fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3824 ]

[ SECRET POST #3824 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3824 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[BoJack Horseman]

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

[Horizon Zero Dawn]

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09. [WARNING for possible discussion of harassment/sexual assault?]

__________________________________________________

10. [WARNING for discussion of rape]

(Bill Cosby and Keshia Knight Pulliam)

__________________________________________________

11. [WARNING for discussion of harassment/cyberbulling, abortion, child sexual abuse]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #547.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Person who wrote the shit on the left can kindly go fuck themselves.

Black Panther is my guy. He can be your guy to, that's cool, but he's still my guy. He'snot my guy because of his skin colour or heritage, he's my guy because of the content of his character.

You want me to like him less than I like spider-man because he's different race? Go fuck yourself. You want me to have less of a connection to the guy because he's not the same race as me? GO FUCK YOURSELF. That ain't the way this shit works.

When my girlfriend was a kid her uncle walked in on her watching Fresh Prince, and he asked her why she's not watching shows about "her own people". This garbage up there is the same fucking thing. Ugh.

That's really not what the bit on the left is saying though

It's talking about how fandom is expressed not about whether you're allowed to be a fan

It literally says "Black Panther is a movie for black people".

Like... It clearly in the context of the letter does not mean exclusively for black people when it says that. The very next lines, in fact, explain what it means: that of course it's going to have fans of all races, but that it also is a black movie about black characters and black experiences and none of that can be removed from fandom. Don't cherry pick quotes.

The person on the left is throwing a whole lot of generalisations and assumptions around though. And the movie is not about "black experiences" - it's not some socially conscious commentary on realistic black experiences in the least. That's like saying Captain America is about white experiences. It's not. It's superpowers and superhumans, unrealistic popcorn flick material.

That's also true. I doubt anyone in the world shares any experiences with the people of Wakanda.

I always wanted to live there because it's so sci-fi and safe and advanced totally unlike anything in our world. Secure from, but still part of the greater universe I love. And this letter seems to be Implying i wouldn't be allowed to live there because of my skin being wrong - Actually isn't just implying it at all. it's literally saying it: "Your white favs do not belong in Wakanda. They do not belong there ins meta, in head canons, in fics" - BTW, when youre talling fan fic writers what they are not allowed to do, you are going against fanfic, and against all the wonderful things of fandom, you need to stop that - " the only reason Buckwheat Barnes gets to be there is because he's currently being used as a decorative ice sculpture for state dinners" which btw, THATS how you read T'Challa's actions towards Bucky at the end of the film? That was your take away of what kind of man T'Challa is? He didn't want to help Bucky, he didn't want right any wrongs, or make amends, or protect an innocent, he wanted to take a white guy as a trophy? That was your FUCKING READING OF THAT?!?! And you dare, YOU FUCKINGDARE to claim a greater level of understanding with the man because you have the same skin colour?!?! You think he's your guy when you understand him so FUCKING LITTLE?!?!

Edited 2017-06-24 10:00 (UTC)

Well... technically you probably wouldn't be allowed in Wakanda considering they don't really let anyone in.

Well, yes, this is true, but if you're heroic enough, or friends with someone high up... I mean there are ways, aren't there?

Shit, next you're telling me I'll never be a vampire.

Edited 2017-06-24 11:05 (UTC)

+10000000000000000000000000

T'Challa grows as a character and comes into a bit of wisdom after confronting Zemo. He realizes he doesn't want to be revenge-obsessed the way he was. He tells Captain America he considers Bucky just as much a victim as T'Chaka. Anyone who takes away "obvious trophy" from that needs to stop watching movies with their heads up their butts.

I know! T'Challas story in that film, in spite of it being a captain america film, T'Challas story was just about the only story arch where any character had any growth or development. I mean, I loved all the fighting and conflict, but none of it actually lead anywhere. Cap was still the same cap from the start of the film, Iron man Ditto, Bucky got some advancement to his story, but didn't really change or grow any. T'Challa was done so fucking wonderfully. I'll be honest, I was really really sceptical of how Marvel would take T'Challa to the big screen. I had visions of them fucking up royally. This movie alone has made me so hyped for the Black Panther film. They got the best guy cast, and they've shown they can do him well.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-06-24 18:46 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

thewakokid - 2017-06-24 20:32 (UTC) - Expand

yeah that's the bit that boggled my mind so much, like it really makes me wonder if this person even saw the movie? because that's not why t'challa takes bucky and steve+crew in, he does it because he realizes that bucky was a victim and that steve's lot are going to be imprisoned, so he offers them safe refuge BECAUSE HE'S A GOOD PERSON.

but sure, headcanon him as a dick i guess.

