#this rant is also more broadly about the fact that even though I'm seeing a LOT of this shit in the ST fandom

[serpentinegraphite]

in the same vein as having characters always sound like they're trying to get a good grade in therapy, a common thing in fanworks that gets on my nerves is like how in a fandom where realistically one might expect the characters to experience some trauma as a result of canon events (even though it's not shown in canon), there are only ever like the most extreme trauma responses. it's full on panic attack in the face of a trigger and brutal, unending nightmares, and like nothing else.

I just want to say for anyone out there who isn't aware, not every trauma response needs to be turned up to 11!some days a trigger might hit harder than others.

sometimes a character's trauma response should say something about them! a character who hates being vulnerable and seeks a constant control might react to a trigger with anger!

a character who is great at repressing might "This is fine!" themselves all the way through a triggering and unpleasant encounter rather than show any outward distress! dissociation is a real and common trauma response.

aside from the complete homogenization of trauma symptoms being boring as shit, it's often a weirdly consistent Moral Purity signifier. there's never a chance for a nuanced or complicated or shitty response to a trigger, it's always straight into the harshest panic response, thereby inviting only unconditional support from the audience. (nevermind what this kind of weirdly narrow anxiety rep does to people in the audience who actually have anxiety that doesn't fit the One Kind Of Anxiety characters are allowed to have)

[uboat53]

Okay, a few things have come together in my head that I've been thinking about for a while, so I think it's time for a LONG RANT (TM) to lay it all out. If you're interested in my conclusion rather than just my ramblings, go ahead and skip to the bottom, there's a TL;DR.

INTRODUCTION

Lately, thoughts I've been having about politics and religion in general have come together for me and I've realized that it explains a lot about this particular political and cultural moment we're living through. The basic throughline is this: the people who claim to be proud Christian American Nationalists actually don't fit either the "Christian" or "American" part of those definitions.

RELIGION

Let's start with religion. I've been thinking about religion for as long as I can remember and lately I've come to the idea that there are essentially three "waves" of religion. The first wave is purely explanatory, it's meant to explain things in the world that couldn't be explained at the time; to make sense of the world. This kind of religion doesn't usually have a name and has existed as far back as we can tell there were humans.

The second wave, seems to have come about with the advent of settled civilizations. Basically, this wave not only seeks to explain, it also imposes a moral code. This moral code is either applied generally within a society but not outside of it or explicitly imposes different rules for those inside and outside the society. Most forms of early paganism and Hinduism are examples of this as is Judaism in its early forms.

The third wave, however, is what I call the "universal" religions. These religions do not differentiate between societies or groups of people and apply moral teachings universally to all human beings. Christianity in its theological sense is an example of this religion, as are Buddhism and Islam.

The thing about these examples, though, is that they're not necessarily the religion-as-practiced. Many people who call themselves Christian, for example, very much express a morality more similar to a second-wave religion, not the third-wave religion to which they claim adherence. Keep this particular thought in mind, we'll be returning to it later.

AMERICAN VALUES

"American values" is a nebulous concept that often means different things to different people. For my purposes, I'm going to focus very directly on the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution that specifically made America different from other nations on Earth at the time. To me, these are the values that are uniquely American as opposed to being more broadly accepted.

The concept of government isn't unique, that was pretty universal in the late 1700s. Christianity or faith-based statements of values like "endowed by their creator" aren't unique either, probably more the opposite at the time. What is truly unique about the United States and its founding values expressed in these documents is the idea of government by and for the people. All of them.

Certainly we've consistently failed to meet that promise, but the fact that that promise was written in the first place is what has driven every effort to make it a reality. Progress has been slow and we've even had to fight a war to drive it forward, but I don't think anyone can deny that we're extraordinarily closer to meeting that promise today than we were in 1800 and that has a lot to do with the fact that it is explicitly laid out in our founding documents.

This value, to me, is the one thing that is uniquely American. That this nation was founded not to be the home of some people, but of all people, and that its government should represent all of them.

Of course, like with religion, you will find a good deal of people who call themselves "American" who do not accept this fundamental American value.

POLITICS

With these two things in mind, we're seeing something unique in our politics these days. There have always been Christians in America, including both Christians who practice it as a second-wave (in-group morality) religion and as a third-wave (universal morality) religion, and there have always been people who refused to accept the basic American value that our government of, by, and for the people should represent all the people who are inherently created equal, but I can't think of a point in American history where the type of people who practice Christianity as a second-wave religion AND who do not accept that the government should represent all people were clustered together in a single political party.

