fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3468 ]

ugh you motherfucking -

OK. Accepting that there are no absolute values and ethics are based on a fundamentally individual decision, the idea of representation is important from the perspective of a particular family of ethical frameworks (in general, those that are liberal and/or multicultural) because it is seen as leading to a desired end state for society - specifically, because it seen as one thing that leads to a diverse, tolerant, multicultural society, which is good.

Therefore, insofar as we assume most people on this comm share a general commitment to those particular ethical norms, it is important in those terms. Of course in an absolute sense that ethical framework is merely preferential and it has no more absolute validity than desiring everyone in the world to die. Apologies for eliding these points and simply saying for the sake of convenience that it was important.

So, do you object to that basic ethical framework, or are you arguing that representation is not relevant to those ends, or what the fuck are you trying to get at.

So, do you object to that basic ethical framework, or are you arguing that representation is not relevant to those ends, or what the fuck are you trying to get at.

I don't object to that basic ethical framework (after all, I am a leftist and also desire a diverse, tolerant, multicultural society) but "importance" is about ranking things, and you're assuming that all liberal/multicultural ethics-y people are going to rank

"recognize that certains fandoms, genres, and works have serious issues with race/gender/representation, and conversations about how to fix this are necessary."

as a higher priority than other things [i.e "important"]. They don't.

I don't think criticizing "problematic" works is an important step to getting better representation in media. I think positively supporting media that meets our desires is far more important.

Edited 2016-07-02 21:03 (UTC)

"Important" doesn't imply a ranking. It implies that it is a higher priority than some other things, not than everything. Saying that it's an important thing does not imply a demand that we drop every other thing in the world, as you seem to think.

I don't think criticizing "problematic" works is an important step to getting better representation in media. I think positively supporting media that meets our desires is far more important.

I think both are important. I think conversations that make us aware of the ways in which media fucks up and help us envision better media are useful. I think it's also secondary to supporting good things, but there's absolutely nothing mutually exclusive there. And I think it's kind of inevitable for people to get angry about these things, and it's a natural emotional response, and so sometimes there's going to be heated criticism of stuff. As if heated criticism was unique to SJWs in nerd culture to start with.

(nb: sorry if any of this doesn't make sense)

"Important" doesn't imply a ranking. It implies that it is a higher priority than some other things

That's a ranking. When you say "this is a higher priority than that" you're ranking things. Importance is inherently about ranking things by priority/value.

Saying that it's an important thing does not imply a demand that we drop every other thing in the world, as you seem to think.

I don't think I implied that anywhere.

I think both are important. I think conversations that make us aware of the ways in which media fucks up and help us envision better media are useful.

I don't. I find them tiresome and pointless. If you teach people how to do something correctly, you don't need to go after examples of people who "fucked up" to use your example. If we tell people, "this is how you write a good LGBT+ character" then they can recognize good media and discard the bad without us needing to drag Legally Blonde for having a fashion-loving gay guy character.

It's tiresome and pointless because literally everything can be problematic in some way. And I'd argue it's counter-productive, because the main thing it teaches is that that the only way to avoid writing problematic fiction is to either exclude minority characters OR include them but keep them so bland/poorly developed that no one can find anything to criticize about them.

Edited 2016-07-02 21:31 (UTC)

That's a ranking. When you say "this is a higher priority than that" you're ranking things. Importance is inherently about ranking things by priority/value.

Sorry, what I meant was: Saying that one thing is important does not imply any specific particular ordering of things. Priority trade-offs between various important things is an intrinsic part of politics.

If we tell people, "this is how you write a good LGBT+ character" then they can recognize good media and discard the bad without us needing to drag Legally Blonde for having a fashion-loving gay guy character.
It's tiresome and pointless because literally everything can be problematic in some way. And I'd argue it's counter-productive, because the main thing it teaches is that that the only way to avoid writing problematic fiction is to either exclude minority characters OR include them but keep them so bland/poorly developed that no one can find anything to criticize about them.

The problem I have with that is that there's a literal infinity of ways to write good LBGT+ characters. We're not talking about people being unable to write good characters; we're talking about a system that consistently reproduces specific bad plotlines, with logic that reinforces specific social problems. Understanding those problems and narratives is necessary for that reason.

I agree that everything is problematic in some way. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing to recognize. All that it means is that we have to approach the problems of media in a nuanced and reasonable way. And doing so immediately solves the problem that you raise with teaching people to write bad characters. It just does not do that. That's a response born out of fear, it's in no way the logical conclusion of this train of thought.

Is the conversation always as nuanced and reasonable as it should be? No, of course not, it's a fandom conversation on the Internet, everyone is crazy. But that's not the same as saying there's nothing there and it doesn't require dismissing outright the whole thing. In my mind.

