reactions to the scene between Boston and Top in the shower stall, and how we each read that in terms of consent, sexual coercion, and what it says about each of the characters. Some of us were relatively unfazed by the scene, finding it to be a fairly realistic depiction of a pushy aggressor and his conquest who is not that into him, but also not really opposed to getting sex anywhere and any way he can. Some were more uncomfortable, recognizing behaviors we might call assault in other contexts and wondering whether we should be condemning the character or the scene for the behavior depicted.

For me, this discussion brought up a lot of my previous fandom experiences, taking me all the way back to ye olden days when Queer as Folk (US) was airing and the majority cishet woman fandom spaces were scandalized, scandalized I tell you, by some of the aspects of gay male culture it depicted. It was not the first or the last show to do so, but it stands out in my mind as an important cultural moment at the turn of century as I was coming of age, when the internet was booming and the proliferation of online fandom spaces was rapidly accelerating. Because QaF did it all—casual sex, cruising, group sex, very public acts of indecency, aggressive boundary pushing and peacocking, open and polyamorous relationships, cheating and betrayal, age gaps—and it depicted it all quite explicitly, which made a lot of people uncomfortable. Especially women who were used to thinking about sex and relationships through two primary, and heavily socialized, lenses:

heteronormative romance, and

heterosexual rape culture.

Let’s take a moment to unpack those terms. Heteronormative romance is a big, broad term that I’m using as a kind of container for a lot of things, including patriarchal structures, misogyny, rigid gender roles, purity myths and fetishization of virginity, courtship rituals, promiscuity and respectability politics, the madonna/whore complex, sex as an act primarily for breeding and procreation, expectations of sublimating sexual desire in service of caretaking for others, and so on. Basically, all the bullshit cis women get jammed into our heads from birth that gives us so many hang ups about sex and love. With heterosexual rape culture, I am referring to the undeniable culture of sexual violence women also endure in a majority heterosexual society, in which we are in constant danger of having our boundaries transgressed, being physically and psychologically hurt, and then being told it doesn’t matter because our personhood has always been in question and never mattered as much as any one man’s power or pleasure. I’m not going to drop a bunch of citations for the above because this is tumblr and I have escaped the icy grip of graduate school, but if any of these ideas are unfamiliar to you, google is your pal (and please read about intersectionality as it relates to these concepts while you’re at it, because there are layers of identity that make these dangers worse for some, like our trans and BIPOC sisters, and all of this is undergirded, as ever, by white supremacy).

So, yes, engaging with media about sex is fraught for women, especially when that media does not conform to our heteronormative ideas of morality that have been shaped by all of the above, and particularly when we as individuals have not done the work to unpack and interrogate our socialized beliefs, which is often the case for cishet women especially. Many of us instinctively cringe away from unromantic depictions of sex. Many of us can’t stand cheating and betrayal in our love stories. Many of us shy away from media that depicts the unfortunate reality of grey and dubious consent. All of that is valid, to an extent, and rooted in the way we have been taught to think about this stuff from birth, and the ways we’ve had to adapt to survive. 

But, here’s the thing, girlies: most of those socialized hang ups I just talked about? Do not apply to a story by, for, and about queer men. 

Before you start yelling, here is your disclaimer: of course patriarchy and misogyny also hurt men. Of course rape culture also exists in queer communities, and of course some queer people engage in heterosexual sex, so these are not mutually exclusive categories of people. And, importantly, cishet women are not the only ones who struggle with these tensions—just the ones who are most relevant to this particular post. 

So, after that long and winding road, back to the point: this debate about the bathroom scene in Only Friends is the same shit that’s been debated in majority female fandoms around depictions of queer male sex since time immemorial. And whatever your personal feelings are on that scene, or the no doubt numerous other depictions of questionable romantic and sexual etiquette and dubious consent coming our way in this show, what it boils down to is this: can a majority cis woman fandom step outside of our own conception of sexual morality to engage with this show not with judgment, but with curiosity about what sex and relationships look like for queer men? This show has an entirely queer male writing and directing team. It is made with love by people of the community, for the community. They know what they’re about, they have resumes demonstrating they are damn good storytellers who understand safe sex, consent, sexual health, and sex work, and they are here to tell us a story grounded in their reality. BL has been moving in fits and starts toward depictions of sex that are more honest about queer male experiences, and Only Friends, spearheaded by the Jojo Tichakorn Phukhaotong (who demonstrated quite ably that he has a firm grasp on consent, sexual assault, and the damage that dubious consent can cause in The Warp Effect), is the next step in that evolution. The key point is that sexual activity simply does not mean the same thing or carry the same associations and hang ups for queer men as it does for cis women. With that in mind, can we try our best to process and critique this story on their terms, instead of our own?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Only Friends is not going to be a good time for people who are looking for romantic depictions of relationships and sex or invested in identifying heroes and villains amongst this cast of characters. This show is about deeply flawed people hurting each other, rooted in the lived experience of the Thai queer male community—and those of us who do not share all of those lived experiences may not understand the nuances of every single thing that is happening. We can be sure that the characters will all be wrong sometimes and they will all do things we think are stupid or reckless or unkind. Does that mean we can’t have empathy for them? Do they have to act in a way we think is morally “correct” in order to love them? You don’t have to be comfortable with the things these characters do, and it’s certainly valid to point out when you think lines have been crossed. But attempting to sort them into “good” and “bad” camps is pointless, and moralistic judgment of their behavior is out of place, particularly when it comes from a place of trying to force them into our own irrelevant frameworks for sexual politics. 

And with all that said, I am passing the baton over to my dear friend @waitmyturtles, because there’s an entire aspect of the intersectional cultures at play here that I have barely touched on—Only Friends as an Asian queer story that is building from a specific lineage of Thai queer media. I’m gonna let her take the mic for that part, and say thanks to her, @bengiyo, @neuroticbookworm and @wen-kexing-apologist for reading this over and helping me think through what I wanted to say here, and shoutout to @williamrikers whose post I also linked to above. 

[pal1cam]

decolonization presentation

So for context, this is regarding a conversation I had a few weeks ago with one of the cofounders of an international organization that I volunteer at.

I spoke to the cofounder, and we were discussing the Palestinian cause in general, but more specifically the ongoing Gaza genocide.

From our conversation, I understood from her that she as a cofounder of this organization had the means to speak out about Palestine and have the organization and all of its platforms, be a space and a place for raising Palestinian voices, yet as she is not extremely educated on the topic, she does not know where to start or what would be the proper way to advocate for Palestine… (especially that doing so could get the organization into legal trouble because it’s in a European country with very strict pro israel policies and laws)

We agreed on having an online meeting where I create some sort of presentation to educate her on the Palestinian cause, and why it’s historically and morally important to speak out about Palestine and educate her on some of the highlights in Palestinian history, especially modern Palestinian history.

As a Palestinian myself, it is quite hard to pick and choose what are the most important points and bullet points that I should include in this presentation that i’ll be making very soon, so I thought that I should take this to Tumblr to take ideas from everyone on here, because I would also love to hear from non-Palestinian folks that are educated on the Palestinian cause to any degree what they think on how I could educate this individual on the Palestinian cause…

so I need your thoughts and opinions on the following points :

What are the most significant reasons why one should speak out about Palestine from a moral perspective?