Various forces of history, including the backlash to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the increasing secularization of the country, the increasing diversity of the country, and a widening divide between urban and rural regions have led to an astonishing concentration of these type of people in the Republican Party in a way that has not been seen before in American history. This has had, to put it lightly, some ramifications for our country.

You can see it in the way that Republican politicians and influential figures consistently refer to "real Americans". Implicit in that statement is that the other Americans, usually Democrats or people who live in cities (who, coincidentally or not so coincidentally, happen to be much more racially and religiously diverse than Republicans or people who don't live in cities) aren't real Americans. This is metamorphosing into a belief, particularly expressed by Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, that only an election where the "real Americans" win is considered legitimate; others are not permitted to govern.

You can also see it in the way that rules are applied subjectively. Senator Fetterman (D-PA) wearing shorts and a hoodie in the Senate is an affront to the dignity of the institution and drag shows are inappropriate for children, but Representative Boebert's (R-CO) lewd behavior at a family event is somehow not worthy of mention. Parents should have the right to prevent schools from teaching their children about race in schools, but not the right to prevent schools from including right-wing materials in their curriculum.

I could go on and on and on listing hundreds, even thousands of examples of each of these, but I think you get my point. The movement that styles itself as a Christian American Nationalist movement does not apply morality universally the way theological Christianity does and does not believe that the government should represent all people as is laid out in our founding documents. This movement fundamentally rejects the moral principles that are fundamental both Christianity and the United States and make them unique.

TL;DR/CONCLUSION

The modern Republican Party, particularly driven by Donald Trump's MAGA movement fundamentally rejects the moral statements that are unique to Christianity and to the United States. They reject the idea that morality is universal, choosing instead to apply morality differently to their in-group as opposed to an out-group, and they reject the idea that a legitimate government must represent all people, believing instead that only a particular group has the right to govern and rule.

In this way, the policies proposed by this group represent a rejection of Christian and American morality which they are attempting to disguise by cloaking themselves in the symbols of both, and that is something we should all be horrified by.

[rinisbowen]

glad we can agree that ricky bowen isn’t toxic like some like to make him out to be. i feel like he’s judged way too harshly in this fandom and gets the blame for things he doesn’t really do

hi! thanks for this tbh anon <3 it's always nice to see someone agrees with me here. i'm usually just talking and then maybe someone will resonate with it or maybe not.

but honestly it drives me up a wall anon, because you're absolutely right. he's judged incredibly harshly in a way that even characters set up as antagonists initially aren't and haven't been. sometimes it's a josh thing, sometimes it's a nini thing or a gina thing, sometimes it’s a ship thing... but the result is the same. he's a teenage boy who's going through quite a lot of stuff- and he's a good person at the end of the day.

i think people need to remember that as per tim's own statements, the show is about good people being generally good to each other. these are all good kids. and they mess up sometimes too, but they're a theatre family, for better and for worse.

it's potentially main character syndrome in some senses, arguably, where the fact we focus on a main character more (in this case ricky and nini, who do get more focus than the others) means that chances are if they're interacting with a less primary character they're going to be dealing with something related to the primary character... that is what contributes to the ricky's a terrible friend thing. like 'ricky's a horrible friend to big red' no he isn't- he's just the main character. also he does repeatedly support big red so idk what that's about truly.

all these narratives- ricky's a terrible friend to the wildcats, ej should punch ricky for what he did to gina (i see it in fic mostly, but i also have seen it in this fandom more broadly too. maybe someday i'll write about my dislike for the romanticization of violence in fandom), ricky's a toxic person, ricky should've helped this person with their problems even though they're not close and they didn't tell him about those problems so he had no way of knowing, ricky should've done this that and the other thing, etc... it just doesn't accurately portray the story that's being told on this show.

--

also bc it's somewhat adjacent to this topic- if people could stop doing the 'i only ship ricky with therapy' thing i'd love that please and thanks. i can rant for so long about this but it needs to end- it should've never started to begin with. if someone wants me to talk about it i will but- idk if i need to start anything rn haha

[sunsetsover]

"I swear half this fandom don't actually like Ben" lmao true! Thing is though he's not likeable all the time and he can be a right old dick. But personally even if I don't like him or his actions at certain times, I feel like the broader picture is still there and I root for him because I get why he's like he is? And I can see and appreciate the softer sides of him even if they're fairly well hidden at times.

I also think some people in the fandom intellectually understand that he's traumatised and a survivor of various abuses, and when that shows in certain ways e.g. like if Callum or Lola is comforting while he's crying. But when it comes to situations like this week with Jags and Whitney, I personally think some people have struggled to understand how his trauma connects to it because it's not as obvious as e.g. Whitney's fiance dies, Gray manipulates her, bish bash bosh hit and run. Even more broadly I think it's easy for the audience to underestimate how Ben's experiences have shaped him because there's a distance created by time, his criminal actions, his (un)likeability factor, not viewing Phil as an abusive parent etc.