"The problem I have with that is that there's a literal infinity of ways to write good LBGT+ characters. We're not talking about people being unable to write good characters; we're talking about a system that consistently reproduces specific bad plotlines, with logic that reinforces specific social problems. Understanding those problems and narratives is necessary for that reason."

I agree with this, and I'd like to go a step further: it's okay if some readers think your character is problematic! Any writing rule can be broken if you know what you're doing, and "problematic" people do exist in real life. Just don't use it as a crutch or a lazy way out.

We're not talking about people being unable to write good characters; we're talking about a system that consistently reproduces specific bad plotlines, with logic that reinforces specific social problems.

What is this system?

That's a response born out of fear, it's in no way the logical conclusion of this train of thought.

We are talking about human beings, right? I'll remind you they're not strictly logical creatures. You're also saying that responses born from fear aren't logical. But we often fear things for perfectly logic reasons.

It's logical for people to be afraid of being denounced, harassed, or bullied like John Green was, or sodomquake, or plebcomics, or any of the other creators that were.

Is the conversation always as nuanced and reasonable as it should be? No, of course not, it's a fandom conversation on the Internet, everyone is crazy.

Who do you think is going to criticize media? Fandom.

I would argue that to some extent, criticism in the broad sense helps people raise awareness of stereotypes. I know that for me at least, there are certain things that I only realized after a while of experiencing it, or reading something that said "hey, did you notice how all _____ are always ______?"
But in that sense, I think that it's more helpful when you're discussing a trend, not singling out one specific work. Especially because singling out one work often happens to creators who *are* making more of an effort, just like the teacher always yells at the students who *do* come to class.

Though overall, I think that in terms of affecting media, the audience has to speak with their wallets far more. I've been in arguments about the MCU where I said that I'm sick of them criticizing women's representation there, because Marvel has absolutely no reason to change things as long as their making truckloads of cash. If all women boycotted the movies and said "we're not watching any more until we see Black Widow", then maybe they'd give a shit. But atm they have no incentive to.

I also think that when it comes to fandom and such, there's not actually much importance to criticizing the media in terms of making a change. I think social change will happen, and that will pull the media after it. Overall I think that people overemphasize the legal aspects of social justice, without letting some elements remain social, and change naturally as part of social shift. Yes it's slower, but I think some stuff has to just *happen*. Not everything can be solved in court.

(sorry tl;dr)

I agree with that, with a caveat. Criticizing general trends can be good for bigger media like TV and comics, but when it comes to criticizing trends in fanfiction the spaces in which the criticism occurs is often so small that it might as well be individual works being called onto the carpet.

Like if we talked about how ~problematic~ Snape/Neville is and analysed how writing it is perpetuating pedophilia and abuse there's going to be a very small pool of people that everyone knows we're talking about and the criticism will probably occur in a space they'll see it without seeking it out.

I also think that when it comes to fandom and such, there's not actually much importance to criticizing the media in terms of making a change. I think social change will happen, and that will pull the media after it. Overall I think that people overemphasize the legal aspects of social justice, without letting some elements remain social, and change naturally as part of social shift.

This times a million. Pushing media to change might might help speed social changes up a little, but for the most part problems in media are symptomatic of a greater disease, they're not an illness in themselves. Art is a reflection of the place, people, and circumstances it was created in.

Edited 2016-07-03 00:31 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with your caveat. Criticizing fanfiction is often so small. I think, though, in that sense there's a place to have personal conversations about some selected topics. Like, that shit with the cosplayers doing the Sieg Heil. It's not "important" to criticize them for doing that, but I think that fans who find it disgusting are allowed to mention it. (I know that you can then say "okay, but that only works for things YOU PERSONALLY find reprehensible", which is true; and I think some of it has to do with the fandom environment and the way things interact. I think there should be a balance between making the fandom fun and friendly for all its members, and allowing members to do their thing and people who don't like it to ignore it. That's part of the way a community is built. There isn't one hard and fast rule, imo).

And re: your final paragraph, it's funny because I'm actually studying literature - so in a sense, I'm doing exactly that, looking at media trends and issues on a more worldwide scale and in a more systematic way.
A perfect example of media being symptomatic imo is the whole Ghostbusters fiasco. That level of vitriol is absolutely symptomatic of social issues. I will not for a minute believe otherwise.

Edited 2016-07-03 00:42 (UTC)

Criticizing general trends can be good for bigger media like TV and comics, but when it comes to criticizing trends in fanfiction the spaces in which the criticism occurs is often so small that it might as well be individual works being called onto the carpet.