What are the most important historical events in Palestinian history that I should mention besides the 1948 Nakba?

How do I convince this person of the importance of speaking out about such a humanitarian crisis? (because it’s important to me that they advocate for Palestine because they’re convinced of the importance of this cause, and not only because of me being a Palestinian active member of the organization)

How do I emphasize on the point that speaking out about such a cause is more important than worrying about the criticism that comes with being pro Palestine?

What are some easy-to-understand & informational/educational and preferably short pieces of media that I could recommend to this person so that she would be motivated to learn more about the Palestinian cause?

I would appreciate all & any suggestions by anyone on here wether you’re Palestinian or Non-Palestinian, and if you feel like sending me a message with all of your ideas rather than leaving them in the comments section, please feel free to do so !!

PS. if the meeting with this cofounder is successful, there will probably be another meeting held for me educate other staff members of the organization including the other cofounders, so by contributing to this initiative you’d be making a change in the mindsets of many people who come from various backgrounds and cultures, which means they might also spread that awareness and knowledge in their own wider social circles, and that way your contribution doesn’t stop only at changing 1 person’s way of viewing the Palestinian cause :)

[sai-lec]

The Internet Tifosi

an informal reflection of online fan spaces by me, a recent member of the tifosi.

I love being part of the tifosi. I love the colour red. I love seeing the passion of the tifosi at races. I love Charles. I love Carlos. I love watching races and highlights from old team lineups I love the greats like Schumacher and Lauda and Prost I love Ferrari.

My path in f1 didnt start with Ferrari, it started with McLaren- my dad is a huge McLaren fan, he introduced me to Lando (and Carlos but primarily Lando) in lockdown and sure it didnt click with me right away; I watched some races with him, he showed me the highlights from the races I didnt watch with him (including several videos of Grosjean's infamous crash) and despite the fact that I wasn't heavily invested it gave us something to bond over. That September when I left home for university it gave us a reason to call each other. When I developed a genuine interest (after I decided I wasn't coming back home after I graduate university) my dad wasn't bothered by the fact that I had shown up at Christmas with a Ferrari hat on, in fact he took it off my head and tried it on himself; "do I look good as a Sainz fan?". From my dad introducing me to Lando, Carlos was the natural next step in immersing myself into the fan community. From Carlos, we found Charles and the Tifosi. I don't have many (or any) friends in real life with the same level of interest in Formula 1 that I have developed, naturally I found myself creating this blog hoping to find a community within online spaces that wasn't available to me in the digital world.

My experience within the tifosi has been... unique, to say the least. I have been engaged in online fan spaces since I was around 14- I made my Tumblr account in 2016 to talk about supernatural, before moving on to buzzed unsolved, and marvel and so on as my interests developed and changed. Within each of these communities I have found a group of people that I felt comfortable around enough to call them genuine friends. some of whom I still keep in contact with despite the fact that our interests have changed. that hasn't quite happened to the same extent with the internet's Tifosi; and there is a multitude of reasons why.

The 'Versus' Predicament

To be rather blunt for a moment- I have never been part of a community that has been filled with so much vitriol for other members, and I was part of the Marvel fandom when Civil War was released (team cap). In fact, it seem that the tifosi are constantly engaged in a Civil War of their own- devoted fans of Charles as the self-labelled Lecfosi and Team55 practically always appear to be at odds with each other. And publicly so.

It is natural for people to have a favourite driver- we've just discussed how ive come to find myself as a devotee to Team55. But as with other areas, fan spaces have seen negative impact in communication due to internet dependancy in recent years.

From my perspective, the issue appears to be a mixture of cancel culture and virtue signalling. Now cancel culture is in itself a manifestation of virtue signalling in which creators or whomever else face mass criticism and attempted deplatforming as the internet becomes aware of potentially problematic past or present behaviour; however given its internet context and usage I've elected to view it as a separate entity.

Internet fan spaces have regressed to a state of defensiveness- in order to promote and validate your approval of one subject you must justify why in comparison to another. This is where the effects of cancel culture come into play. Cancel culture reached its peak performativity during quarantine as the internet and social media became the primary method of protesting and spreading awareness of activism whilst maintaining social distancing and quarantining requirements. As morality became monitored and policed by a younger and younger average user base, it is natural that there was a bastardisation of the phenomenon resultant in the mass cancelling and calling out of any person who spoke or acted in a manner that wasn't deemed correct; not necessarily related to politics or activism at this point, I myself received an influx of mass hatred and cancellations to the point where I was borderline shunned by an entire gaming community for making a joke about everyone hating one of the event mini games ('whats everyones favourite game and why is it not buildmart').

This same mindset is so visibly present within the Tifosi today- both extremes find themselves comparing one driver to the other in order to justify their favour. For example, tensions have been high with Lecfosi and Team55 almost in a panicked state looking to justify why they chose to support their favourite driver with 'Carlos is gifted every achievement Charles would have beaten him if he wasn't held back ' and 'Ferrari fired the wrong driver' filling the comments of Ferrari's Instagram and Twitter posts. This has prompted fans to flock to defend their preferred driver, often in ways which contribute to the animosity. Drivers face this pseudo-cancellation as a result with twitter bios seeing additions of 'Carlos fans din' 'if you like CL16 unfollow me' after every race. Criticisms of the drivers themselves increase, they are placed under heavier scrutiny as the violence between fans increases leading to a never-ending circle of driver-to-fan hatred. it is seen as almost a moral failure within fan spaces to support the wrong driver.

I, personally, have witnessed arguments between fans in comment sections on tiktok- the most memorable being a 'share your favourite driver and why' tiktok in which a Carlos fan received comments of 'Well you know Charles is actually better because x y z'. (I'd like to point out this is not an antagonisation of Charles fans, but this is what actually happened nor am I excusing Team55 from the ability to make similar comment). The notable point here is that Charles was never mentioned, yet the mere fact of someone else preferring the wrong driver in this commenter's eyes lead to them purposefully targeting another Ferrai fan to chastise them on their decision effectively boiling the interaction down to 'you're not allowed to support this driver because I don't like him'.

This is where virtue signalling comes into play. For those unaware, virtue signalling is the public expression of opinion with the intent of alignment with a moral correctness. The internet especially in fanbases weaponises that frequently through the examples of 'dni of you support x' as discussed prior. The followup to that mindset is the feeling of requirement to discuss. For example, when a driver races poorly or is subjected to penalty, fan spaces will see an influx of posts demanding fans to defend their driver (How can you support him when he drives like that), mass criticising the driver (he doesn't deserve his seat why isn't he fired), or public statement of disapproval because of the social requirement to misalign yourself with the incorrect actions of another person without genuine belief behind the statement as oftentimes excuses will be made for their preferred person in a similar situation. At times it appears that the primary interaction of some people within the Tifosi is to engage in critical commentary on their disliked drivers.

Criticism? Or extreme negativity?

With call out and cancel culture leaving the political sphere it has severely impacted the positivity of fanbases as criticism becomes a primary, almost necessary, aspect of fan culture. Of course we talk about critical consumption in which you are able to analyse and evaluate the content which we consume and become aware of its biases and flaws, however this has snowballed to become criticise everything you consume. Thus, the animosity of the fan spaces rises once more.

