#maybe you should stop with this racist and misogynists tropes

[lilith-91]

"Firelady Katara" 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

"Mai is a toxic girlfriend, Zuko deserves better" 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

"Katara is an incubator and Aang's trophy wife" 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

[mariaiscrafting]

I think this is what it is? but there’s more that isn’t in the clip https://m.twitch.tv/philza/clip/OilyEvilHyenaChocolateRain-RrlVgUtqWZjJ98iC

For reference to others, this is from 4 days ago, from when I asked what people were talking about when referencing Phil's take on cancel culture.

I have... many thoughts on this lmao... let's see if I choose to get into it

First, I actually do agree that people should not hang onto every single mistake CCs make. Normal people whose lives aren't put under microscopes are allowed to say sketchy things or make errors of judgement, and then move on and grow from it without the people they interact with or future coworkers/colleagues/employers holding it over their heads. Still, I feel there is nuance here that Phil, as a content creator, is likely missing because he's very defensive of that position of "fans need to stop criticizing us so harshly."

Second, very rarely do even people on the Internet linger on past errors when someone has clearly shown that they've changed. There are so many fucking Youtubers, streamers, and influencers that have said or tweeted openly racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, or sexist things, but their names haven't been blackened or their fanbases deteriorated as a result? You fucking know why? Because they have demonstrably changed. You know why Danny Gonzalez and Drew Gooden fans didn't cancel them when Twitter threads called out their racist/sexist jokes in the past? Because Danny and Drew have very clearly, through their behaviors, changes in humor/language, tendencies to call out racism in the present, and charitable actions, changed. You know why Wilbur Soot fans didn't cancel him when people looked into his misogynistic jokes/song lyrics? Because Wilbur has very clearly changed, based on his treatment of female colleagues and fans alike and satirical use of misogynistic tropes in his current music. If people show they've changed, fans aren't just gonna start hate campaigns for no fucking reason, Phil. I'm guessing Phil is referring to the people whose entire careers, for months or years now have seemingly been clouded by controversy. This is not coincidental, or simply the work of vengeful antis, for fuck's sake. It's because these people don't change or show remorse. It's not a fucking mistake that people still hate Pewdiepie or Schlatt or any other, quote-unquote, problematic CC, seemingly years after they did/said their supposed "mistakes." It's because they haven't proven to most people that they have changed.

Third, I do actually agree that Twitter tends to go in an annoying as fuck loop about cancelling people. They'll find one thing, try to "educate" the person at fault, the person will try to prove they've learned/changed, and then people will find another thing. This is, in fact, irritating, however, I present you with this question: why is it so easy to find so many incriminating actions/statements from this person, and/or, why do they keep saying/doing incriminating things? It's not like Twitter just makes up random shit to attack people on; there is at least some tiny thread of truth existent in every accusation, so tell me, why the fuck is there so much for this hypothetical person to be called out on, Phil. Maybe that is concerning after all

[sometimesrosy]

I find it super interesting to hear you don’t like Octavia because I never would have guessed that from your blog/asks and general discourse. I want to thank you for that because I feel that’s how fandom should be, able to discuss a character without bias even when they are biased. There’s way too much quick reaction and overreaction to characters especially in the 100 that I find I have to pull away from people who hate a character and constantly talk about how much they do.

No. I really don’t love Octavia. I don’t love her character. It’s a trope that does not resonate with me. Even when she was the good guy in s1-3a. She just seemed underdeveloped to me.

I always said she was like a black panther kept in a cage her whole life and then set free. Feral. 

And now I can see that was a pretty good metaphor. I also think they MEANT for her to be underdeveloped and have those terrible feral instincts, and they MEANT for her to be dependent upon Bellamy and Lincoln, and for her to fall apart when she lost them. They didnt WANT her to have good development or grow as a person, because they wanted her to break, they wanted her to fall, they wanted her to not get the support she would have gotten if Clarke and Bellamy had been in the bunker with her. Even one of them would have saved her I think. 

They wanted her to fall to the darkness, like humanity, and then be offered the chance to rise and be redeemed (FOR REAL not these stupid redemptions where jackasses can destroy a planet or two and then save their beloved and it’s all better. fuck that noise that’s not a redemption that’s a reversal, and the sacrifice was freaking PENANCE for their sins.)

IF Octavia is getting a chance to be an interesting, full grown, well developed, rounded character who knows how dark she can go and is determined to never go there again, and is going to save damned humanity if she has to drag them out of hell with her own two hands.

Well.

That sounds like a story I want to see. 

Oh but I think the stan/anti mindset is one of the worst things about fandom. The concept that if you love a character, they must have no flaws is SO BAD. It causes so many misreadings. AND when the character stops being the good guy, or does a thing they can’t abide, then suddenly they discard that character and now declare her evil, and can’t stand her and must kill her with fire and destroy all the fans who still love her. 

I was HORRIFIED by what the Octavia stans who turned into Octavia antis did in s3. How they went after other fans who resonated with Octavia’s suicidal storyline? LIke. You dont attack kids who feel they are worthless and consider suicide. You just don’t. (this led to one of my major rifts in the bellarke fandom that had people needing to choose sides between me and the other bellarke fandom. my rifts? maybe it wasn’t just mine. maybe it was fandom’s.)

Stans and antis are two sides of the same coin.

I don’t HATE characters. (I mean Diana Sydney was pretty bad, but mainly because she was unrealized and I didn’t like the actress.) Even EVIL characters aren’t hated. I mean they’re hated, but hated in a good way. Josephine was EVIL and I hated her but it was so good. What a delight. Fun character.

I’ve been accused of hating Lxa, but I don’t. I think she’s over rated, i think the ship is not as romantic on screen as it is in fanon, I think she’s a bad leader, but that’s not hate. The character is pretty good for what she is... which is NOT a main character,  but an antagonist to friend to lover but still antagonist. Ouch. 

You can’t understand characters if you hate them and refuse to look at them.

you also can’t understand characters if you stan them and refuse to look at their flaws. The octavia stans who pretend she’s done nothing wrong in her life? What y’all been smoking? Some of that hydro farm stuff?

I’ve been accused of hating characters I love and loving characters i really don’t, because I admit when Clarke has flaws and when Echo is great and when CL is important and when Raven is a bitch. I HATE it when antis use my metas of Clarke, say, examining her flaws and mistakes, and use that to fuel their hate... and that is one of the reasons I will block someone. 

With Octavia, I have been attacked for stanning her and being an abuse apologist and racist at the same time I have been attacked for hating her and being a misogynist. Two different factions. But totally the same time. 

This fandom is wild, man.

[thenightling]

The Dodged Bullet

Warning: This is deliberately bad!

The dodged bullet:  

The following is the horrific notion of what would have happened if The CW, Fox, or Syfy adapted Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman instead of Netflix.   This is going to poke fun of common tropes of Fox and CW shows.  See if you can spot them all.

I am going to deliberately write this very, very badly.

             The generically attractive young man in his early-twenties walked toward the crime scene.  He wore a long leather jacket, designer sneakers, expensive brand-name jeans, and a stylish and perfectly fitted black polo style shirt under the jacket. It was rumpled but just so as to hint at what a great body he had under it.  He had thick, dark brown hair.  Brown eyes, a smoldering gaze and a dazzling smile.  He’s Caucasian and generically attractive.  He’s thin but not rake thin, more like sexy male model thin.   He’s got muscle tone.  

           At the moment he looked stoic, hands resting in his pockets.  He crosses the yellow crime scene tape without anyone stopping him.  No one questions his presence but he is not invisible. This is “grounded” in reality, folks.  

           The Sandman solves crimes!  The Sandman is a private investigator with a secret. He is a real Sandman!  Hidden in his jacket is a leather pouch which will probably get used maybe once or twice an episode (budgetary reasons).   And he gets confused by certain social cues and pop culture references but otherwise he’s just a generic hot guy.