Responding to one of the other people down thread, and I actuall think this might all turn out to be bullshit that I have been specatularly taken in by.

It's too moronic. I don't think it's legit. I think somone is trying to make black black panther fans look crazy and irratonal.

I'm deeply ashamed that it took me as long as it did to reach this conclusion. Fucking poes law, man, what a fucker.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-06-24 21:32 (UTC) - Expand

Wow. You and the Anon above you are SUPER DUPER obtuse. Good job.

Thanks! That's praise from Caesar right there!

Don't cherry pick quotes?
I'd accuse you of doing the same thing, but your not even cherrypicking quotes. You're taking the word that are written and re-writing them to fit into your defense of the letter.

"Black Panther is a movie for black people" is a literal quote. They didn't say "[Black Panther] is a black movie about black characters and black experiences and none of that can be removed from fandom. They literally said "Black Panther is a movie for black people" They did then follow it up with mitigations that they will share it, but then claimed a greater level of ownership: "It's ours" a claiming statement "While you get to share it, you don't get to claim it".

We, as comic fans, as people who have loved the character for a long time, and have been pumped for this movie since Civil War showed that they could do it well, We have the exact same right of "Ownership" as you do - Which is actually no fucking right of ownership at all since it's actually marvels, but that hasn't stopped us from declaring Spider from being My Guy^tm.

Simple test, almost cliche by this point. swap the words. Replace white for black, Black Panther for Captain America, tell me if that shit reads ok. You know it doesn't. I agree context is a thing, but in this? no, black fans are no different to white fans, black heroes are no less fucking awesome that white heroe's and no-one get's to dictate my emotional connection to, or how I express that emotion connection to any god damn character. Is it's ok for Spiderman to be My Guy, if it's ok for x23 to be My Girl, by Bae, my waifu then... shit you already know this.

I think I mostly responded to this stuff in my other reply below so this is just a couple quick hits

then claimed a greater level of ownership: "It's ours" a claiming statement "While you get to share it, you don't get to claim it".

I don't think that's exclusive. If anything, it's saying that it's not exclusive. White people don't get to claim it as being about and for white people, as being exclusively theirs. That's what it's saying. You might disagree with the underlying thesis about the relationship between white people and black culture, but even if so, that's the context in which this particular person is writing and that's what they mean.

Simple test, almost cliche by this point. swap the words. Replace white for black, Black Panther for Captain America, tell me if that shit reads ok. You know it doesn't. I agree context is a thing, but in this? no, black fans are no different to white fans, black heroes are no less fucking awesome that white heroe's and no-one get's to dictate my emotional connection to, or how I express that emotion connection to any god damn character. Is it's ok for Spiderman to be My Guy, if it's ok for x23 to be My Girl, by Bae, my waifu then... shit you already know this.

I don't think anyone is saying that you can't like Black Panther. They're saying that he is a black character founded in black experiences and you can't erase that from his character, in the same way that you can't erase Captain America's American-ness from his character. That obviously doesn't mean that a British person can't like Captain America, but if you tried to write a Captain America story that was actually all about being British, it would be kind of weird.

Of course, that's not really a precise analogy, because of context: the African-American experience is not the same as the relationship between Americans and the British. And that's also the reason that the Captain America analogy doesn't really work here. Captain America is white and no one really in comicsland is trying to deny that. The only people who would go out there and argue that he's ONLY for whites would be white supremacists. Who suck, and whose politics fundamentally conflict with the basic idea of Captain America as a character, and who also would be making a totally different argument, because no one is making an actual black supremacist argument about Black Panther or saying that he's exclusively for black people.

(Please do not bring up Isaiah Bradley or Patriot in an attempt to say that people are trying to say that Captain America is actually black, by the way, that would be a really fuckin dumb argument)

How do you mean exclusive? Like my reading of it is not "you can't enjoy it", I don't think I ever said that, but if I did, that's not actually mt reading of it, it's more "It's ours not yours, much more ours than yours so enjoy it in the way we say... by not using the type of language that you use for all your white heroes". Like "This ball is mine, you can play with it with me, but never forget it's mine, so don't kick it as hard as I do".

White people don't get to claim it as being about and for white people, as being exclusively theirs. That's what it's saying.

That could be what it's trying to say, but I'll be honest, having read it a few times to fact check for these responses, I really do think that's being fed more by what you'd like it to be saying. You could be right, but that just reads as so far away from what is actually written that I just don't see it.

I don't think anyone is saying that you can't like Black Panther.