Of course every driver is bound to face warranted criticism- the majority of the grid are socially unaware rich white men, they are destined to say or do something worth criticising. They are bound to say bitchy things and act in ways that you don't agree with because that is just the nature of humanity, everyone does these things. But that does not mean every single one of their actions are worth dissecting under the microscope. And the prevalent attitude of analysing drivers mannerisms, behaviours emotions and heat-of-the-moment radios and comments doesn't display the analytical eye a lot of people think it does.

A lot of attitudes in the 2024 spaces that I have personally seen have centred a Carlos negativity- there have been dire criticisms of the journalistic bias towards him across the first 3 races of the year. Of course, if you don't like him then you're bound to be tired of hearing about him. But what I found interesting was the theories being circulated that he was paying his way into the media or that there was a behind-the-scenes scheme to keep media interest on him. Now, a lot of people perceived this to be a theory based on the culture surrounding Sainz's family wealth and his father's influence when in reality it was likely to be because of the increased interest around his circumstances going into the season- no seat for 2025, rumoured negotiations with several teams, surgery and first non Red Bull win of the season. to analyse this situation critically is not to say 'well there must be a secret reason and I will investigate' but to recognise that journalism is reliant on attention grabbing headlines- a man with no job and no appendix winning a race while still in the post-surgery recovery period is exactly the kind of narrative that will garner clicks. It would have been the same had it have been any other driver in that specific set of circumstances. There is a difference between critical thinking and assumptive analyses and oftentimes they can become conflated in the desire to prove a point.

This is the issue- a lot of people engage analytically with media in order to suggest a particular narrative. Every person is subject to bias, and when that bias is unchecked it can lead to a lot of analysis that are reliant on theory, speculation and assumption in order to maintain the subconscious perspective of the writer. This is why we see a lot of people use demeaning nicknames towards Charles on twitter an simultaneously view Carlos as undeserving in instagram comments- the integral points of their perspective on the driver rest on the moments which will develop their narrative view of the driver as the lesser. Critical engagement cannot rest solely on one the positive or the negative, otherwise you failing to engage critically by cherry picking a perspective in order to maintain a narrative. That is tabloid journalism, or gossip, at best.

I Am In Misery

It is also just not healthy for you as a fan to consistently engage in negative commentary and discourse. I mean that seriously this is a PSA if your fan engagement sees your negative criticism and commentary of your disliked driver outweigh the time you spend enjoying your interest then you need to take a step back and reassess how you want to participate because that is not sustainable for your mental wellbeing.

This is not to say that you must never hate, you must never criticise or say anything bad about someone we all do it- it's natural. But you have to ask yourself if you truly enjoy using another driver to uplift your favourite. Aren't his accomplishments enough to validate him alone?

Ive noticed a complete lack of will to celebrate- in my inbox right now are maybe around 15 asks all talking about how I shouldn't be happy with this weekends performance or else I dont understand F1. I argue the inverse,

I understand F1. I understand that this weekend was not the best performance Ferrari had to offer. I understand the impact of the team racing each other and Carlos' aggression during the sprint. And I have mentioned as much. However, I choose to focus on the positive aspects of the weekend. The tyre management from both drivers was impeccable to gain 2 positions each and maintain them finishing on tyres that were 40 laps old. They made an excellent recovery from the mishaps in qualifying that ultimately earned the team and themselves more points. We maintain 2nd in the constructors championship and 3rd and 4th in the drivers. There are issues that need to be discussed and resolved but ultimately this is not the worlds worst performance.

F1 is entertainment. I want to win, I want to succeed but I also want to be entertained. My mental health has seen a series uptick since I decided to directly seek entertainment. Sure, the drivers shouldn't have been racing the way they were, it had the potential to put both cars in a detrimental position, but it sure does make things more interesting!!! There's almost a sense of parasocialism within the community- a lot of people are hesitant to look for relief beyond the emotions of their favourite driver, and subsequently view every race as a failure in some aspect (just outside of the podium, on the podium but not p1, could've done better if it wasn't for xyz) and that negatively affects their experience as a fan and for other fans who don't share that perspective. It's almost like people have forgotten to enjoy the race, they're so preoccupied with looking for something to criticise.

Now this isn't to say you're not allowed to enjoy critical assessments of the success of races. But thats not what the majority of us are posting (it might be what some of you think you're posting, but you're not). I love watching video essays on races that are done properly with acknowledgement and awareness of bias. I don't love reading posts along the lines of 'why this race actually sucked' (not a real example) because it's not built from an analytical or critical perspective, just a discussion of the race and outcome through a lens of destructive pessimism.

End

This behaviour isn't specific to the Tifosi, it's an internet wide phenomenon. But I've chosen to directly comment on it here because as I said, I've never sen a community with so much hatred for itself. As of 2024, we are all on the same team right now. We have the right to hold our own opinions of the drivers and express those. We do not have the right to argue on the validity of other fans preferences, we do not have the right to directly enter fan spaces (ie the main tags) and spread destructive negativity about a driver nor do we have the right to harass blogs for whom they chose to support.

The inherent negativity is so calamitous to the community. It perpetuates the infighting, it furthers the negative narratives we have constructed of drivers, it only contributes to divide the community as both sides earn reputations of being toxic towards each other. And to an extent, yes . It is true, and that is disappointing. You have the right to choose your favourite driver. However, Charles and Carlos are both talented drivers- there is no need to drag one down to uplift the other. It is instigating behaviour and I'm sure a lot of people comment in that manner purposefully.

Be aware of your parasocial connection to a driver. if you find yourself criticising a driver for an action that you would not criticise your favourite for executing ask yourself why you view the action as negative circumstantially. If you are only able to assess races based on what could have happened, what better could have happened then ask yourself if you find this enriching; do you leave race weekends feeling good and excited for the next race or soured because things might have been better under different circumstances. Don't ignore the problems, acknowledge them and say but what are the positives as opposed to letting the failures undermine the successes.

just have a bit of fucking fun once in a while PLEASE .

as an endnote: I do recognise that the majority of insights and examples I have given in this reflection have been at the expense of team 55, again I would like to reiterate that as someone who primarily finds themself in 55 spaces I a naturally experience a greater exposure to negativity towards that driver as it usually tends to be maintagged or sent directly to myself or other 55 centric blogs. Just as the CL16 community is more likely to be exposed to and remember hatred towards Charles. In no way am I insinuating that 55 fans are incapable of or have not acted in the the same nature, to Charles' detriment. The toxicity remains prevalent on both extremes of the community.

this is a mass response to the people in my inbox thank you for your patience I didnt want to answer like 15 different asks about everything in slightly different ways

[andreal831]

TVDU and Morality

I've recently said, a few times, that the morality debates in the TVDU fandom are boring, and some people have gotten offended so I thought I would explain.

First, this idea of hypocrisy in the fandom is laughable. The amount of times I've been called a hypocrite because I've called out problematic behavior, while also liking a problematic character. The gut reaction for so many in this fandom when their favorite character is being criticized is to shift the conversation onto a completely different character and even to the commenter themselves. This is boring and even downright offensive at times. Every single character has been a hypocrite at times. It doesn't inherently mean someone is bad. It means they are "human" and life can make hypocrites of all of us at times. Also, just to clarify, I am not a hypocrite for merely liking a problematic character. I promise I have never nor will I ever commit the acts that I criticize these characters for, which would be the definition of hypocrisy. I have also never told anyone they can't like certain characters.