           He’s probably portrayed by a Tom Mison type. He might be American. There’s an English accent but it’s so slight (so hidden by Americanisms) that it’s almost undetectable.   He approaches the pretty, ninety-pound, college age female detective with perfect, blond hair.   She looks up at him.  

           “Hey, Murphy.” She says in a friendly tone.  Yes, Murphy is his alias. She thinks he’s just eccentric and thinks he’s The Sandman but he gets results!  

           “Detective Walker.” He smiled with obvious affection. He crushes on her, pines for her. But she mustn’t ever know the truth. It is forbidden for one of his kind to be with a mortal.  Even if she is a Vortex.  And her great power may one day destroy the world…  or save it!  That’s the real reason he was here, to watch her. He had never expected to fall in love with her…

The show has almost no scenes in The Dreaming and when there are it’s about 90% CG over green screen, like the Enchanted Forest sets of Once Upon a Time, or the under-whelming Hell of Lucifer.  There’s probably a throne room with a starry night sky behind it, and an under-whelming “vast” library on par with Belle’s library in Once Upon a Time that will be shown very rarely.

           “We’ve got another one.”  She said gravely.  “Eyes torn out.  Pretty girl. Whoever this creep is- this predator must be stopped!”   The implication here is the victims are all damsels who have been targeted by an evil man targeting them for misogynistic reasons.  But don’t worry!  The show is totally not sexist!   Detective Rose Walker kicks ass!   And in season four she’ll be raising her own long-lost little brother!  Even though it’ll take her at least five seasons to learn Murphy’s secret (if she ever does).  

           “I thought the ‘me too’ movement would have at least reduced some of this.” She said with a shake of her head in disappointment at the world.

           The line of dialogue doesn’t actually really make sense under easy scrutiny.  Why would “Me too” actually make a serial killer reconsider his life choices?  Oh, well, the audience doesn’t have enough time to question it.

           “Me too?”  The adorable, awkward, pretty “Murphy” questions.

           “Boy!  Where have you been?  In a cave?”            “Actually I was trapped inside a prison cell for a hundred and five years and before that I resided in another dimension.”

           She rolls her eyes.  “Not this again.   Tell me you can at least figure something out with your ‘Dream powers’” she said cynically.   He might have been insane and socially inept but he got results!

           Morpheus knelt down next to the body and placed his hands on the corpse. There isn’t even any SFX for this. He’s just sensing something.  He grunts in a sexy portrayal of sexy CW level pain.  

           “What? What is it?”

           “I think I know who did this…”

           “Who?”

           “Corinthian…”

             (Opening credits here.  Maybe the opening riff of Enter Sandman by Metallica.  No, wait, Fox and CW can’t afford that.   It’s Mr. Sandman by the Charlottes!  It kills the mood but everyone knows the song.  You’ll be sick of it by episode five if you weren’t already.  And it will get a LOT of use since the song is cheap / practically public domain.)

           The next scene is not present day.  It’s a flashback.  And by flashback I mean a hastily put together set in Vancouver Canada.  It’s probably someone’s private stables being passed off as a medieval village.  No, wait. Its eighteenth century.  There’s a sexy other character wearing slightly anachronistic style sunglasses hiding his eyes (No CG here, the production team figures the glasses are enough).  In fact his eyes might not even be weird at all. He just likes sunglasses!  There, that’s better, no wasted money here.   He’s wearing a badly fitted white wig over white hair.  

           “My king,” the sunglassed man says with a bow. We have to be blunt for our easily distracted audience, so there’s the reminder that this is the dream king. “Thank you for letting me accompany you to the waking world.  There are such delicious things here.”

           “Yes, the food is rather pleasant.” Morpheus replies. His costume is decently fitted but obviously borrowed from another show, possibly a left over from Buffy The Vampire Slayer.  Those props and some period costumes still get use.  Isn’t Morpheus adorably oblivious, though?

           Morpheus is wearing a dark blue frock coat and lace. His trousers are exceptionally tight to show off the actor’s perfect ass.

           The Corinthian’s costume is cream colored. There was a behind the scenes fight and as small victory for the one crew member who actually read Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman in getting the cream outfit.  Others working on the show wanted the costume to be black to make it more obvious he was the bad guy.        

           An attractive, tall, black man (probably American), under the age of thirty, is behind Morpheus.   This is his loyal manservant, Lucien.  But it’s totally not racist making the dreaming librarian / butler black when the show hasn’t had any black characters yet.  No, it’s inclusive!  

           The attractive black man speaks.  “My Lord, I think he intends to do harm to the mortals here.”

           “Nonsense, Lucien. I’m certain it’s fine.”

           The Corinthian wandered away from his master and he soon drags off attractive young female into an alley, hand over her mouth.   No, The Corinthian isn’t gay anymore in this version.   But it’s okay.  Hob Gadling, Morpheus’ immortal friend (who now runs a bar for some reason) is gay!  He’s very gay.  In fact that’s the extent of his entire personality.  But isn’t this diverse and inclusive?!   And there’s no more problematic gay nightmare, even though in the original comics The Corinthian gets uncreated and the second Corinthian is a relatively decent guy for a nightmare.  

           After some persuasion Morpheus finally listens to Lucien and walks down into the alley.   He stops in his tracks when he sees The Corinthian has killed the girl and his licking his fingers, having obviously already eaten her eyeballs (gotta keep that TV-14 rating!)   He lets out a gasp.  “Corinthian, what have you done?”

           We cut back to present day and “Murphy” is walking into the bar owned by his friend, Hob Gadling . Hob sees him and smiles. “Murph, oh, honey, you look like Hell! Come sit down and tell me all about it.   You know I love juicy gossip.” He says in a naisly, lisping voice.

Imagine this scene was written by some very straight guy whose only exposure to gay people were 1990s Will and Grace reruns.  

           Hob places a shot glass in front of Morpheus and Morpheus downs it quickly. “Have you seen Matthew?”

           Matthew was Morpheus’ straight human friend and roommate.  He had learned Morpheus’ secret in the pilot episode when Morpheus rescued him from a car accident using his dream magick.   Ha!  And you thought we’d have talking birds in this thing. Lol!  No!  Grounded, remember?

           “Matt?  Oh, sweetie, you can do better than him.  I keep telling you, he’s just not your type.”

           Morpheus raises an eyebrow but says nothing about the implication about his sexual identity.  There will be a LOT of queer baiting on this show without confirmation in regard to his sexuality.  

             “I need to talk to him.   One of my nightmares is loose in the city.”  You can tell this was written by a New Yorker because they take for granted “The City” to mean New York.  

           “One of your Nightmares?   Why couldn’t it be one of those sexy wet dreams?”  Get it?  Because if the character’s gay he has to always be horny!!!  Ha-freakin’ –ha.  

(Please know I don’t actually feel this way. I’m mocking bad TV writing.  This whole thing is a spoof.)    

           There’s an awkward pause intended for the viewers to laugh.

           “I don’t believe any water nymphs have escaped The Dream dimension.” Morpheus replied in confusion.

He calls it The Dream Dimension in the show because “The Dreaming” didn’t sound hip enough according to some executive.

“I’m afraid it’s The Corinthian.  So now I have two problems.”

Hob nodded sympathetically.  “The detective you might have to kill…”

“And now this.”   This is an idiot proofed recap for people turning on the show late or just watching it in passing while doing other things or playing on their phone.  CW does this sort of in-story forced, shoe-horned exposition all the time.

The episode plays out a little bit like an episode of Lucifer mashed into an episode of True Blood.

While they’re trying to find the killer, Detective Rose Walker meets Murphy’s roommate, Matthew, and the two hit it off while chatting about Murphy’s weirdness.  They decide to start to date.   As Morpheus has feelings for Rose that he won’t admit to this causes a strain between him and Matthew Raven (There’s that bird reference!  What?  That should be Lucien’s last name?  Naw!)  And between him and Rose Walker.  