I don't wanna say everyone criticising him is like that btw! I'm sure there's a few reasons but I think this plays a part tbh.

i get what you're saying but to me it's like.... why would you even waste so much time invested into someone you don't like most of the time. i genuinely don't get it. ppl tend to ship ballum but hate ben AND hate the majority of the sls lately and it's like.... it's 2021 bro it's not like gay couples are THAT rare anymore there is so much media out there if you're not enjoying what ee are doing then you literally do not have to watch. in fact im BEGGING you for your sake not to. literally just do not engage with media that you aren't enjoying. do not sit in your own negativity writing 20 posts a day abt 'why are they doing this? why don't they do that? if they did this i would enjoy it more' bc you're only making yourself miserable. like this goes for any type of media but literally just stop engaging w it if you're not enjoying it anymore. the think pieces don't help anyone. your opinions aren't universal and they aren't gospel. we all need to stop confusing our opinions w facts. just bc i'm not enjoying smth doesn't mean other ppl aren't and vice versa. just bc i'm not enjoying smth doesn't mean that the thing needs to change. eg i hate the fact that callum is a copper and pray every day that something will force him out of it BUT it doesn't really affect my overall enjoyment of him as a character and it doesn't mean that the show has to make him quit just bc i don't like it. you (the royal you not u specifically anon lmao) might hate the fact that ben still does illegal stuff but that doesn't mean the show has to make him stop just bc you don't like it. if it affects how much you enjoy him as a character/ben and callum as a couple then maybe consider stopping watching. festering in the energy of 'i hate this, i hate what they're doing and here's 1200 words why' is unhealthy! i learned this the hard way !

i know this seems like an irrelevant ramble but i think i've realized that this is what my issue is. ppl not understanding trauma is frustrating and damaging and still pisses me off, but i feel like what actually pisses me off more are the ppl who just don't even attempt to be understanding bc underneath it all they're angry/frustrated at the show/sls and that's how it manifests itself. ppl don't like the direction ben and/or callum are going in and so the minute they (and it's usually ben lbr) step out of line they JUMP on that as an excuse to vent their frustrations and often end up saying shit that is ignorant or damaging or mean or just straight up cruel abt things that are so often symptoms of mental illness or trauma. so they're out here posting so many things and making these cruel little comments bc they can't just acknowledge that they don't actually like ballum anymore meanwhile ppl who are actually disabled/mentally ill/traumatised are sitting there reading all of these things and seeing all the people agreeing w them and it's doing real life damage to people.

is it on purpose? probably not. but that doesn't make the damage any less real. i have never forgotten or forgiven the way ppl reacted after ben went deaf. it was vile. as a disabled person who reacted very badly to being disabled just like ben did, it genuinely fucked me in the head seeing what ppl said abt him during that time. now i understand that it was partially ignorance but also a big chunk of it was ppl being unhappy bc they thought they wouldn't be able to enjoy their ship anymore bc ben was disabled (not that he hadn't been disabled before, but now it wasn't ignorable anymore).

idk there's more i could say but i feel like it's pointless. ppl don't care lmao all they care abt is their ship. which, ok fine whatever, but stop letting ur mentally ill/traumatised/disabled followers get caught in the crossfire bc you can't just admit you're not enjoying it anymore and feel the need to tear the thing down and rant about how it's 'bad writing' or 'out of character' etc etc. it's frustrating to read (which is why im never on here anymore) and speaking from experience it hurts YOU in the long run. negativity breeds more negativity.

you don't need to make excuses! just let it go! find something that does make you happy! you deserve that! and we deserve to be able to enjoy something without seeing ppl tearing it (or worse - us) down every 5 minutes !!

(edit - to clarify anon none of this was aimed at you i just sort of started ranting and didn't even really answer ur question im sorry !! i get what ur saying tho lmao 💞💞💞)

[professorfaber]

I'm interested to see what you have to say about my communism paragraph.

To point out the Healthcare Man, me personally? No, I have not been able to do that for years on end due to my age, however several people over the years have been pointing out the issues within Marvel media as well as general superhero media. Including Healthcare Man. I wasn't trying to seem like I was disagreeing. I think that part got deleted, apologies. (I had made note that the paragraph was no way intended to be directed at you, more as like an agreement and that the situation was kinda dumb.) As for the memes, yeah could definitely do without those, I'm tired of seeing them. (Also wow do I agree with the statement that Marvel are incompetent cowards. Oof Marvel, step up or clear out.)