We have these complicated characters and none of them are "good" people because, guess what, people aren't just one or the other. Everyone has the capability to be "bad" or "good." Trying to put a character firmly on one side is a generalization and ignores so much nuance. Some of their actions may be completely bad or completely good, but typically even that is an oversimplification. Are there characters that seem to do more bad things or more good things, definitely. Are their some characters that cross certain, unnecessary lines, absolutely. Are we allowed to criticize and question every character, please do! That's literally what media literacy is about.

Every single one of these characters has had completely selfish moments (except maybe Bonnie) and every single one of them has had moments of selflessness. These acts don't inherently demonize a character or automatically redeem one. This is what it means to have interesting, complex debates about characters. Looking at the characters as a whole and having open discussions of what it means. We can still love the character and acknowledge the good and the bad of the character.

Another annoying point that is always brought up is, "they weren't born evil, they were made that way." Yes, we get it. No one is born evil. Whether it is mental illness or life events that shape a person, they still have to take responsibility for their own actions. Obviously certain mental illnesses didn't have treatments for a very long time, but that doesn't just allow people to be serial killers.

Every single character has dealt with trauma, and how you react says a lot about a person's character. Separating out characters to say well "x" didn't deserve it but when they became "x" they did. No one deserves good or bad things. I know I say it all the time, they deserved better, but when I do, I'm being facetious. I'm saying I wanted better for that character, better writing, better storylines, a better ending, etc. That phrasing implies that some people deserve better lives than others and I just morally don't agree. No one deserves trauma or abuse. That logic only furthers the cycle of abuse. Now, that being said, people are responsible for their own actions. Spend centuries creating enemies, and guess what, a lot of bad things are going to happen to you.

But the real debates I enjoy having, and have been fortunate to find so many people to engage in these debates, is the morality of the decisions in context of the characters. I like to apply similar logic from the Trolley Problem. If you don't know what that is, enjoy this tik tok I made of Cami teaching the Mikaelsons.

Essentially, many of the characters weight their options, like Jeremy killing Kol and thousands of vampires with it in order to find the cure. Kol is a thousand year old serial killer and is attempting to kill Jeremy, but again Kol is attempting to stop Silas from rising. Neither side is inherently right or wrong. There is a debate to be had.

In the majority of situations in the show there is a debate to be had. The only exceptions being any SA. I will never debate the morality of these actions. Even for immoral characters, there is a line to be drawn.

These debates get even more complex in TO because we move into a world where nearly every character has done absolutely horrendous things. It's okay to sit down and say, "This thing that x did was awful, but I can see their reasoning." It is not justifying their actions, but allowing the characters to be the complex morally corrupt characters that they all are.

[munamania]

oh my god. oh my god. okay i am posting this as a result of seeing the most annoying tiktok ive ever in my life and the general resounding idiocy all around the internet. sorry that made me sound so mean. re bottoms. and from people who claim to be 'cinema majors' and yet are the stupidest people on the fucking planet. okay sorry im heated i promise because i love this so much. you cannot judge a piece of media, its creators, or enjoyers, on the basis of literal content. based on like. the things that happen within the story. it's a story. this one is special because it's an absurd sex comedy. normal logic is not normal logic. are we understanding that base level concept that things have to happen in a story. and conventions within those. anyway you cannot just do this and make conclusions such as 'these filmmakers are trying to harm x community because they included x happening to [insert oppressed identity here].' you cannot do that and pretend youre being intelligent. on top of being some of the most annoying people on the planet: you're simply incorrect! you're assuming bad faith. youre moralizing in a very surface level manner. a very simple dichotomy. im saying this as a kind recommendation and with hope in my heart. in engaging with any media, ask yourself some questions. you can practice them as discussion questions if you'd like here: under what context was this film made? societal, economic, cultural? what audiences do you think they had in mind while creating this? who are the creators? how do they lend themselves to the work? in what ways can other audiences find pleasure and establish an emotional connection through xyz? which characters are audiences meant to feel empathy for and how are they treated? how are other characters treated? what values do certain characters represent? what did you think of them? did you laugh? did you have fun? who punched up who punched down who punched each other? was it fun? these are just some starters to get you using your fucking brains. maybe once you know that you can validate your own intelligence and understanding of your feelings toward media you can let the fuck go and have fun. have fun!!!!!!!! holy shit. it's a comedy. so yeah in the meantime you can step off the back of comedy fans and stop your claims of 'problematic representation.' just because you don't understand and you probably think comedies and their creators are so below you

[secretmellowblog]

So much internet analysis of media feels like……. if people were trying to criticize Chick-Fil-A, but refused to talk about anything other than the quality of the sandwiches. All that mattered was whether the product was good. So people just debated endlessly over whether the products were Good or not, and no one discussed how Chick-Fil-A donated to conservative homophobic hate groups.

“Is this Disney product Good and does it have good gay representation?” Does Disney still donate to homophobic republican politicans!!!??? Do they still actively censor any queer content during production, cancelling gay projects and actively forcing their writers to cut gay content, to the point where every sad scrap that makes it onscreen is a miracle? Can you meaningfully make any statements about “gay rep at Disney” without bringing in that larger context?

It’s not a perfect analogy— because art shouldn’t be a product, and a movie is theoretically trying to Say something in a way that a sandwich is not. But Idk I feel like the reason we fixate so much on media analysis is because it is Fun. It is fun to talk about lord of the rings and the owl house and Steven universe. It is not fun to talk about the horror and exploitation that is baked into the “entertainment industry;” it’s not fun to research and analyze the systems that created the horrifically expensive movies you love.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately because amazon is releasing the most expensive tv series ever made, a spin-off series based on lord of the rings. I have no interest in watching it despite my lifelong love of lotr but the thing is—

I have no doubt the series will be good! It will be fine. Lots of money has been thrown into it, and I have enough friends in the entertainment industry to know that on every massive corporate product there are hundreds of writers and artists sincerely trying their best to create good meaningful art. The Amazon series will be Fine. It will be good.

But my question is: Does it being good actually matter? Does it matter if a chick-Fil-a sandwich is good? Does it matter if this vile evil horrible media monopoly run by a villainous CEO that works its employees to death creates a good product?

I feel like I’m going crazy when most of the criticism of Amazon’s lotr is conservatives and people who act like conservatives ranting on about how “I can’t believe they gave Blorbo GenericElf a personality! That’s so out of character—he didn’t have a personality in the book! Tolkien, our lord and savior who we must worship as an authority, would be infuriated (because we still are bound to submit to this dead guy’s opinion apparently!) Everything would be better if everything stayed exactly as it was in the past, in the Sacred Original Canon. Any attempt to transform Tolkien’s work is morally reprehensible and a sign of the fall of the civilization.”

Sometimes I just want to shake those people and say “PEOPLE ARE DYING! people are dying in Amazon warehouses, and you’re treating your petty fandom opinion about blorbo genericelf’s personality as if it has this laughably enormous moral weight.”

I know that’s unkind, and that people can care about more than one thing; but I don’t know. I used to have this really naive idea that adaptations were a conversation with the original work, and every reinterpretation was a beautiful addition of meaning. I still believe that on some level. I think every author should be free to reinterpret stories however they want, should be able to argue with the original author and set their work on fire if they need to. there’s a lot about Tolkien’s work specifically that deserves to be disrespected, like his vicious racism and sexism. I LOVE transformative work—especially transformative work that meaningfully argues with the original author.