Morpheus lashes out rather than admit to what he is truly angry at and he and Matthew argue over something petty and this leads to recovering alcoholic Matthew to start drinking again as sad music begins to play.  

Morpheus eventually finds The Corinthian and is forced to destroy him.  He had to kill his own creation so he is kneeling in angst crying prettily while the sand left over from the uncreation slides through his fingers.  Some new female cover of Queen’s Who Wants to live Forever? Is playing in the background.  The original version is “too old” and too expensive for use. So here’s a very generic sounding cover done in a style that makes it blend in with every other pop song played during the forty five minute mark of a CW show’s run time (including commercial breaks).  

           The song plays as we cut to Matthew drinking alone sexily in an alley.  He’s sweaty and wet, but he just looks like a wet fashion model.   Morpheus is sexy crying over the sand that was the Corinthian, and Rose going to sleep prettily in her bed, no bed head here.  Oh, and she sleeps in perfect makeup!  There’s no scene where she even remotely looks like she’s out of makeup.

 She’s having strange dreams but they look pretty mundane.  Like real-world mundane.  It’s her living room set that we probably saw a few minutes ago, just dimmer lighting and some haze to make it clear this is a dream.  Because even with a show about The Dream Lord, dreams have to have an old fashioned camera fringe haze.  Murphy is there with his back to her.  He looks sad.  He turns to look at her and she gasps.   She sees a star (lense flare) from Murphy’s eyes in the dream as he looks at her in surprise like he wasn’t expecting her to see him.  She wakes up with a gasp, and everyone in her apartment building also wakes up at the same time, signifying that their dreams were connected.

And so ends what was probably the third episode of CW (or Fox’s) The Sandman.  

And that is pretty much how CW or Fox would have done The Sandman.

[takaraphoenix]

35,18,3,7 (on the original Charmed)

Thanks for playing! ^-^

3. rant. just do it

Okay, here goes nothing.

Americans annoy me with their high hourse TV plot writing these days. Like, yeah, just as any other sane person, I know that your guys’ government putting human beings into cages and separating children from their parents and basically Third Reiching it up in there is really terrifyingly bad - as a German, I might even get that a little bit more than some others.

But I’m... I’m really tired of them doing this “what is happening right now is Really Very Bad and we will whack you over the head with that in your fun escapism TV show”.

Because look. If I’d... If I’d want to engage with this terrifying shit going on, I’d be right now watching the news. Not Supergirl. Not Legends of Tomorrow.

I, like many others, watch TV as a means of escapism. Especially shows about idiot timetravelers and aliens who are unrecognizable when they put on glasses.

That a show like Orange is the New Black that is set and grounded in this reality and actually deals with prison conditions and has tackled these type of injustices from the get-go addresses it makes a whole lot of sense and fits the theme.

But every single show turning into “we shouldn’t treat other beings who are just like us but have slight differences and may come from a different place like they are below us!!!” is... it’s exhausting.

Not everybody watching this is American. It’s not like we can do anything to help. And, let’s be really really clear: A show that is so damn heavy on feminism and LGBT themes has long since lost any of the viewers whose hearts and minds these kind of plotlines are meant to change. No Straight White Male Republican Racist is still watching a show with half the cast being POC and LGBT and female. The only people you’re reaching are the people who absolutely know that what is happening is wrong and terrifying.

And what makes it more frustrating was that Supergirl in particular was always very out of this world; quite literally. They opted, after Trump was elected, to put a female president onto that Earth. A reasonable, wise woman who works for the rights of others. And that made this show all the more wonderful and all the more escapism from this reality because it was literally presented as a better alternate Earth to ours. That they had to get her impeached to replace her with a Straight White Male Racist so you can hammer the metaphor of aliens = immigrants in was... not necessary, not on that world.

And especially not with the exact same message running course on three different shows that share one universe -  because yeah, the whole “metahumans are different than us and are being murdered” thing is the same tune, you just exchanged alien/magical creature with metahuman there.

I just... It’s too much. I get tight-chested every single time I have to face another horrible, inhumane, Hitleresque thing that Trump said or did. I don’t need you to whack me over the head with thinly veiled metaphors.

Especially since you’re not even doing it in a creative way. The bad guy is the Old White Man, while most of the aliens and magical creatures that are prominently features are played by actors of color, just in case anyone was still missing the metaphor. It’s... It’s not even clever writing.

And I don’t... I just... Honestly, I actually find it kind of offensive that writers think we need a metaphor where the immigrants are literal aliens. Like, humans do this shit to other humans. That you’re pretending that “oh no they are doing this to aliens while all humans hold together” is... even more unrealistic than the whole premise of Supergirl to begin with, to be quite frank.

It’d even be... fine. Durable. If it were one show only but to be whacked over the head with the exact same message on multiple shows running parallel is really tiresome actually.

I get it. I know what you’re saying. I agree. And so does the whole entire damn rest of the audience. Because if they didn’t get the whole point of Superman and Supergirl literally being refugees on Earth and them LITERALLY being created by Jewish men during WWII and if they weren’t racist enough to stop watching when two black men became superheroes and if they weren’t homophobic enough when one of the main characters came out as a lesbian and started very explicitely to have a relationship with another woman and if they weren’t transphobic enough to quit when you introduced a trans character to the main cast and if they weren’t misogynistic enough to just straight up quit this majorly female-led feminist show on season one, then honestly you’re barking up the wrong tree there.

7. opinion on… Charmed

THIS WAS MY FIRST BIG OBSESSION! *^*

Oh, I loved Charmed - literally all of my walls, including my ceiling, were plastered with posters of the show! I did the puppy-dog eyes at anyone who bought teen magazines back then, I got cut-out articles about it every time it was somewhere, I still have self-recorded VHS tapes with the entire show in my closet.

I even wrote my very first fanfiction for this show, back then ink on paper in a journal because we’re talking pre-Phoe-is-allowed-on-the-internet-age, I had my first next gen OC line-up for that show.

And it was, to date, the only ever where I actually also got invested in the actors. Particularly Alyssa Milano. And if I saw anything where Alyssa Milano or Julian McMahon were in, I watched it, not even caring what it was, because I loved them so much.

I mean, I’ve always loved witches, you know? But this show just hit everything for me. Back then I really related to Phoebe the most, because she was the youngest and thus most relatable for pre-teen me, she was kind of a screw-up who didn’t really know what she was doing. I always wanted big sisters like Piper and Prue.

Many of my favorite tropes were first introduced to me there. Seriously, this show is why I love a good “everybody lives together”. A team as a family, by blood and also beyond that.

Them killing off Prue killed me. I cried so hard so long back then.

And also this is like the only show ever where I got incredibly invested in the canon ships. Leo/Piper, Cole/Phoebe, Andy/Prue. All. The. Way. Obviously, canon broke my heart twice but that doesn’t mean I can’t live in eternal denial.

It’s also the first time I encountered a TV show overstaying its welcome, because that last season was absolutely unnecessary, start to finish. The season before that had the perfect finale - the sisters, getting to live a normal life, then that little wink by the door closing just like Prue’s powers used to close it, it put tears in my eyes and had me incredibly content. Then they had to add a blonde Mary-Sue to the mix and go on for another season and just nope.

And yes, you notice my focus on Prue. I love her. She still remains my second favorite after Phoebe and I will admit I never quite warmed up to Paige and would have preferred if the whole... actor fall out hadn’t happened and Prue could have continued on in the show. So, that’s my favorite part of it; back when Prue was alive and Cole was also still alive.

18. rant about your favorite musician

...At this point, I am thinking that maybe you should have asked each number in a separate ask because this thing is long.

But okay, I actually do have something to rant about there!

HOW DOES THE YOUTH TODAY NOT UNDERSTAND PUNK. URGH.