I think you are misreading OP here.

OP said that "certain fandoms, genres, and works have serious issues with race/gender/representation, and conversations about how to fix this are necessary."

To me, that's talking about works of media, genres of media, and fan communities that respond to media. In general, I don't read the main thrust of OP's statement as being that it's important to criticize fanfiction. When I read that it seems to me that OP is talking about the way that we talk about and respond to media, not primarily the way that we talk about and respond to fanfiction.

Using Moffat-era Who as the attached image reinforces that idea. When people talk about Moffat-era Who being problematic, they're not saying that people are writing bad fanfiction. It's a wide-ranging debate about the actual televised show Doctor Who as produced by Stephen Moffat, which a lot of people think is deeply problematic and refuse to watch, and which there are massive flaming debates about. So I read OP as referring to that kind of conversation.

Are you reading this whole thing as though OP is just talking about people who yell at fic writers?

What is this system?

Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness! Ashcans and unobtainable dollars! Children screaming under the stairways! Boys sobbing in armies! Old men weeping in the parks! Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch! Moloch the loveless! Mental Moloch! Moloch the heavy judger of men! Moloch the incomprehensible prison! Moloch the crossbone soulless jailhouse and Congress of sorrows! Moloch whose buildings are judgment! Moloch the vast stone of war! Moloch the stunned governments!

It's logical for people to be afraid of being denounced, harassed, or bullied like John Green was, or sodomquake, or plebcomics, or any of the other creators that were.

Sure, and that's understandable, and I sympathize with them.

But that's not an argument that trying to be critical about systemic bias in media is unimportant. If you want to argue that we as a society are unable to have that conversation in a reasonable way, that's one thing, but what you're trying to argue is that it's not an important consideration at all. And to me, this point doesn't have any connection to that one.

Who do you think is going to criticize media? Fandom.

That's kind of the point that I'm making. Fandom is frequently crazy; considering it some kind of special case when they're crazy about social justice doesn't make sense to me.

I think it's an important conversation and I think we're capable of having it in a reasonable way and that it's worth doing when we can do it. That's, basically, what I'm arguing for here.

Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness! Ashcans and unobtainable dollars! Children screaming under the stairways! Boys sobbing in armies! Old men weeping in the parks! Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch! Moloch the loveless! Mental Moloch! Moloch the heavy judger of men! Moloch the incomprehensible prison! Moloch the crossbone soulless jailhouse and Congress of sorrows! Moloch whose buildings are judgment! Moloch the vast stone of war! Moloch the stunned governments!

So basically there is no system you're referring to. You just made up a complete lie and have no response when called on it.

But that's not an argument that trying to be critical about systemic bias in media is unimportant

It's not an argument for that--it's a fact. People are often influenced by fear, and you seem to think that dismisses their reactions and actions entirely. It doesn't. They're still a factor. Human emotions and reactions to actions are a factor, whether they're logical or not.

And to me, this point doesn't have any connection to that one.

Then don't go off on unrelated tangents and I won't have to follow up on them.

That's kind of the point that I'm making. Fandom is frequently crazy; considering it some kind of special case when they're crazy about social justice doesn't make sense to me.

And no one said it was a special case if they're that way about SJ: just that they're the ones that's going to be doing the critiquing, for the most part, so if according to you it's nothing special when they go crazy and harass, bully, and denounce the creators of criticized works, well...I'm not sure why you brought *that* up, given that it weakens the idea that we should consider "criticizing" creators as an important action.

I think it's an important conversation and I think we're capable of having it in a reasonable way and that it's worth doing when we can do it. That's, basically, what I'm arguing for here.

Sure, you're arguing it, but with no evidence provided to back up any of your claims.

For the record, this is a really frustrating post to write because of the sheer number of lines of argument that I have to reconstruct in the face of your unwillingness or inability to follow through a line of argument, or use an agreed-upon set of words and symbols to stand in for mutually understood meanings, IE language. It's a bit of a hassle.

So basically there is no system you're referring to. You just made up a complete lie and have no response when called on it.

What I was doing was replying in an indirect way meant to be amusing because I thought you would understand my allusion. I apologize if I was incorrect in thinking that. The system that I'm referring to is the Hollywood system for producing television shows and wide-release movies, but it extends to the general systemic features of our society as a whole, which is why I was quoting the Moloch section of Alan Ginsburg's poem 'Howl', which I read as being about the way that our society produces waste and alienation and misery on a large scale even though that's not necessarily the intended outcome of any specific individual.