But like….you really can’t talk about these big media franchises without talking about the systems that created them.

Yes, people can sometimes create great beautiful sincere emotional art within these exploitative systems! I love the original lotr films and books. The new Amazon series is so expensive that it will be perfectly Fine.

But creating good art doesn’t change the fact that these giant media monopolies do so much real, constant, tangible harm. Warner Brothers caused massive harm to New Zealand while making the lotr/hobbit films, essentially strong arming the country’s government into changing their film industry laws to benefit massive foreign corporations. And Amazon is a vicious violent exploitative mega monopoly that is literally overworking its underpaid employees until it kills them.

It’s hard because I believe that good art can be very meaningful to people, and that media analysis can be important and valuable.

Its just that— not to swing a bat at a hornet’s nest— sometimes I wish people would stop hyperbolizing about how [petty fandom opinion] will cause lasting harm to the world, while not engaging with the things about the media property that are causing immediate tangible physical objective harm.

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

Hello sex witch! Long time listener, first time caller, love how you do the teaching you do 😄

I was having a chat with my (college age) sibling, and I found she might have some... skewed views on the morality of being sexual. Think along the lines of purity culture, with a sprinkling of religious teaching, and a dash of how legality/morality must be intertwined. I know that sort of thing can lead to some unhealthy thinking, and honestly, I'm a little worried!

This is just background for context, I'm not asking you to solve or even unpack all that lol. But I really vibe with your stance on sex-neutrality, and it seems like a good concept to introduce her too. Like, a lil'nudge.

My personal sex-neutality mindset was gained over years of life experience and internet osmosis, which is really difficult to condense into a "quick-start guide," given I've never really had to educate on it before. I mean, I'll start with the definition, but she would probably prefer having sources other than just me talking for hours lol.

So. TL;DR. As an educator, do you happen to have any resources you could point me towards on sex-neuteality? Books, websites, podcasts, previous posts..? Things I could pass along?

Thank you so much sorry for the length

hey anon,

this is a tricky one because, as you said, sex neutrality is something that comes about from a lifetime of nurturing influences. adopting a totally new mindset is rarely something that can be adopted by one book or video essay, no matter how good they are. this is especially true in the face of religious influence, which can be very difficult to tactfully circumvent without making someone feel as if they're being criticized for being religious at all.

just having a figure in their life (that's you!) who's willing to start and engage with non-judgmental discussions about sexuality can be really helpful for people unlearning sexual stigma, so congrats to you for doing the hardest work just by being present!

having said that, you can't do everything and a recommended media list never hurts. there isn't a lot of work (that I'm familiar with, at least) that just sit you right down and say "hey. here's why sex neutrality good," so I'm going to drop work where that's sort of a powerful background radiation.

Emily Nagoski's book Come As Your Are is a pretty great guide for cis women learning to get comfortable with their bodies and sexualities and, more importantly, the possibilities of communication to find a relationship and sexual style that works for them! I really like the way Nagoski normalizes such a wide range of different needs and desires while assuring readers that there's no "wrong" approach; it's very comforting! if your sister is a podcast person, Nagoski also has an eight part podcast series of the same name where she debunks myths and answers more questions about sexuality.

actually hi as long as we're talking about podcasts Kate Lister, a historian who specializes in historical records of sex work, has a terribly fun podcast called Betwixt the Sheets that's nothing but sex friendly fun. it's got enough interesting historical meat to it that it's not even obvious sex neutral propaganda on the surface; some of my favorite episodes have Lister interviewing other academics about Queen Victoria's dietary habits and Hollywood portrayals of vodun.

if we want to talk about the 101 of getting comfortable with one's own genitalia and reproductive health, I must point to Dr. Jennifer Gunter's Vagina Bible. Dr. Gunter has made a whole career out of debunking medical misinformation, wellness scams, and Goop over on twitter. I think she should be allowed to attack Gwyneth Paltrow with a sword but I can't make that happen so I can at least promote her book.

if your sister starts feeling adventurous, Dr. Lindsey Doe's youtube channel Sexplanations has been a formative influence on me and has years worth of videos covering tons of topics in quick, unabashedly enthusiastic bursts of information. this video where Dr. Doe talks about her own instances of internalized sex negativity could be an excellent starting point, especially if you want to discuss it together like a lil youtube bookclub.

for a longer youtube dive, Khadija Mbowe's ruminations on sex positive feminism, its shortcomings, and which parts they see as worth preserving could also be a great point of conversation, especially for someone whose coming into the conversation not identifying with sex positivity. caveat that they do link to Christine Emba's book Rethinking Sex in the video description and I cannot in good conscience recommend or fuck with that at all, sorry.

Angela Chen's book Ace, about asexuality, is genuinely so so wonderful, and I think required reading for anyone trying to make sense of any kind of sexuality.

Meg-John Barker's book Rewriting the Rules is a maybe a more expansive version of Nagoski's book, less focused on sex and much more interested in expanding ideas of what relationships can look like and encouraging personal expression within them. honestly I think that's a really important part of embracing sex negativity - more compassion and less judgment for yourself can lead to more compassion and less judgment for others, right? right, hopefully.

Jaclyn Friedman's book Unscrewed is a delight, and does something similar to Mbowe's video linked above by highlighting ways in which commercialized #girlboss "sex positivty" is useless and then providing instances of real people doing actual, tangibly useful and positive work. Friedman highlights everything from queer youth shelters to orgs run by and for trans sex workers of color to reproductive justice organizations; it's a great dip into a lot of different radical causes without (hopefully) being too overwhelming.

I hope this serves as a good starting place for a lot of positive conversations with your sibling! good luck, friend xoxo

[ryin-silverfish]

Hey I just wanted to say thank you for your Tripitaka post and for explaining this so well without being rude or dismissive. A while ago I made a post questioning Tripitaka that I had to take down within a few hours due to the amount of hate and harassment I was receiving. It was awfuly belittling and some of the things people were saying were just cruel insults towards me nothing that tried to explain or be helpful. I wish someone responded like this back then.

Awww, thank you!

It is true that old Chinese novels have a lot of nuances and contexts even native speakers could easily miss, not to mention all the things lost in translation. It is also true that they are a product of their times, and often have views and practices that most modern readers would not be comfortable with.

However, that is no reason to attack people who simply don't know, or jump to the worst conclusions. It reeks of the sort of fandom mentality where nuanced discussions go to die, and having been guilty of that mentality as a teen, I'm trying to steer clear of it.

Like, from what I understood, there was a recent trend of demonizing Tripitaka in popular JTTW adjacent fandoms like LMK (I mean, enough Chinese fans of JTTW medias disliked him too, but the "abusive" take, especially in relation to shipping discourse, is a new flavor), then a reaction against that, but people end up overcorrecting and going toward the "Tripitaka did nothing wrong!" end.

Frankly, this need to hold fictional characters "accountable" is tiring, and often just a way for people to feel like they have the moral high ground.

To me, it also distracts from more interesting questions one could be asking——from "How do the characters in question justify their actions to themselves?" to "What does it tell us about the time period the work was set in?" to "Could there be allegorical and metatexual layers we are not aware of?"