A few weeks back, my favorite musician was on TV. There was a music event, I think it was a benefit and also a peaceful protest, led by him, among others, and before it, he stepped up to the mic to say a few words and I was watching that with my grandparents and my brother and he just went “Urgh, that guy again. Why does he have to be everywhere? And why is he talking about this? It’s none of his business, he should just do music”.

Like.

No.

Campino is a punk. Die Toten Hosen is a punk rock band.

Protesting the government and what is wrong with society is literally what punk does. Punk is only secondarily a music genre. First and foremost, it is a means to be loud and vocal about politics. So to organize a peaceful protest and to speak up about the mistreatment of immigrants in our country is literally what punk should be.

The fact that there’s younger people who don’t know that is terrifying. The fact that younger people in Germany just know Campino as an old musician and not as a punk is also terrifying. Go listen to DTH and study up on punk, please.

35. what does home mean to you?

Ah, finally a short one! xD (Just kidding, I do love ranting!)

Home is where I feel at ease, where I can be myself, where I’m happy. These requirements can be fulfilled outside of my own four walls - it’s like, when I am in London, this incredible sense of home fills me too, surprisingly enough. Gods, I wanna go back to London...

Unusual Ask Game

[barryslightningrod]

To My Followers

Not to sound like a disgraced beauty guru, but I owe everyone this post. It’s Ramadan, I’m fasting right now, and in my faith, there is such a thing as accountability for the things you say and do if they are harmful, and my fasting is nothing more than an empty gesture if I did otherwise. Along with owning up to the words that hurt black women and apologizing for them, I would also like to be fair to myself and clarify some things. That’s what I’m hoping to do with this while being as truthful and as objective as possible, so please bear with me, as I anticipate that this will be quite lengthy. I’m also going to detail what happened chronologically and include links to my posts before I ultimately explain where I went wrong. In full transparency, I did not delete anything after the first “callout” post was made about me earlier this year because I didn’t want to come across as trying to pretend what I said never happened, but I also think I should have explained the posts in my subsequent apology.

On Policing Fandom Over Nora:

Over the last year, I’ve been a Nora “apologist” if that’s the word to use. I was and have been upset with fans for initially not taking to her and then for despising her entirely. I made posts about this throughout my blog. I explained that I felt as though the conflict between her and Iris was legitimate and that Iris was validated by the narrative, but I occasionally recognized that Nora was also being used by the writers to mistreat Iris for their own racist/misogynist agenda. There was some pushback to my views every now and then, with people pointing out that I was coming across as arrogant and as though everyone should feel the same way I should. I also felt like fandom had a double standard toward Nora. The writers have used characters and story arcs, involving Joe and Barry for example, to abuse and mistreat Iris before, and I saw Nora as an extension of that. So it was confusing to me that through all this, people still loved Joe and still shipped Barry and Iris, but advocated for Nora’s erasure and/or death. I also took the comments of some fans about Nora getting in the way of WA or always third-wheeling them to mean that this was the primary reason people disliked her, and that they were pitting Iris and Nora against each other for Barry’s affection. That prompted this post that fans who did that should’t have kids.

On The Elseworlds Crossover:

I hate Oliver and felt like the switch was ruining the trope of WA being together in every reality. I also was worried it meant Barry and Felicity would be together, and I still think that if Marc hadn’t been angry with Emily Bett, they would have fleshed that out more in the crossover. He was mad at her, yet Felicity and Barry still got a kiss for no reason than just to kiss. I vented about fans being excited for Oliver and Iris as a pairing when they wouldn’t feel the same way for Barry and Felicity or Barry and another woman. I made a claim that fans were self-inserting on Iris and wanted Iris to be loved by other men because they wanted those other men. I compared this to their distaste when Barry was with Patty or Felicity. I felt like real WestAllen fans wouldn’t want that and felt like there was a double standard going on because of over identification with Iris. There was also a subset of fans from Twitter boasting that Stephen had an erection after one kiss with Candice when he never did with Katie or Emily, and I know that was influencing my mindset at the time. So I wrote this and this about fandom wanting men to lust after Iris.  

On Stephen Amell’s Racism and Islamophobia:

It bothered me that fans were sending Stephen praise for sending Candice a heart on Instagram or Tweeting her or whatever else he did around the time of the crossover. In January, he addressed the Ahmed Mohamed situation again (the Muslim student who was arrested for building a clock) and said he wasn’t regretful of the comments he said about that situation back in 2015 and that the police did the right thing. I made a post that Stephen is an asshole and that any Candice fan who looked over his racism because he sent her hearts should be ashamed.

January 2019:

In response to my post about Stephen and Candice, I received multiple Anonymous messages pointing out that I was coming for a fandom comprised of many black women for something a white man did. I became defensive in my responses that I didn’t call out black women and was rather speaking about a fandom collectively: (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)

Afterward, this post was written about me detailing all of the above. I wrote this apology in response.

May 2019:

I did not use the term, “misogynoir,” but I might as well have because I did make this post last week attributing fandom double standards when it comes to Nora vs other characters’ treatment of Iris to racism or misogyny. That triggered this post and here we are today.

My Response:

Everything linked here has not been altered or edited and are words I typed out and posted myself. There were tags on one post about fans not caring about Iris’s journalism that I remember editing out shortly after publishing it in November 2018 (I think this was the post they were initially on), but they are saved in this screenshot by the original author of both callout posts.

I take responsibility for everything I said as a nonblack woman of color. I am not black and never claimed to be, and whenever I was asked by curious followers if I was, I disclosed that I wasn’t.

I do not believe that black women shouldn’t be mothers. I do not believe that black women lust after men and/or white men. I do not believe that black women want men and/or white men to lust after them. I do not believe that black women want to be validated by white people and prioritize validation by white people. I do not believe black women are quick to cry racism.

But I do know that over the last year, I have implied these things on my blog whether I realized I was doing so or not. What I considered to be a member of a fandom calling out other members of a fandom that I’m a part of can never be exclusively seen as that, because the fact of the matter is that I cannot divorce my status as someone who isn’t black from my criticism of a fandom of a black character and an interracial ship that may be varied in its makeup, yes, but is still ultimately composed of black women. Because I am not black, my frustrations with fandom will be put into a “political” context. They will stop being frustrations that are just general and start to become frustrations that are racist and anti-black, regardless of intention, not to mention that I am not immune to feeling or expressing anti-black or micro aggressive sentiments, consciously or not, simply by way of being a product of a racist society.

I thought I realized this in my first apology in January, but I never fully outlined that I did, and clearly I still had learning to do months later because I stepped out of my lane again. I still believed that fans were quick to forgive Barry whenever he wrongs Iris because he pulls a romantic gesture but will not extend that same consideration to Nora, despite both of them being exploited by the writers to abuse Iris. My thought process was that anyone can fall prey to the biases and prejudiced views that we’re socialized to internalize and accept, and I thought that was happening here again, which was why I said that this fandom isn’t exempt from racism or misogyny.

This came off as my telling a group of people who experience a combination of racism and misogyny that I will never come close to knowing what is and isn’t racist. And with the help of a friend, something that I didn’t consider or understand at all in the entirety of this Nora situation and throughout the course of the whole series is that is that because black women are subject to racism from the moment they’re born until the moment they die, when it comes to something like a TV show where they are being represented, they get to individually or collectively decide when to worry about their representation. They get to decide how they will worry about it. They get to decide if they will take action about it. And throughout this entire season, I, a nonblack person, have been telling black women how to deal with or address this particular instance of racism on the show because of my own personal experiences and because of what I myself prioritized in Barry and Iris’s story. This is arrogance at best and anti-blackness at worst.