Agreed

They're saying that he is a black character founded in black experiences and you can't erase that from his character

Disagreed. Sorry, see above that could be what they're trying to say, but there's just not enough clues in there for me to make that leap or to believe that that leap is what they were going for. If that is what they're trying to say, I would agree, I think we're on the same page. If you wrote this post I think I'd agree with you, but as it's written I still stnad by my interpretation of what they were driving at and I disagree with that.

You're captain america analogy makes sense to me, but that's just not what Iim seeing in the origional post. Like they use the words "Your white favs do not belong in Wakanda... in meta...in headcanons... in fics. Like to me, following your cap / british analogy, that would be "Cap can not have british people in his story, because he's american.

Who the hell is trying to say Captain America is black because of Isaiah - which was a damned interesting story, but in no way does that mean that Steve Rogers is black - and Eli even further removed from Cap! I don't want to show that I am surprised by fandom, but really? This is a thing people are pushing?

I think this is mostly at the point of agree-to-disagree, so I want to respond to one thing here and then I have some thoughts on Watchmen in the other post and then I'm probably going to leave it be

You're captain america analogy makes sense to me, but that's just not what Iim seeing in the origional post. Like they use the words "Your white favs do not belong in Wakanda... in meta...in headcanons... in fics. Like to me, following your cap / british analogy, that would be "Cap can not have british people in his story, because he's american.

I read that bit as a clumsily-phrased extension of the point being made about making black pain into plot points for white favs - basically, as both being part and parcel of the same argument about white favs. So how I interpret that is saying, not that the twain shall never meet, but that you shouldn't use Wakanda as nothing more than a backdrop for stories about white favs. Which I don't think is unreasonable, but maybe you don't agree with the interpretation, and fair enough. But that's where I'm coming from with that.

(no subject)

thewakokid - 2017-06-24 21:24 (UTC) - Expand

Oh, I disagee.

They use the words: "These characters are not yours" and then later "You have literally the rest of the entire fucking MCU"

They are literally claiming that Black Panther is theirs and... I don't know exactly, the non-black monolith that is the rest of the world is Ours?

Like that's not the way it works. It's all "Ours" because "Ours" is for "Us" and us is supposed to include everyone who loves this stuff regardless of skin, heritage, age, anything. People are people everywhere and heroes are heroes everywhere. Hero worship is universal, and when it starts not being universal, when its expected that you worship your heroes, or express your heroe worship differently based on race, which is explicitly what is being said here - what ever else you want to argue about context, this is undeniably the thing were supposed to take away that "Black heroes are just different, and your race or skin colour dictates how you engage with them" - when you do that you sound just like mu loves old uncle Eddie to my ears.

I mean if I try I can sort of twist bits of it to be able to argue that what they're really saying is... something NOT about how blacks belong to blacks and whites belong to whites, but in the context of the rest of the letter any devils advocate argument I come up with seems disingenuous.

Like. This is just not a good interpretation because you are ignoring all of the words in between that provide context for what they mean. The original post is poorly phrased and written in places, I acknowledge that, but the context is clearly not saying that black heroes are solely for black people when you look at more than pick out individual sentences.

"The language of anti-black racism is often couched in terms of infantalization and ownership. I don't give a shit if you're just putting it in tags, be careful how you interact textually and mentally with black characters." "It's ours, and while you get to share it, you don't get to fucking claim it." "You turn black pain into plot points for your white favs. Basically you have a long history of treating black characters like shit, and I'm here to tell you to cut that shit out." That's the context of the rest of the thing that allows us to interpret the poorly-written chunks and understand what the person was trying to say.

It's fucking insane that you can look at a post that explicitly says that Black Panther is shared between white and black people and say that it's segregationist. It is explicitly talking about how you should feel free to like this thing but don't erase its blackness or decenter its blackness. And I don't think it's a devil's advocate argument when I'm fuckin quoting way more of the text than the two sentences that you're focusing on.

Hero worship is universal, and when it starts not being universal, when its expected that you worship your heroes, or express your heroe worship differently based on race, which is explicitly what is being said here

I think this is mostly an incorrect interpretation, but I think there is one thing in here that you've interpreted correctly. I do think that the letter is saying that you should express your hero worship differently based on the race of the hero. But I don't think that's wrong. Because of course hero worship and fandom depends on the actual specific qualities of the hero in question which differ from hero to hero, and if you're appreciating a hero for qualities said hero does not have, you're doing it wrong. Like... in the same way that, if you were a Batman fan, but the things that you liked about Batman were actually the qualities that Superman has and not the qualities that Batman has, I think you would be doing fandom wrong in that case. And that's the sense in which I'm inclined to read that particular sentiment, and I think it's justified. Black Panther's race is part of his character in broadly the same way that coming from Krypton is part of Superman's character or being an orphaned billionaire is part of Batman's character.