But even if we aren't going all literary, at the end of the day, it, is, flipping, fiction. You can complain about the execution, debate about people's takes on it, or write your own fix-it fanfics, but it is not an one-on-one correspondance to IRL morality or beliefs. Like, dude, you aren't "respecting Chinese culture" by being an asshole on our behalf over fictional characters and ships.

It is truly awful that people would personally insult you without explaining anything first. I hope it does not discourage you from learning about—or loving—JTTW and its related media, and wish you better luck in future online interactions.

[meowzilla93]

Hello! I saw your rant post and I wanted to ask if we could get the context behind it? It seems kinda out of nowhere and I saw the tag list on tumblr and didn't saw anything negative towards any character. I also just want to know to avoid this person, I really don't want to interact with toxic people ://

Thank you for your answer

hello anon!

i hope you are doing well ᓚᘏᗢ

first and foremost, i won't be naming any names here. yes, my post was vague, and that was the point of it. because the truth of the matter is that no matter the fandom, this sort of behaviour is evident in all of them and i was calling it all out. identifying the people directly can cause more harm than good, and it is not my intention to victimize anyone.

it just so happened that recent events regarding a specific community pissed me off to no end this time round, and it was a long time coming.

in a way i am glad that you have not seen anything yourself from specific tags and the community, but the reality is that people who choose to target a set group or a set character and don't want blowback from it wont tag their posts to make them easily accessible. however, if you interact with enough blogs, basically the '6 degrees of separation' rule comes into affect, where blogs that interact with that fandom start to link to each other and you unfortunately will end up with a blog that doesnt align with your taste or morals on your feed and you get an unhealthy dose of toxicity from it

this happens on all forms of social media; where i have been seeing this kind of activity is more so on twitter, but it has happened here on tumblr too.

i do want to stress that when i do see this kind of toxicity i do block/mute them from my feed so i dont have to see it, but it doesnt stop it from existing. and then seeing how it affects the people around me because unfortunately its not so easy for them to get away from it, it just hurts me deeply

if you know my blog well enough, you know i am a massive fan of OLBA currently, and thats typically what i post, amongst other fandom stuff that interests me, however its typically OLBA.

the OL series is all about acceptance and understanding and openness with one another. discrimination, bullying, anything like that doesnt exist in the story and shouldnt exist in the fandom either.

its unfortunate to see that regardless of the type of community it should be, that negativity and toxicity exists regardless. as some one as part of the LGBTQIA+ community, i have unfortunately seen comments that are against what the community stands for. i have seen commentary that is essentially bullying of one account or a collective for the sort of content they produce. hyprocritical comments, calling out someone for their content but going ahead and making that content themselves.

if you have not seen this sort of activity, im grateful for it. truly, its not nice to see this kind of stuff, and if you do, blocking and muting it is the best option to avoid them and keep to the healthier side of the fandom

please note, this blog will always be an open blog, other than calling out this poor behaviour, the entire purpose of this blog is to be positive!

to share fics and and art and headcannons and thoughts about all characters in the fandom i am a part of, because i am trying to share the love i have for the series with others and have great discussions around them

i know this was a vague answer anon, but i hope you understand the reasoning behind why and wish you all the best

your friendly neighborhood kaiju,

ᓚᘏᗢ

[milkdreamspecialmix]

first up on not filtering myself i want to talk about how much i adore how the nations have gone from relative anonymity in the public eye to canonically being used as primary sources by historians and caught by paparazzi press conferences asking about their opinions of each other (which is insane and i love it). i remember a particular segment in which a couple, presumably from the early 20th century iirc, talks about france in particular and the loneliness of immortality, with the couple eventually coming to the conclusion that a mortal life with one another is far better than a long life lived alone (or so they think, the human perception of nationhood is probably very warped because it’s mostly incomprehensible). the only reason they knew of him was because that dude’s ancestors had known about a man that didn’t age, but it wasn’t a “big deal” or a headliner or whatever. it just came and went, life goes on. or maybe nationhood used to be such a bizarre old wives tale that some thought it was horseshit. unless you were high ranking military you may not have ever met one and known it anyway.

it must be really weird to have gone from being akin to a cryptid, hiding in plain sight and constantly renewing official documents and such just so they can go to the liquor store or whatever to being celebrities, sometimes even chased by groups of people for photos and opinions. this is why i really like the relatively new in-canon nation memes on here, they’re so real lol. i think there might be a great deal of corruption in the way people perceive them too which i won’t discuss past scraping the surface.

i just think it’s hilarious to think of modern day alt right nimrods using nations to satisfy their weird insecurities and patriotism, as if they are representational of every weird ass traditional belief about masculinity or race or sexuality you can think of but in reality their fav is a total homo and a humanitarian and the exact opposite embodiment of their own morals in nearly every way. i know nations are technically representational of all citizens good and bad, but that’s too much for me to conceive of right now. we know alfred was about as torn between the last presidential election as americans were perceived to be (any incidents of the hot topic of voter fraud aside), so i’m certainly not trying to paint them all as perfect “blorbos” who can do no wrong and are only representational of my own beliefs or whatever. it goes without saying that the vast majority of them could be considered some type of war criminal. but i also think that’s why their modern day existence is really interesting.

without going too into it, and despite the many shortcomings humans face, most can agree that the world has seen many improvements in recent years, and i think that also represents a shift in the way nations think too. we don’t know exactly how much people influence nations versus how nations influence their people, but i believe it was france who also referred to nations as the vessel and citizens as the passengers. they are a nation bound by their people but they’re also a human with a great deal of free will. i’ll stop here though, i know it can get touchy when we fly a bit too close to the parallels of real human experiences and a bunch of fictional immortal idiots. steering clear of any modern world issue that is anything but amusing and light under the context of this series is wise for obvious reasons

back on the subject of the in-universe nation memes, i’ve thought of making art from the perspective of some weirdo that takes really shitty photos of nations in the wild for social media or whatever (nations, they’re just like us kind of shit). i think it’s neat to think of nations having to avoid the public after being able to hide within it for so long

most folks seem to just shrug at their existence, so maybe their now well known status wouldn’t get in the way of most cultural practices. i get the jist that most people seem to think of them as an anomaly and not necessarily related to spirituality in any way, but i could also see a small subset of pagan folks maybe deifying certain nations too (kemetic, nordic, hellenic, etc.). or maybe it’s a checkmate atheists kind of moment for mortals using nations as proof (or not proof) of god(s) or whatever else. they are practically gods themselves, but i have doubts that most of their superhuman abilities are documented or are anything but rumor and speculation (ie “i hear they can teleport!” and i have an entire ass opinion on that ability in particular) so do most chums think they’re just immortal but with no frills attached? like sure they can come back from the dead but they’re lame and tame tax-paying members of society, or “glorified secretaries” as i once heard someone say. you think government interns froth at the teeth at a chance to work with one just for the anti-aging benefits alone, even at the risk of going a little insane with enough exposure?

i feel like people must constantly pester them about conspiracy theories too. alfred is on hot ones or eric andre getting asked if aliens exist and wtf does he say? he can do whatever the fuck he wants so he’s probably like yeah dude they’re chill lmao and the internet loses their minds. some old crusty nation like england or china gets trapped on a set with philomena cunk for funsies only to be asked about the most inane thing imaginable (several people have made this joke and i really like to think it would happen irl. she got first dibs on those interviews fr)

i think this is also a pretty widely accepted idea but i like to think this all has opened a lot of doors for uh, “nation rights”. like i’ll bet modern day OT and labor laws keep some governments from blurring the lines of overworking someone who isn’t technically or completely human. they’ve probably all got many years of PTO accumulated by now. more world peace relative to the past allows many nations to freely live with those who they want and when they want instead of being forced to live with another due to politics (which may be less common in the modern age, i wonder). sweden adopting ladonia and sealand is another example of a more normal nation life one could hope to live. this shit keeps me up at night but you literally cannot convince anyone that you’re not insane if you tell them this is why you love this series

[eerna]

Hello! This is incredibly random, but as a fanartist, enjoyer of critically examining media, and critic of capitalist corporations (*cough* Disney), do you have any thoughts about fan art being a form of unpaid labour?