My bias for the concept of WA having a child impacted my attitudes, as did my own familial relationships. I get why I had such an emotional response. I was looking forward to WA having a family and a child they would love more than anything, and it’s because I question very much the love my mother has for me. I’m not trying to make excuses or elicit a sob story, only that I understand now why people pick and choose things to “excuse” when it comes to the racist writing on this show. I have to make sense of why some fans were willing to overlook how abysmally Iris’s potential death was handled in Season Three for example, because they prioritized other things. Maybe they liked angst and liked that Barry was protecting Iris, whatever it was. Even if we’re all operating on the same notion that these writers hate Iris and will never see her as a human, we’re all just grasping at the smallest thing on the show to try to find solace or happiness in and taking what we can get. For me, that was with WA and their child, and it bothered me that a majority of people weren’t feeling the same way. So yeah, I became emotional. I let my emotions get the better of me a lot of the time. I made posts shaming fandom. And then my frustrations with fandom seeped into other things too, like the crossover and the praise of Stephen. I started to have less inhibitions about the things I posted, and in that, an ugly hostility toward fandom came out that was made to be political. I understand why it was and why I have to be more mindful in my criticism.

I will also say my experiences with fandom over the last five years came back to “haunt” me I guess you could say. For example, I’ve been called out before and unfollowed and blocked by other fans for being too critical of the writing. I was told that I’m never happy with anything, when a lot of my criticism was over the treatment and neglect of Iris because of her being a black woman. So I started to get upset because now there was this collective acknowledgment of that in fandom when it came to Nora. I’m sure that was also influencing my attitude because I was conflating a bad experience with fandom before with one now.

I’m not going to copy and paste my prior apology since this post is long enough, but I am linking it again as I want to echo its sentiments and because I am just as apologetic about the things in it. I am sorry once again to my followers and to anyone who came across my posts. I am sorry to the black women I hurt. I am sorry for dismissing the black women who tried to explain to me why they were hurt. I am sorry that it took a second callout post and reality check for me to understand your hurt.

On a more general note for my followers, I am sorry for shaming people who disagreed with me. I am sorry for shaming multi-shippers. I am sorry for the arrogance and superiority I ever exuded.

I understand that some people will not forgive me. I understand that some people will not believe this is sincere. I understand that some people may never have a favorable view of me again. I am still sorry and I will continue to say sorry.

I wanted to thank the friend who took the time to listen to what happened and to explain to me why I was wrong. She certainly didn’t have to take that on, but she did and I’m grateful to her. I also want to thank anyone who gave me a chance and read this in its entirety.

If there is something that anyone is still confused about or has a question over, I am willing to clarify in the replies.

Peace.

-BarrysLightningRod

[lightsandlostbells]

Hi! This was prompted by people excusing the Williams’s behavior as “realistic,” but I really hate when the remakes do problematic things and people excuse it as “realism.” It’s like when Nico said the n word and people said “it’s realistic to Italy and that’s what Skam it all about. Skam is supposed to show people being problematic because it’s realistic.” While that’s true, the characters usually learn from their problematic behavior (sometimes they don’t, but that’s another story). (1)

Skam is supposed to educate and help teenagers. Also, as you’ve pointed out before, Skam is very idealistic and it annoys me to no end when people excuse problematic aspects of the remakes by saying “it’s realistic.” I’m telling you this because you’re one of the main accounts I know who understands this. I’m just tired of constantly seeing this excuse whenever there’s some kind of discourse about a remake. (2)

Agreed completely. I feel like it’s especially transparent when people are quick to use “realism” as a defense for criticisms of the show, like characters being racist or sexist, but will similarly downplay or tell you to get over the less “realistic” aspects of various remakes - things like casting actors well into their twenties to play teenagers, or Italian Sana’s casting, or scenes that simply feel more out of a dramatic Hollywood fantasy of high school rather than something that would actually happen to real teenagers. It’s also telling to me that people talking about Skam’s “realism” are usually referring to the negative features of the characters or show, the clips that spotlight anger and misery, the dialogue that shows off casual bigotry, as if reality is constant ugliness. Happiness and empathy and kindness are rarely lauded as “realistic” even though they do have a place in the world. 

I have seen people genuinely say things like “Skam isn’t supposed to be educational, it’s supposed to be realistic” and I have no idea what show people watched, because Skam has been educational from the beginning. It has been since the series was conceived. It may not always be successful at it but the educational aspects are baked into the characters, the dialogue, the stories Julie chose to tell. And Skam’s idealism is very, very clear. I could list tons of examples. I mean … listen to Jonas’ speech in the finale. The last words of the show are Fear spreads, but fortunately, love does too. How do you hear that and think the intended message of the show was anything but idealism? It acknowledges that things suck, but encourages viewers to strive for the best parts of reality.

I feel like we have to recognize that Skam meant a hell of a lot to many fans, not just as a piece of entertainment with twists and drama and copious amounts of people walking in slow motion, but as something personal and touching, and much of that impact came from its educational nature and idealism. Is it fair to ask that from the remakes, too? Well, I certainly don’t think it’s unfair. They are borrowing the Skam brand name, the stories, the characters, the dialogue. Of course it’s totally fine for them to adapt the shows to the different settings and to make changes big and small - but I have to ask: if the remakes were not interested in helping teenagers of their own cultures the same way that the original show was (no matter Skam’s flaws - I don’t want to put it on a pedestal) - then what’s the point? Why recreate Skam instead of coming up with their own juicy teen drama? You can’t help but think they’ve missed the heart of the original show and are just producing a shallow copy. Or you end up with a more cynical interpretation, that a remake uninterested in educating or helping youth is being made primarily to profit from an existing success - and honestly, all of the remakes were probably hoping to score some of Skam’s popularity, but at least you can hope that the production teams do have more benevolent intentions. Is that naive? I don’t think so. I think Skam, whatever its flaws, did have more clearly altruistic motivations behind its creation than the majority of television series (which also affects how people engage with it, but that’s perhaps another topic), so it is possible, and I definitely think that on the whole, there are a lot of people involved with the remakes who listen to teenagers and want to reach them and help them. But it’s OK to speak out when you think there’s been a misstep.

And I do get that a lot of backlash comes from clashes in an international fandom consuming multiple versions of the same stories from different cultures with different standards for what is or isn’t problematic, and I get that a lot of people really just want to have a good time with a TV show they enjoy and not be made to feel guilty about it or to wade through 1000 angry posts about a throwaway line that offended other people. I don’t know about everyone, but Tumblr is most definitely a Fun Time thing for me. When a fandom ceases to be fun and is just all rage and bitterness, I tend to dip out, because I don’t need to fill my free time with those negative emotions. But at the same time, I recognize that people can be hurt or angered by media and that it’s not my place to tell people to suck it up and stop complaining.

(Also, just because something is realistic does not mean you need to like it, either? Skam Austin could have been set instead in a very white area of the US, with all the characters written as Trump supporters. That would be very realistic for parts of the US. That doesn’t mean I have to be OK with that choice.)

(And … it’s not a documentary. Despite whatever research the teams have done, these aren’t real people. These are characters who have writers, directors, and actors putting words in their mouths. The writing can be technically “realistic” but still playing into tired, offensive tropes - if Even had killed himself at the end of S3, that would have been “realistic.” Depressed people can commit suicide. But should we have just accepted that? Should we have been OK with the typical tragic Bury Your Gays ending with the mentally ill person whose life ends in suffering? Or maybe, just maybe, there was a point to Julie Andem deliberately subverting those expectations, and maybe the intent was not just to create a TV series that would make the audience cry but to uplift and heal them?)

Anyway. I feel like we need to move beyond just using “it’s realistic” as a shield for criticism. Like if a character uses a racist, misogynistic, or homophobic slur - is there a point to it in the scene? Is it being called out? Is it being used to critique a racist/misogynistic/homophobic environment? Do we see how the slur affects the marginalized characters it refers to, or is it just tossed around by the privileged characters who are unaffected? Does anyone react to it at all? If the slur is presented without objection or commentary, does it come across as if the show is normalizing the word rather than condemning it? Could the scene have functioned just as well without the slur? And so on. Just stopping at “it’s realistic so people shouldn’t have a problem with it” is lazy and simplistic. We can ask better from our media, especially a show like Skam that is intended to not just to depict its target audience accurately, but to demonstrate positive messages and solutions for tough situations.