In other words, the point that I'm making is that although people within the Hollywood system aren't necessarily malicious, the Hollywood system as a whole consistently produces bad plotlines that reinforce harmful ideas from society. It factually does produce those plotlines - look, for instance, at the way that Hollywood shows have treated WLW characters, consistently, across creators and across studios and across series. But it's also something that exists in every aspect of society.

Then don't go off on unrelated tangents and I won't have to follow up on them.

That's not exactly what I meant. The point I was making is that people overreacting and harassing John Green - or whoever - is not in itself an argument that concerns about social justice are invalid or unimportant. The importance of social justice concerns, and the legitimacy of peoples' responses, are distinct considerations that could have distinct answers. That's the point that I was trying to make.

The other point I was making is that the reaction you're talking about is an unfortunate and unintended consequence of the social justice movement. It is not the intent or the aim of the social justice movement. It's not something that the social justice movement teaches. It's something external to the social justice movement. It's maybe a reason that the social justice movement is counterproductive - which is a separate argument from the argument you were making that social justice criticism is unimportant - but it's not an intellectual weakpoint of people who care about social justice.

And no one said it was a special case if they're that way about SJ: just that they're the ones that's going to be doing the critiquing, for the most part, so if according to you it's nothing special when they go crazy and harass, bully, and denounce the creators of criticized works, well...I'm not sure why you brought *that* up, given that it weakens the idea that we should consider "criticizing" creators as an important action.

That's not what I meant or what I said. What I said is that fandom conversations on the Internet in general have a tendency to go unfortunately pear-shaped and get shitty and dsyfunctional regardless of subject matter. None of these behaviors are remotely unique to social justice conversations. There is a high probability that nerds being critical of anything are going to end up taking it too far. This is bad, and they should knock it the hell off and stop being douchebags, but it's not particularly a problem with nerds who care about social justice. Neither its causes nor its solutions are particular to social justice arguments. It's not a unique problem, it's a common one. In other words: in the natural course of things, when nerds talk about anything, we should expect the resulting conversation to be somewhat shitty.

I would also point out, again, that how good we are at talking about problematic issues is a different line of argument from how important it is to talk about problematic issues. If you wanted to argue that we as a society are incapable of talking about problematic issues, I still wouldn't agree, but all of these things would be very relevant to that conversation. But they aren't relevant to the question of whether social justice issues are IMPORTANT.

Sure, you're arguing it, but with no evidence provided to back up any of your claims.

I don't know what you consider evidence or argumentation then.

I don't really expect you to have a reasonable response to this - it would certainly be out of character - but, you know, it is what it is.

For the record, this is a really frustrating post to write because of the sheer number of lines of argument that I have to reconstruct in the face of your unwillingness or inability to follow through a line of argument, or use an agreed-upon set of words and symbols to stand in for mutually understood meanings, IE language. It's a bit of a hassle.

I'm not the one using poetry to answer, bro.

Hollywood system

You mentioned fandom as one of those areas where it's "important to recognize serious issues with representation". If your criticism only applies to Hollywood, then you should have said that and not brought fandom into it, because while you could say similar pressures exist in the publishing world or other media production outlets, fandom is definitely not subject to the same pressures and controls.

You even make the claim that "it's also something that exists in every aspect of society." when it doesn't. WLW might be done VERY badly by Hollywood, but that's not a claim you can make about all forms of media, especially when you've made a point of including fandom in that, which treats its WLW in fic pretty damn good in my experience.

but it's not an intellectual weakpoint of people who care about social justice.

What does that even mean? "we don't intend for our actions to have these consequences, so those consequences are irrelevant and we don't have to consider them".

Wow, I can tell you really care about people and helping them. /s

I would also point out, again, that how good we are at talking about problematic issues is a different line of argument from how important it is to talk about problematic issues.

Not true in the slightest. The impact of our actions helps determine how important something is. If an activist action has little to no effect for a cause, then it is typically not an action much importance is placed on.

I don't know what you consider evidence or argumentation then.

Actual evidence or a logical point supporting your claims, not "It just does not do that." and then a flipflop to admit that yeah, it kinda does do that. You have to backpeddle on what yoú've said so frequently because you're not articulating any real reasons.

You haven't made a single strong argument point supporting the idea that it's important to criticize works on representation. Ketita has done a better job of selling parts of your stance and I don't even think she agrees with you.

For that matter, I haven't seen you post any rebuttals to her denial of the importance of dragging individual media works. If you don't think you can expect me to have a "have a reasonable response" why don't you try convincing her? She seems eminently reasonable. Or is it just that you have no real arguments in favor your position, and are just responding to me out of defensiveness/unable to admit the weakness of your position?