Context is I’m writing an essay about digital labour and how fan creation is basically kind of like free PR for big corporations… and now whenever I do fanart I can’t get that thought out of my head uGH. I want to believe that drawing fanart is my own form of creative expression and way of showing love for the media, but at the same time I’m like “am I being exploited???” since I’m helping advertise smth for free and these corporations are just capitalizing on my love for said media??? and I can’t reconcile these thoughts 🥲🫠

Also I’m struggling with the essay LOL my eventual conclusion is that we as fans do have agency but we kind of still are being exploited… so it’s not a very optimistic outlook haha. Doesn’t help that the scholars’ articles I’m reading are all very negative about this digital labour thing. Help.

Sorry if this is unexpectedly deep!! 😅 just really curious to hear a fellow fanartist’s thoughts, and I respect you a lot for being unafraid to criticize media 🙏🙏

Hi! First of thank you for your kind words~ Second off, what a cool concept to discuss. Your message is pretty much how I feel. It is very frustrating to remember that so much of the media I love is so closely tied to the harmful cycle of capitalism. I grew up in a country that didn't have access to merch or much in the way of official media so piracy was my go-to most of the time. This means I was introduced to the concept of consumerist aspects of fandom via the Internet as a teenager and started feeling bad about "not supporting" stuff I love, but I told myself "Well I pay back by doing fanart and talking about it online". And then I found out about the way capitalism shapes the media landscape and started feeling bad for playing into it, the same as you. It gets even more conflicting when I am talking about something I dislike made by a company I dislike - yeah, I am probably preventing some people from interacting with the media for themselves, but I am also probably making others interested. What makes me feel better about the entire thing is that the "digital labour" I do is that I'm doing it for other fans like me, and to express myself. I love things so much that it makes me feel like I am going to explode, but pouring it out onto paper helps with it! Of course, I don't have to post it online for it to be worthwhile, but sharing it with others who feel the way I do makes the feelings even better. BUT one of the most important aspects of the issue is how willing those companies are to let me gain something monetary from the relationship. Are they ignoring fanworks being sold as fan merch, as commissions? It is illegal, but I feel like it should absolutely be allowed as a sort of unmentioned perk of being a fan worker, and the companies that don't allow that are evil. My audience gets bigger, I sell more prints, and so do they. (This is also why I never accept money for fanworks made by small creators, such as webcomics)

There's also the fact that lately I've been seeing the rise of "If you REALLY love this piece of media, it is your DUTY to consume it as much as possible and spread the word about it as much as possible and make the company as much money as possible if you want to see more things like it!" takes. These are utter bullshit and where enjoyment of media goes to die. The moment you reduce your love for something only to how much money it can make the evil capitalist overlords who allowed it to grace your eyes, you completely deny any kind of artistic worth. Media should exist because we deserve to have our hearts touched by stories, not because it makes someone money.

I don't have a clear answer or feel like my approach to the issue goes entirely along with my morality. But I don't think we can find a way to feel good about the entire situation as long as our media is dictated by capitalism. It's the sad reality of loving something in a system that will squeeze any money out of you that it can. But we gotta march on, remember that we are the ones allowing them to survive and not the other way around, and love while we do it. Good luck with your essay, stay positive!

[dmclemblems]

Claude isn't a real person and neither are Dimitri and Edelgard. People want to see their faves do interesting things. If Dimitri never went through his "Boar Phase", he'd have less fans because he'd then be less interesting. Claude doing increasingly morally ambiguous things to achieve his lofty ambitions is interesting. It also shows a side of Claude that was there in Houses but didn't get explored much. So yes, people want to see characters they like kill in a war game. Is there really an issue with that?

People also don't like bad writing. People are discussing it because the reasons for Claude being "interesting" in Hopes are not interesting. The reasons given for his actions are shallow. I'm not going over the reasons because I've done so a ton of times in all my other asks.

You also don't need a character to kill to be interesting. People already loved Claude in Houses when he was against killing and war. People loved him because he was the one character among the lords who had an interesting story and had interesting characterization without needing to kill to do it. He was interesting without having to kill, which means there was plenty of depth to his character and the writers already had the means to make him interesting without needing to make him behave like he wouldn't behave.

They had plenty of foundation to work with to make him interesting in Hopes and stick to his Houses counterpart. They gave him plenty of backstory to work with to make him interesting and keep him the same person with the same morals as in Houses. He didn't need to kill to be interesting, and that was what set him apart from the other lords. Hopes took that and threw it in the trash, making it annoying for people who wanted to see more of the guy who took the political and verbal approach to positive change in the world. People wanted to see the guy in the war game who didn't kill to achieve his goals. When that isn't what they got and it was even worse than just not getting it, but seeing his character written with a 180 change in his actions, yes, that's an issue for a lot of fans.

People have a problem with this because Edelgard was the person who had this storyline, but instead of keeping the character consistent, they made her "better" and gave a lot of her bad traits to Claude. A lot of this becomes an issue when you see that, well what do you know, a nation of brown people is violent, aggressive and loves to plunder - even when they're attacking innocent people!

Dimitri was Dimitri in both games. Claude was not the same person with the same behaviors, and thus, people did not enjoy that.

You also seem to be missing the point where the people Claude is killing are innocent people. No, I do not find that interesting. If he chose to kill people who had done him harm and had done wrong by him, that would be interesting, like when he killed Shahid. If he finally had enough and killed his former assassins, that would be interesting. Invading a land that has done him no harm, goes against his entire character and makes no sense with all the given context, on top of that land being one he otherwise allies with or attempts to ally with in all existing routes except SB/GW? Not interesting, because it's no longer the same character people love.

There are a LOT of Claude fans who feel this way, so it's not a matter of "my favorite is doing something interesting" for them. It's a matter of "wow they completely altered my favorite's characterization and made him so different from the person I loved that I can't love this version of him".

Bad writing affects people's enjoyment of media. If it's bad enough to take you out of the game and have you questioning what the writers were thinking, that's not an enjoyable experience. The whole point of them not being real characters is for people to engross themselves in a good story, but when the story is no longer good, has racist undertones and uses an existing character and completely alters them in a way that makes the fandom waifu look better, yeah, there's an issue with that. It means the story/entertainment didn't serve its purpose, which is to entertain and bring joy to people. If this many people are aggravated by it and this many people are noticing that it's edging way too close to "why are the brown people so questionable", it goes outside the boundaries of “well this game just wasn’t fun for me”.