[mushroomqueendom]

I did Nazi see that coming. Well, I did, but it's still disappointing.

So I watched the recent Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, and I have…questions.

Like why do we, smart people that we are, keep falling for such a silly trope as “fight hate with love”?

One, what does that even mean? And two, WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN

If you’re not familiar with the term “white liberalism” (aka “white liberal racism”), please read up or watch up or better yet both. A hallmark of white liberalism is the profound graciousness it affords to the least gracious among us. It redefines bigotry in terms of unneeded nuance…and then it dares insist that people of color do the same.

I am particularly disappointed with this particular strain of uninformed white-centric liberalism – a liberalism that purports to want to fight racism, but then approaches it in the meekest voice possible.

“Err, um, excuse me, um, sir…Could you please maybe… not…like…advocate….for…like…. GENOCIDE…or something…..if that’s okay….I’m-not-mad-at-you-we’re-still-friends-right?” Not ok.

In the week’s White Liberal Olympics, Sam Bee executes a perfect white liberal triple backflip and sticks the landing. In the segment in question, Sam Bee interviews a “recovering” white supremacist and asks his opinion on how to fight white supremacy.

HOLD UP.

You’re asking former white supremacists how to fight white supremacy? That might almost seem like logic, if 1) there were any such thing as a former white supremacist and 2) there were any consideration at all given to the protection of people of color and the victims/targets of white supremacy. As expected, the former white supremacist advises that Love, not punches, will conquer all. As expected, the former white supremacist, and Sam Bee by extension, exalt the comfort of self-proclaimed racists over the emotional security of people of color. As. Expected. 

Sigh.

So.

Why are so many white liberals this concerned with staying on racists’ good side?

Well, it’s all about who you empathize with. And much as I’ve enjoyed her show in the past, this segment on Sam Bee’s show is another example that for even the most well-meaning of well-meaning-est liberals, empathy with whiteness continues to trump solidarity with blackness. Put another way, it’s assumed the audience will more easily associate themselves (or maybe a brother or sister, aunt or uncle) with the person who makes the racial gaffe than the person who is a victimof it. And so goes the endorsement of empathy for Mr. Literal White Supremacist. I guess respectability politics are for everyone.

Xxxxxxxxx

Continuing through the segment, Sam Bee invites in Fred Armisen and Carrie Brownstein, whose reinforcing banter culminates in the directive to “hug a white supremacist.” Now this, of course and presumably, is said with some jest, but let’s take a step back, shall we?

The situations they’re describing, in which one might be pressed to confront a former-friend/now-bigot, are not easy things to do. These are hard conversations and not ones that we should ever seek to approach without empathy…but as with all things, even empathy has limits. And those limits come waaaaay before you get to literal “hug a white supremacist” territory.

A couple rules of thumb, primarily for those for which white supremacy is a new concept: – If your empathy has extended to the point wherein you are literally hugging a nazi, nope, nope, stop. That’s not helpful, no matter what late night talk show hosts seem to be selling these days. If your empathy has extended to the point wherein you’re advocating for others to hug nazis instead of doing something, oh I don’t know, actually useful, then I think you don’t understand what empathy is.

“Hug a white supremacist.” Literal words. Spoken out loud. By “allies.” Terrible allies, some might say. All I can say is smdh.

But let’s take a deeeeep breath, and just tease all this apart for a sec. Questions. Who was the audience for this message? What does “hug a white supremacist/nazi/bigot” mean in actual practice? How does “hugging” work with people who are advocating for continued oppression and genocide? Is it just like hugging a cactus, or…? Also, how is this different from doing nothing? How is this different from the ‘ignore racism and it’ll go away’ crowd? What does one hope to gain (or maintain) from empathizing with white supremacists? Has anyone on this show ever read Letter from a Birmingham Jail? (Contrary to not-so-popular belief, not a letter penned by an anthropomorphic jail cell.)

And lastly, do the writers of this segment understand why the work of anti-racism is meaningful? I mean, if we can at least agree the loose goals of anti-racist work are to protect the marginalized while breaking the vicious cycle system of white supremacy, doesn’t empathizing so deeply with nazis and white supremacists actually serve another master? Doesn’t that recast oppressor as oppressed? Nazis as someone to be pitied and hugged for the struggle of maintaining their minority beliefs? That’s…a dangerous narrative. That’s advocacy of non-racism over anti-racism, and spoiler alert, non-racism is weak, it’s toothless, and it’s intensely supportive of the status quo.

So this hug-a-white-supremacist junk doesn’t serve our stated goal, that is unless our stated goal conflicts with our unstatedgoals (of virtue signaling and the like, cuz it’s not like this whole american apartheid system is worth losing any friends over, amirite?).

In which case, I see you. And gross.

Real talk. You gotta know that confronting white supremacy in a real and impactful way is gonna hurt feelings and end friendships. At a minimum. It was the wrongheaded belief that one could somehow challenge bigotry while still hanging out with bigots that has led us down this crooked cobblestone path, wherein some white liberals regard Naziism as just a “conflicting viewpoint” instead of a “murderous worldview that led to the literal extermination of millions.”

Once again, Why are you spending so much time/effort/energy nuancing Nazis, y'all? I’m asking. Again.

But where Sam Bee and that hug-a-Nazi segment failed the most disappointingly was on two fronts: 1. Failing to tailor a message for her entire audience.  Which until last week, one might assume includes black people and brown people and all shades of non-white people in addition to the white people she seemed to be talking to. Sam. Hug a white supremacist? Who should hug a white supremacist? Me? I should hug a white supremacist? WHY. WOULD. YOU. ASK. ME. THAT. SAM. BEE.? Inevitable comparisons: Would you ask Jewish people to hug Nazis? Women to hug MRAs? Hillary to hug Trumpf? Ok, I know I’m getting snarky, but the question remains. Imploring your audience, which includes people of color, to hug a white suprema-nazi is asking us to exercise super-human levels of empathy. Why would you ask us to take on even more emotional labor, to suppress righteous rage for the sake of Nazi feels? Or even for the sake of a played out joke?

Sidenote: Asking black people, who’ve literally laid down our lives for the cause of civil rights to abandon our methods and adopt those endorsed by their oppressors is just so so tone-deaf it’s *mwah* peak white liberal.

2. Failing to advocate for actual scalable change. And make no mistake, scalable change is legislative change. This is the one thing I always return to that leads this nonsensical fight-hate-with-love-hug-a-nazi biz to an early and inevitable grave. It’s not a serious proposition. It can’t be. Because it’s not remotely scaleable. Hugging a Nazi, engaging a Nazi, having an hours-long reasoned debate with a Nazi accomplishes less than you’d think. Even if you change one Nazi mind, understand that Nazis are not engaging in recruitment only with one-on-one methods. While you spend the better part of your weekend reasoning out why blacks are not a mongrel race with your good friend Chad (who’s kinda cool, except kinda a Nazi), white supremacists are going for SCALE. Gutting the Voting Rights Act. Gerrymandering like madmen. Arming police with military grade weapons. And legalizing vehicular homicide against peaceful protesters. While many white liberals look back at the 50s and 60s and think that the most powerful thing to come out of the Civil Rights Era was integrated lunch counters and better bus etiquette and non-violent protest, black folk know that what integrated those counters and etiquetted those buses were the legislative victories that made public exercise of prejudice less germane. And as for non-violence, the CR era was puh-lenty violent. Violence and non-violence are both tools, necessary and employed…but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion we’ll get into someday. So. Why was there not a single mention of legislative push in any of last week’s episode? No “call your congressman,” no “ballot measure up,“ no “VOTE”? No, just a “send these guys some money,” and also “don’t punch Nazis” cuz every Nazi is somebody’s ma or pa, right?