Or - and maybe this is a more controversial argument - but look at Watchmen and people who view Rorschach as the hero of Watchmen. I would argue that those people are, in fact, wrong in the way that they hero-worship Rorschach. And that's broadly the kind of point that's being made here.

I'm really not ignoring anything.
I agree with the part, for example, that owership language has been used for black people, and if we were talking about anything other than fandom as it exists today, it would be a valid context for the rest of the comment. Problem is, that that language is a part of fandom today. This could be racially charged language, racially charged expressions of fandom, but as this has been the norm for every white penis in fandom since... Some time mid SPN, the idea that people acting this way are doing it because of racism and they need to stop it is utter bullshit.

Outside of that, no, the post seems to be claiming a greater level of ownership of a franchise than other fans based on race - See my comment where I point out the language used - Which is also utter bullshit.

Like breakdown of the post:

1st paragraph: Praises all the things the movie does right - I agree

2nd paragraph: Criticises the types of infanalizing and ownership language people use. Gives examples. Declares that the characters are not theirs - I fel she's taking it too literally. Of course they are not mine, they're not hers either, they're marvels. This is just how fen talk these days.

3rd paragraph: Explains where this language has been used against PoC's - I agree, but I think it's disingenuous to conflate the type of language she is describing with type of language people in fandom havve been using for years on characters of all races. Liek the word Fag is the same if I use it or an american uses it, but historically, when use it it's about cigarettes, not homosexuals. Just like if a white character uses ownership language to T'Challa, it's harmful to him, where as if a fen does it, it has a different context, so all in all, I understand, but I disagree.

4th paragraph: outlines that while black people will share Black Panther with non-blacks - How very kind of them - this movie is still "For black people" its their thing they will share, but non-blacks must remember it is definitely not theirs. - I disagree. It is as much a movie for non-black people as it is for black people. Its as much a movie for comic fans as it is for movie fans - I kinda feel like it's more a movie for comic fans, personally, but that's just my comic snobbery coming through, I know it's not true.

5th Paragraph: Things get VERY weird because while I understand the words, I can think for no mammys or servants. Sidekicks, sure, Sam Wilson is as much Caps side kick as bucky was, but even then I direct you to Luke Cage. I direct you to T'Challa in Civil war. He was no-ones side kick. - I agree that would all be bad. I agree I want a Misty Knight movie. Something dark and Detectivey. I do not agree that black characters are Mammys or Servants. Not in canon or in fandom. Like, that seems like a leap to me, but even if it were true, I do not feel like this would be justification to object to black heroes being treat exactly the same way, using the same language, as white super heroes.

6th Paraghraph: Goes into depth about how whites are not to be head canoned or fan ficed into Wakanda, followed by some truely aweful chracterisation of T'Challa's moviation in allwoing a white characters into Wakanda. Just stunningly bad. Bad enough that now that I type this I wonder is this not a parody? Is this actually some anti-sjw doing a false flag post trying to make black marvel fans look like assholes? I mean, shit, is this exactly what this is and I've been taken in? Holy shit, I think it is. What the hell is wrong with me?

Anyway...

To be honest, and I don't actually want to be a dick here, buy I think you may be the one missing out parts of the post rather than me. Like, yes they do explicitly say that he can be shared by all fans, but they preceded that statment by declairing ownership of him, and followed it by saying that non-blacks don't have the same rights to claim ownership. Like you did correctly call that part between those two statments, but you do seem to have missed the bits on either side.

"It is explicitly talking about how you should feel free to like this thing but don't erase its blackness or decenter its blackness"

One of use is misunderstanding the meaning of the word "Explicitly". Because not anywhere in that post does she talk about erasing or decenter blackness literally nowhere. And you are literally not quoting more of the text. You have quoted none of it. You have paraphrased it through what you seem to be wanting it to be saying, but honestly, I think your filter might be wonky on this. I won't say you're wrong in your interpertation of what they were trying to say, but you are going kinda far away from the words they used, and making some logical leaps to get from what you seem to think the post is saying to the actual post.