Edited 2016-07-03 04:05 (UTC)

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-07-03 04:42 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

feotakahari - 2016-07-03 05:37 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

blitzwing - 2016-07-03 05:48 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

feotakahari - 2016-07-03 07:35 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

blitzwing - 2016-07-03 08:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

feotakahari - 2016-07-03 10:05 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

blitzwing - 2016-07-03 19:48 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-07-03 09:33 (UTC) - Expand

"I don't think criticizing "problematic" works is an important step to getting better representation in media. I think positively supporting media that meets our desires is far more important."

That seems like a bit of an artificial division. If you're pointing to Jade in Beyond Good and Evil and saying "I want this," it's natural to point at, I dunno, the women in Duke Nukem Forever and say "I don't want this." It doesn't have to be a screaming rant, any more than it has to be a rant when you point at the ending of The Sixth Sense and the ending of The Village and say "ending twists should be like this, not like that."

Ehh I think the issue with those examples is that they don't really sound like what the OP is talking about in the secret.

Like, "it's important to recognize bad works and have conversations about them" is implying a deeper level of criticism and study than "Hey creator, please write X like this and not Y".

The latter is just a guideline to a consumer's preference, not a critique/criticism.

"Hey creator, please write X like this and not Y".

What in the OP's post says or implies this, please

That's a paraphrase of

feotakahari's statement, not OP's.

This is surprisingly draining. I'm used to having to explain my ideas to people who aren't familiar with them, but it seems like I'm having to outline every assumption even if it's one you agree with, and it's hard to converse when you're building up a shared language from the foundational level.

In this case, yeah, I agree that it should be more detailed. I was just trying to come up with something quickly off the top of my head.

I'm sorry talking to me is draining. I try to normalize my way of thinking/reasoning when conversing but it's harder to do when tired or sick or with low blood sugar. Don't feel the need to respond to me out of politeness or anything.

In this case, yeah, I agree that it should be more detailed. I was just trying to come up with something quickly off the top of my head.

The thing is I don't agree it should be more detailed. People have brains, and if they're really interested in writing a good character, they can asses for themselves what the differences are in Jade versus the female characters in Duke Nukem.

If that writer can't make that assessment for themselves, they're unlikely to be able to extrapolate someone else's findings from the Duke Nukem analysis to their own work.

That's why it results in the bland diverse characters like I mentioned upthread: many creators aren't taking away from SJ critiques any kind of ability/initiative to think critically about creating diverse characters: they're taking "don't do this." away from it. "Don't do X and don't do Y and don't do Z. Don't write a gay guy that likes shoes or a bi character who cheats or an NB person who uses it pronouns or an asexual robot."

Only x a million.

I'm not sure what to do with the hypothetical dumb writer in this context. If they don't understand complicated analyses, and they take the wrong message from simple analyses, how can they be taught to write better? (I'm speaking in a general sense, not just in terms of representation or whatnot.) Do they learn from seeing good examples, like you mentioned elsewhere? Or is it better to ignore them and focus on smarter writers?

As for smarter writers, I'd like to think I'm not too dumb, and I've learned a lot from detailed analyses.

They're not even taking the wrong message.

If you're a "smart" writer, you'd read "It was problematic of X to make Y character cheat, because of the stereotype that bisexuals are cheaters..." and think something like "Oh, that makes sense. I need to really think about whether the narrative benefits from Estella cheating, or if the potential harm outweighs that."

And the hypothetical "dumb" writer will think "Oh, I need to change Estella to straight, because it's problematic to write bi characters as cheaters."

But if you're the "smart" writer, then you're going to be the next one reading about yourself, "It was problematic of feotakahari to write Estella as a cheater because it perpetuates biphobic stereotypes..."

The message was, if you write this, you're gonna get dragged. So who's really the smart writer, and who's really the dumb one? Which one missed the message?

Most critical social justice analysis of media are written by dumb people who aren't aiming to get you writing good diverse characters, they're aiming to make you stop writing problematic stuff.

And those things are actually contradictory. If you stop writing problematic stuff, it's pretty much guaranteed that you will not be writing good diverse characters.

"Most critical social justice analysis of media are written by dumb people who aren't aiming to get you writing good diverse characters, they're aiming to make you stop writing problematic stuff."

Maybe that's part of the disagreement here. Those aren't the analysts I'm reading or talking about.

(Were you the one who said I only criticize Gamergate because it's an "outgroup" to me, and I wouldn't think all Gamergaters are like the bad ones if I was part of the group myself?)

(no subject)

blitzwing - 2016-07-03 00:13 (UTC) - Expand

Criticism should be more "this is interesting, lets take a closer look at what it says and how it's put together" and less "this is bad, and you're a bad person for watching it."