The WandaVision thing, g o d s don't get me started on the bs they pulled. Consumer activism definitely doesn't work in this situation, I wish that situation was handled differently. For the centrist fearmongering, it could potentially have to due with the fact it's a common piece of media. I'm sure as you know, the more x is in the media, the more people seem to think x is ok. The memes would contribute by someone taking it lightly or not thinking it's a serious issue. Only mocking it to go with the crowd and not looking at the situation through a critical lens, barely even scratching the surface level on the issue.

As for the statement of "Marvel is problematic" I'd say in this day-in-age, it needs to be worded like that because it catches people's attention. Do I personally agree with it, no. But it's necessary to catch an audience so something can be done. As long as the person using that statement has an actual argument, I think it should be used. I see where you are coming from though. Also I hope I haven't come off aggressive or rude, if I didn't address your other points it's because I agree with them. I'd also like to apologize, my tone often comes off as argumentative when I just mean to have a conversation. I hope you are havin a good day.

Thank you for clarifying all of this! I think we agree on a lot more than I initially thought (and no, you haven't come off as rude, don't worry). And thank you for sending an ask instead of adding on to an already very long post. I hope you're having a good day too.

Okay, point by point (this might be pretty long, sorry, I'm like. allergic to brevity but I do try):

1. The communism paragraph. First of all, I'm allowed to make snide remarks about liberals on my own blog on tumblr dot com without it harming The Cause. My post was not directed at liberals, and very few people, if any, that I engage with on this website are liberals so I wasn't hugely concerned about watching my language. Normally I would agree with you that it's important to do outreach, but it's my personal blog and I make the rules. Also:

"liberal this, republican that", both side are are horrible in their own ways but we still need the people.

Okay so, this is tricky because sometimes when I say "liberal" I do mean it in the modern, especially American, sense of social liberalism that the Democratic Party (ostensibly) adheres to, and that was kind of what I meant in the original post, but Republicans are also liberals, just of a slightly different ideological strand. In America today both parties are primarily dominated by centrist and rightist factions, with the original American left (i.e. socialists, anarchists, trade unionists, social democrats) being essentially squeezed out of political discourse over the past century. It's less an instance of "both sides are horrible" than "one side is horrible, but it's being presented in two flavors".

Also, I never said I was a communist and I actually usually don't politically identify as such, but I can see why you'd make that assumption based on the kind of things I post.

2. I think I get where you're coming from on this better than I did at first and I'm sorry for being dismissive about the memes. It did not occur to me that casually shitting on a massive corporation's ridiculous propaganda could be an issue in that way. Like, to me it was less "people all of a sudden realizing that Marvel is bad" than it was just a continuation of people criticizing Marvel as before, but you've honestly made me reconsider and I'm sorry if those sorts of jokes are frustrating or annoying. They honestly seemed like completely innocuous leftist tumblr memes to me, in the vein of jokes about any other shitty company ("shitty company" is kind of redundant I think but you know what I mean). But yeah, you've convinced me. I'll stop reblogging them if that helps.

3. This was a bit confusing to me? I understand being personally upset by the memes, but the notion that they normalize and contribute to corporations using propaganda to nullify left-wing ideas is kind of odd. Companies like Marvel and its parent Disney make those sorts of characters and storylines because it is in their interests to do so, and it will continue to be for as long as capitalism exists. What I called "centrist fearmongering" is like, a function of their existence as capitalist entities with immense power to manipulate public opinion in their favor, and what you or I post on tumblr really does not have an effect on that.

Capital shapes public opinion, not the other way around. That's one of the big reasons consumer activism doesn't work.

4. I've gotta disagree with you here, honestly, though I should say upfront that I'm not like, super invested in whether people call Marvel problematic or not. My original post was just a rant, no one is obliged to listen to me, I don't care about this nearly that much.

However, if we are going to have that conversation, then I will say that while it is important to attract an audience, using patently misleading or reductive language is the wrong way to do it, even if you also have a solid argument. I might also note that the problem that needs addressing (the influence of the interests of capital on entertainment) isn't exclusive to Marvel, and pretending that it is just lets the problem fester. "Marvel is problematic" just... seems like a bad slogan honestly as far as critiquing capitalist media goes.

I think there are two separate problems here: Marvel media broadly containing harmful or clumsy messages, and Marvel media suppressing or distracting from left-wing ideas and resistance. The former will change when it becomes legitimately profitable for Marvel to become more sensitive to certain members of its audience (which will only result in more marginalized identities becoming emptily commodified, unfortunately). The latter is a more direct result of capitalism that is systemically unavoidable.

Lastly: as you said, if I didn't respond to one of your points or comments that probably means I agree with it or couldn't think of anything to add