As for the "I think this is mostly an incorrect interpretation..." paragraph, I sort of agree, but again I don't think it's a valid comparrison. Like yes, you should like the heroes for who they are, but the thing about fandom is that almost not any of the people who are declared "Smol" or "baby" are actually small or babyish. Like, people who love Junkrat and call him their smol baby are not actually describing junkrat, but it's just the weird woobifying thing fandom does. It's not always mu jam, and its not really realated to the heroes they do it to, but fuck it, who am I to judge? I would never describe x23 as a a little baby girl, for example, but I would say that she is my waifu.

So yes, appreciate the characters as they are is definitly my preference, but if you're going to woobify a character, their RACE should not ever be the thing that defines wheather you do or dont.

Now this argument promises to be much more fun: I think Rorschach might be the closest thing to a hero in watchmen. He's the one unbending character. Didn't do the heroe thing to get a hard-on, or because his mother told him to do it, or because it gave him a chance to kill people. He's veiw or right and wrong was bent, but he stuck to it in a way that only true heroes and true villains do.

Now this argument promises to be much more fun: I think Rorschach might be the closest thing to a hero in watchmen. He's the one unbending character. Didn't do the heroe thing to get a hard-on, or because his mother told him to do it, or because it gave him a chance to kill people. He's veiw or right and wrong was bent, but he stuck to it in a way that only true heroes and true villains do.

Like.... it may be true that he's the "closest" thing to a hero, in some extremely tortured sense. I don't think that there's anyone I would argue is more of a hero. And it's certainly true that there's some dignity in sticking to a clear set of ethics.

But I think he's still so far away from being a hero that it's inaccurate to call him one. And, more broadly, I think part of the point of Watchmen is a sustained critique of the ideas of power and heroism as they exist in superhero comics, from top to bottom, and Rorschach is as much implicated in that as any other character - Dan's lack of moral clarity, Ozymandias' moral monstrousness and ultimate futility, Comedian's complete callous monstrosity, Doctor Manhattan's detachment from human perspectives, and then you have Rorschach, who is brutal and insane and accomplishes nothing.

Specifically with regards to Rorschach as a character, I think it's important to note, first, that Alan Moore probably would not agree with the idea that consistently sticking to an abstract code of ethics is actually good, and would certainly disagree with the actual code of ethics that Rorschach endorses. Second, I think it's important to point out that Rorschach's code of ethics and his commitment to it are both very closely tied up with the fact that he is, you know, a vicious sociopath with profound emotional issues. Third, I think it's important to note that Rorschach's moral commitment is ultimately as meaningless as Dan's moral acquiescence. So that would be my response to the idea that Rorschach is in any sense the hero of Watchmen.

Please note that I haven't read the book in a couple years, so some of the details might be slightly off, but I think I would stand by all of the broad strokes there.

Well, the way I see it the whole thing is supposed to be a twisted funhouse mirror of the super hero genre, and as such, identifying the hero who has been twisted to resemble a villian, and identifying the villian who has been twisted to appear heroic is the hardest part. Looking a their motivations and actions, we either have Rorschach or Adrien as the hero / Villain. For me, I'm trying to see, once the funhouse mirror is taken away which one would be the hero, and I come out with Rorschach, who, btw, didn't start out as a psychopath. He started out damaged, but became fully broken. If he was working in DC main universe he would never have fallen as far as he did. but going through Moores lense on the superhero genre, along with all the child rape and murder that goes with that turned him into the lunatic he became.

I suppose in any other universe rorschach as he's written would be a clear anti-hero, and by the measure of our world he's not very much of a hero at all, but in the context of his own universe he is a hero.

Like batman, if he existed in out world, would be a villian by any stretch, but the nature of the world he is in makes him a heroe.

I agree about his commitment being useless, but isn't that what heroes do? The do the right thing, as they see it, even if it won't achieve anything?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-06-24 21:51 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

thewakokid - 2017-06-24 21:59 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-06-24 22:17 (UTC) - Expand

Not remotely what the words on the left are saying or talking about. Maybe read within it's own context instead of the context that gatekeeping secret maker is trying to force it into.

I am reading with in it's own context. the only thing that strikes me as belonging to any greater context is the bit about how "The language of anti-black racism is often couched in terms of infantilization and ownership.

I acknowledge and agree with that, but then the language of fandom as whole is also couched in those terms. I agree if no-one has ever said "Junkrat is my baby boy" and doens't use those terms ever, but suddenly they're refereing to black characters as "theirs" then you might have some evidence to suggest the possibility of racism. But that aint fandom. They been doing this same stuff to white folks forever, the context has never been "This character is my property, my slave". in the context of the setting, it just doesn't mean that. If I'm not claiming literal ownership of spiderman calling him my guy, then there is no reason to assume it is any different for me too do it to T'Challa.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only