Why is racism different? Sam Bee famously rips apart bigots, misogynists, and liars and lays them all bare with a weekly roundup of political absurdity. Why is racism exempt from the typical and powerful entreaties to support legislature? Why is there all the empathy for bigots, but none for their victims?

Maybe the problem is that liberals think punching a Nazi is the only way we want to engage them. It’s not. Punching a Nazi is a merely one of a myriad of approaches, tools in the toolbox, as one might say. Punching a Nazi is not always the best approach, it’s true, but that doesn’t mean it’s not an approach.

But I digress, because the fact that so many liberals are spending so much time equivocating about the morality of punching Nazis instead of the morality of Naziism gets to the root of the problem: that maybe we don’t think white supremacy/Naziism/racism is all that bad. They’re not big enough evils. Certainly not as bad as punching someone in the jaw — the very act of doing so makes one as bad as a Nazi, I hear. Or maybe it’s because there’s a lax understanding of the violence of words. Words can be violence. And the use of violence to prevent violence does not “make you as bad as them.” If it did, we wouldn’t have laws or enforcement.

My dad used to offer this counsel back in the day, when I was coming of age, just starting to see the world as how it really is. I’ll take some liberty for sake of making a point, but he’d say something like, “Don’t argue with assholes. It empowers them.” True then. True now. Today’s liberal seems content on battling violent rhetoric with only academic bravado. However. Proving you’re “intellectually superior” to a Nazi does nothingto stop said Nazi from causing harm. In fact, the very act of you exerting your awesome brain against his far-less-learned one puts harm into the immediate universe. It actively protects exactly no one. You don’t fight Nazis by proving you’re smarter than them. You don’t fight hate with love. You fight Nazis by FIGHTING NAZIS. You fight hate by PASSING LEGISLATION. You fight hate by CRUSHING THEIR FACIST POLITICAL AGENDA and making bigots and monsters afraid to advocate for death and oppression. You fight. FIGHT is the operative word here. You fight.

So Sam Bee, and white liberal, pleeeease confront the empathy elephant in the room. Please don’t spend or loan any more emotional currency belonging to people of color you purport to protect. Stop being terrible allies. Stop defending Nazi jaws. And also go read Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Go ahead. You need it. We will wait.

MQ

[ouathinktank-metacommentary]

One big issue with tv shows is that unlike with books, the message is incomplete. So they might temporarily put out the opposite message of what they will be saying in the end. Or not. Which is the issue. We don't know. What does your tv Utopia look like in regards to this issue? How do we combine accountability with artistic integrity and freedom? What framing should there be? What would it look like for Once Upon a Time?

Oo-kay. Forstarters, there’s a world of difference between message being incomplete (whichcan indicate less than adequate narrative development, to put it mildly) or if itis left to interpretation (which can vary between being clever, thoughtprovoking–even subversive) so I guess we can approach appraisal of OUaTfrom radically different angles–depending on our individual assessment of that starting point? So, I assume youalready know ours. It just cannot not start from the need to rationalizetheir ‘origins’ into the continuity, and it being–the accolades (or criticism,depending who you ask) they got for Lost. Because as we know, they have been praisedfor it–for all those explorations of that notion of multiplicity(alternative timeline/versions, etc) so we must take into account thepossibility of that affecting theirarrogance to start with–and that we have (possibly? probably? maybe?) giventhem undeserved ‘headstart’ so they took themselves too seriously–and approachedtheir new project (and their attitude/response to audience feedback, or lack thereof) in suchway? Also, more importantly–that they have naturally attracted the ‘intelligent’ followingfor it to begin with (because participatory culture surpasses basic passiveconsumerism, offers enriched dynamic, more lifelike experience–all thatjazz) thus ‘burdening’ themselves with a significantly more demanding audience, andit–affecting a more resounding feeling of our general discontent now?

Eitherway, that could explain the game of one-upmanship, of them striving to (andaround S3 starting to fail miserably, IMO) to stay two steps ahead of the audience.Hence the tactics of opposite message of what they will probably be saying in the end that you mention–so yes of course, false clues, red herrings, logicalfallacies or any other devices that lead audiences towards misleadingconclusions. Because it’s really hard to know anything in the middle? Andwhich now reminds me, I remember reading when someone was talking about Lost (perhapsJenkins, I think I also talked about it here, or somewhere–but just can’t go around diggingfor references, the archives became overwhelming, so–I just might repeatmyself, for which I apologise in advance :) and them trying to account for the things they invented in earlierseasons without too much thought of what they actually might mean and/or wherethey might lead (which sounds WAY too familiar now?) Dickens was mentioned. As in, how his works are nowseen as really well-structured novels because we read them in a bounded form,but in fact–he sometimes radically rewrote his ‘vision’ (which, retconning?) ofthe characters. So if the middle point is supposedly the most ‘productive’ space(because universally, fans also generate alternative versions of the narrativeas they theorize about what’s going on, versions which are very generative,very rich and interesting–like say, what you have been doing?) and while theyare exploring all the alternatives (which alas, usually manifest as randomness/retconningin their writing, these days?) shouldn’t it be, well–the most productive part?Instead of this… disastrous mash of pacing/contrivance, riddled with alarminglyhorrible messages–basically a pile of stinking heterosexist, racist, misogynistand homophobic shite? And all after that beginning that was so staggeringlypromising–and/or dangerously misleading?

Which brings me to, yes, fundamentally–the media industry (broadly defined) and the TV entertainmentindustry in particular, need to be far more accountable when it comes to themessage they create, both in the content itself, and the ways in which it is distributed.But if we try to combine accountability and artistic integrity and freedom–wecannot but question what IS Brothers Dim’s primary drive here? Free expression,pursuit of a vision, consistent and brilliant narrative (the ‘modern’re-envisioning of fairytales, subverting the old dogmatic tropes and all that)or are they driven purely by commerce, designed to build a brand that will multiplyrevenue streams or drive eyes toward a central moneymaking mothership? Because that’s the crux of the problem here.

And sinceyou asked, yes–my personal TV Utopia is of course all about the former. I do believe infree expression and I do believe that the showrunners have the right to createwhatever content they want–no creative limits or boundaries whatsoever. Hell,at one point I did believe that theory, that they were actually giving us twoparallel narratives, an obvious/direct one for the casual/superficialviewership (showing the cautionary tale of what’s not supposed to bea well-accepted normative) and the ‘hidden’ and yet obvious multi-layered onethat challenged the hegemony–and developed that ‘subversive’modern fairtytale about two mothers sharing a son, sense of understanding, acceptanceand ultimately, love. But as a rule, the issue becomes problematic when the show is aired–how it’s distributed and to which audiences. Because while the industry shouldbe far more vigilant, oftentimes they aren’t–because they go for pandering, asit is what (they think) sells. So inevitably the question arises,where does the ‘vision’ start being altered, twisted and is eventuallycompletely forgone–in favour of a product served/tailored by market target (whose age was drastically reduced in S4 with Frozen, in this case)audience? Inthe end leaving it to us, the more demanding crowds–tobelieve that we’ve either been misled (they tried, tested, enticed, and well–queerbaiting’s all we got left with?) or it was where they wereheading, but–they got yanked back by the PTB? And now basically giving way tothe biggest disagreement we might have here now: have we given WAY too much depthand meaning to this product than it really deserves (or was originally meant tohave, anyway) and thus credit to its authors, or are they (or well, were they–before PTBs trimmed theirwings) really intrepid and brave show runners with a brilliant vision?

You can guess what we here believe. Because sixyears later, the result is schizophrenic to say the least. For instance,sure–Hood might be a ‘prop’ for Regina but it looks like they keep hiring the idiot back (andthe story goes on and on and on?) and sure, Hook might just be a commentary oneverything that is screwed up about fairytale sexist dogma… but again, they’redragging it all way past the point of logic, no? So as a result we have here now is anintense, even toxic part of the audience (online fandom) while a whole other partof it is just as immersed in the story–but the story they think is being toldis far less subversive and actually far more dangerous. And the real problem has been the marketing of that kindof story–the story that tells you that Hook is your dream lad, 50 Shades of Rapecultureis the best romance ever written, and lesbians are mean and angry people whoshould just go away. Because bottom line: to go there by sacrificing your twostrongest female characters when the context you’re writing stories within–neithernecessitates nor justifies the undermining (or defiling) of these ‘strong women’, and… well. Onetruth is being told at the expense of the other?