So yes, when the only brown main character behaves like that, it's really an issue because it reflects on irl standards and how people making the game perceive people irl.

And again, when you write a story and it's just not good because they can't give good reasoning as to the characters actions, it's not enjoyable. There's a point where you have suspension of disbelief, and there's a point where it's so poorly handled that your disbelief literally pulls you out of the game. In this case, it's reusing characters that exist already, had defined characterization and traits, and tossing most of that in the dumpster and giving him poor reasoning for his actions (wow, a country sure did do something our country didn't like 300 years ago! blame the people living today and invade their country for it! kill their people for something that happened before they were even born! yeah. very bad writing that takes you right out of the suspension of disbelief; especially when it's a character who has canonically said the literal exact opposite in his origin game).

What people don't want to see is their favorite kill in a war game when that character was very strictly opposed to war and killing in the first place. So no, a whole lot of people don't want to see that, which is pretty evident from the number of anons who have come to me expressing their distaste in how they handled Claude. When Dimitri kills people, we're given thorough and logical reasons for it that match his character. When Edelgard kills people, we're given her mindset and her reasons for doing it which match her character. Houses Claude and Hopes Claude have such extreme differences that it bothered people. Is there really an issue with that? Because I'm not seeing an issue with people not enjoying their favorite being written as someone he wasn't in his origin game.

Again, it's fiction. Media. Entertainment. When it's not entertaining, it's failed in its purpose. When people are angry with the content (justifiable in this situation no less because of a whole lot of reasons, some of which as I've mentioned leak into irl modern day issues that completely ruin some people's experiences because video games should be pulling you away from that), it's gone beyond failing. The whole game itself wasn't a total failure, but the GW route did make a lot of people unhappy with it.

Is it okay for characters to kill in a war game? Yeah. Do people want to see their favorites kill in a war game? Yeah, if that character has been established as someone who would do so and/or has writing to back it up when the game is story based. Do people want to see their favorites kill in a war game when it's a pre-established character who is the only main character who stands his ground when it comes to peace, not wanting war and to remove prejudice? No.

I'm not sure how you chalked everything we've discussed on this blog to "Claude killed people, what's the problem". If Dimitri suddenly turned around and told everyone they were invading the Alliance because ??? and had no story reasoning to back him up, i.e. he was not experiencing the worst of his mental illness and was not all alone with no support system, yes, his fans would be angry. His fans would be angry if Dimitri turned around and said "the Alliance started a fight with us and split off from us 300 years ago, starting a war against our people which killed thousands" and used that to justify warring with the Alliance, yes, his fans would be beyond pissed off... just like many Claude fans are very pissed off.

So yeah, there's an issue because it means at least some of the writers didn't do their job very well, and again, why Claude? He's plenty ambiguous, interesting and enjoyable as a character without killing. The fact is, he was interesting in Houses precisely because of his lack of motivation to kill. As it was, he was already perfectly interesting. His backstory, his behavior, his personality, his mannerisms, his goals, etc. All of it was interesting. He was the most peaceful person of the lords, yet he had a backstory that could've justified him growing up to becoming an angry, violent man. He didn't, and that was interesting.

Why does a character need to kill to be interesting? They don't. People like nuance. When you give us nuance and you take that away in a subsequent game, messing with something people already loved, they get aggravated.

Because yes, when you take something that people have grown to love and change it, people speak out. As it is, people already don't like things as simple as changing voice actors or live action actors because it changes something they already knew and loved. However, it's worse for people when you change something they love and make it the reverse of what they came to know that made them love the thing in question.

So yes, for a lot of people, it's an issue. Again, simply put, Claude didn't need to kill to be interesting. When they took away the things that made him interesting and simplified him, dumbing him down to shallow reasons for his actions and reversing the character people already knew and loved, fans will be unhappy and/or angry.

[aristotels]

What do you think the outcome of the AI debate will be? Does this differ from what you think it should be?

Do you consider it worth engaging in/with at all?

i dont think there will be any actual outcome because the debate in *this* form about whether it is or isnt art is useless precisely because its philosophical and doesnt have an actual answer. it also doesnt rly change anything in context of art being "expression of human emotion" or whatever. the only context i can see where ai status as art matters is the context in regards to art as a profession and that doesnt affect people making gay sex cats on their laptop or hobbyists who make art out of love. im talking about things like if ai should be allowed in applications for state fundings for visual artists, if it could be basis for joining artist guilds etc.

(p.s. you cant actually just show up and join the guild, at least not in my country - you need to have like 5 years of public activity as an artist, certain number of solo and collective and juried exhibitions completed with documentation, and your art has to meet some standard for you to be accepted.)

these are things concerning visual art as profession, not human soul or whatever. i think people keep using artist as a professional status and human activity interchangably, and it creates confusion. art as expression is humane and holy and all that, art as work and a profession is simply a category defining labour and has no moral value. same way like teaching, nursing, etc are job descriptions. artists shouldnt be above the working class. thats how arts were treated in ex-yugoslavia, where artists werent separated or holier than other people, but were a part of proleteriat. a lot of funding was being given to artists because art was supposed to be for everyone and cultural soul and food for people. (the "art is a luxury" argument has genuinly been getting on my nerves; idk who the fuck came up w it but art is a service like any other. i also believe artists have duties to their own compatriots, to provide art to the public and not just burgeoise. this is going to be taken out of context btw, but it does make sense under a communist state).

i think that this whole ai discussion is trying to elevate artists to something "grander than ordinary humans" when its rly not. the yearning wish to be acknowledged as an artist instead of prompter is a part of it as well, making the "artist" status to be the only way creativity can be recognized as worthy. i think the same of people who talk about art needing to have SOUL btw. in both cases the artist status becomes something soo special and important, when it rly shouldnt be.

the individualism of artist as an independent creator instead of a part of proleteriat collective is problematic.

anyway why do i care if ai art has art status or not? the closest example i can come up with are comics in croatian national funding, where things arent very clear. comics belong both to visual media... and literature. so for example, instead of applying for visual arts, we are required to apply comic books to the literary works funding. however, the commission prefers writers - so you have more money allocated to the writers than comic book artists, and theyre disproportionately granted. the grants are also the same amount. you get 21,000kn to write a book or draw a long form comic.

then, for example, i have an official artist status in croatia. comics are my primary activity - but see, there is no category for that. i can only be a sculptor, a painter, or a multimedia artist. and the closest thing to a comic artist is........a painter. and the requirements for the painter status require a set number of solo and collective juried exhibitions - in gallery and all. why should a comic artist who draws comics be required to participate in juried gallery exhibitions? the commission doesnt care about hundreds of pages ive drawn and the publications ive been a part of - they want exhibitions.

anyway sry for a horribly long post, but my point is that the art status of ai needs to be defined for *things like these*. in context of creative value it doesnt matter, but in context of craftmanship it might.

this might ALSO be because "umjetnik" (artist) in my language is mostly used as a defined status, while hobbyists will usually say "i dabble in art/drawing" instead of assigning themselves the label. its rarely used by someone who just likes to draw on the side. my official academic title is "diplomirani umjetnik", my national status is "samostalni umjetnik". to me the word "artist" is simply a descriptor of my job, so thats how i see and understand that word, but im realizing it might be different in the english language.