Sooo… purelytextual analysis whilst ignoring all other factors including basic marketing issuesjust isn’t how television works. Because them writing all the negative and harmfulthings is something they SHOULDas showrunners be accounted for, and on a much larger scale. And they should, you know, either justify it or face the consequences far more seriousthan just dwindling ratings of the product they’re now having difficulties tosell. While in the meantime, the ‘mixed’ result of their struggle to balance and pander (they know it can’t be about just Hook, but nothing they wrote about him made people as disgusted as Regina’s stomach-churning shagging scene did–which was a crime against those of us who wantedto see that shirt unbuttoned for any bloody reason–what we can’t stop reiterating) leaves the ultimatequestion, not related to ships/shipping/endgames but rather aboutcharacter journeys–if we as large chunk of theaudience cannot ‘enjoy the ride’ (some of the stuff they wrote was/isdecidedly vile, even more than their collective treatment of an incrediblypersistent/masochistic fanbase that still have hope for Reginaand Emma, who despite what’s been shoved down our throats–stillare the core of this show) then someone please tell me…

What ISthe point? Because I seem to be… missing it.

[socialattractionuk]

You can unfriend a bigoted mate, but a relative with questionable views is for life

What if it’s the people closest to you holding beliefs that belong in the waters of Bristol Harbour?  (Picture: Ella Byworth for Metro.co.uk)

You knew there’d probably be some racists in your Facebook friends list. 

The red flags might’ve started blowing during the winds of Brexit. A questionable post on immigration, a nasty meme, a suspicious number of St. George’s flag emojis. 

But the past few weeks really brought out people’s true colours. Many of us will have spent time laboriously debunking the ‘All Lives Matter’ slogan using the burning house analogy illustrated for primary school kids. Others will have lost hope and gone straight for the ‘unfriend’ button. 

But what if it’s the people closest to you holding beliefs that belong in the waters of Bristol Harbour? 

Engaging online with the girl you played netball with in Year 7 is one thing, but having uncomfortable, challenging conversations with the people you love considerably raises the stakes. 

Whether it’s social distancing measures, government policies or gender self-identification, the likelihood is that you won’t see eye to eye with everyone in your family. Long periods indoors together means more time for discussion, and an increased likelihood of it getting heated.  

At the end of the day, you can’t unfriend your mum, but I believe we have a duty to challenge our families nonetheless.

Over the years I’ve had plenty of discussions with my parents that have ended in a door slam or two, but they have been necessary – not just to get a better understanding of the world, but of each other. 

What about friends, though? Or, even more troublesome, partners?  

They’re the family you choose, yes, but it doesn’t make it any less difficult when they throw an outrageous opinion in your direction.  

We tend to gravitate towards people who share similar values to our own anyway and I like to think that my mates are all decent people (deep down). 

Besides, it would be boring if we all thought exactly the same way (I’m not talking about the racists here, they can absolutely get in the bin). 

Unlike friends, however, if the person you’re building a life with has opposite core values and beliefs to yours, it can have a much bigger impact on your existence. 

I dated someone in the not-distant-enough past whose views were dissimilar to my own. 

On our first date we discovered that we voted in different directions. ‘Not a big deal’ I thought. ‘It’s the same for my parents and they’ve been married 36 years. I’ll send him a good Momentum video or something, that’ll do the trick.’ Besides, he was extremely handsome. 

Over the first few weeks he dropped a few misogynistic tropes here and there, but what straight white man doesn’t, right? Like a gender-role-reversal of Pygmalion, I could educate him on how to speak in a ‘fairer’ manner. Besides, I didn’t want to re-download Hinge. 

The hardcore stuff came after a month. He recoiled at two men kissing on TV, then defended himself with: ‘I don’t want to see straight people kissing either’, despite his marked silence throughout The Notebook.  

As painful as it may be, some differences of opinion can be make or break

He was adamant that his future son should play with trucks over dolls, and showed grave concern that I would ‘turn a straight child gay’ by putting him in a dress. 

‘I’ll take him to Pride’ I decided, ‘then he’ll get it.’ My ovaries were slowly dying and I’d invested too much time in this guy to start all over again. I could miss the opportunity to have any kids at all, let alone one whose sexuality I could ‘convert’ with a floral garment. 

I told myself that if I was expecting him to stop being so narrow-minded then perhaps I needed to open my own mind a little bit more. Maybe I was the bigot? Maybe I was the one discriminating?

Or maybe I was flogging a dead horse. We were, quite simply, incompatible. 

In the final month came more clangers I struggled to look past. We argued, we debated, we discussed, and we were exhausted. Needless to say, we split up. 

Now arguably, we all have a duty to challenge not only those around us, but ourselves as well. Progress is infinite, after all – Grandma once thought she was woke too, remember. 

It’s all well and good telling your boyfriend/girlfriend/grandma what they can no longer say, but we must listen to others when they tell us that our own words are prejudicial, discriminate or hurtful.   

But if other people refuse to do the same? 

As painful as it may be, some differences of opinion can be make or break. Sacrificing your principles is denying a part of yourself, and that can’t lead to peace or happiness. 

More: Food

Woman opens design-your-own doughnut shop

Abhishek Bachchan on tapping into 'strong paternal emotions' for 'demanding' new role

'Child abuser kept punching toddler in the face until he died of his injuries'

Relationships are all about compromise. Challenging my principles is something I’m open to, but denying them is not. Painful as it may be, some differences in opinion are too substantial to work with.

So your dad’s a bigot… but you can’t have a new one, so you may as well have a go at changing his mind.

But you can change your partner. I’m not saying you should end a relationship as a signal of virtue to the rest of the world, but don’t exhaust yourself trying to see eye to eye with someone who prefers being wilfully blind.

It’s okay to give up on a lost cause.   

Do you have a story you’d like to share? Get in touch by emailing rosy.edwards@metro.co.uk

Share your views in the comments below.

MORE: I’m grateful to the women who spoke out about Hardeep Singh Kohli, it meant I could too

MORE: Choosing who to have in your social bubble is an anxiety-ridden minefield

MORE: I didn’t need a pandemic to teach me to be grateful for my lot in life

[standfortheangels]

You ever see someone you follow posting about something you really disagree with or are offended by, but you don't want the drama of discourse and/or don't have it in you to fight the point, so you just.. unfollow?

I get the need for people to challenge things, you wanna take a stand where you feel it's right. That's your power to do with as you wish. No arguments here.

But for all those who talk about Tumblr discourse as if it's this inevitable thing; People who don't like all the drama but feel like there's no way to avoid it. Let me tell you, you can. You absolutely can.

I've managed to avoid practically every fandom drama in 5+ years just selectively using the unfollow button. If someone posts stuff that makes you tense up and you're not enjoying scrolling through your dash anymore, it's time to find those blogs and unfollow.

And it's not as much of a balance as you think either. They post amazing art but also seem to be regularly rude to innocent comments? Maybe they don't deserve your attention. There are other blogs around who also post amazing art, who are more approachable and boost others up.

You love this person's fanfics but they fall into racist/misogynistic/harmful tropes a lot? Get out of them. The length of time you'll be sad and disappointed for outweighs the amount you'll probably enjoy, because the human mind is just wired to hold on to the negative. Go check out the recently posted stuff in the tags, maybe you'll find a new writer you haven't seen before whose work you love, and that caters better to you!

Spare yourself the trouble, stop trying to argue with yourself over whether you should stay or go, because guess what?

If you have to deliberate that, you already have the answer.

It's literally that easy.