[ SECRET POST #4097 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4097 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Steven Universe]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06. [WARNING for possible discussion of non-con and gore/body mutilation]

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #586.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

I think you're going to have to accept that a very large majority of people use the word fandom differently than you. Not out of rudeness against your character or judgement, just that a ton of people think that 'fan' is a synonym for "casually engaged person who might enjoy a story on their own time". What's another word for a person who doesn't ascribe to the social convention of fandom, but just plain enjoys a show on it's own merits? When a movie reviewer or game reviewer does their perfunctory job that they are paid for and says that a movie/game is enjoyable, are they automatically enlisted into some sort of shadowy cabal of fandom against their own wishes?

Talking about a story positively in real life with your mates doesn't necessarily mean fandom. https://fanlore.org/wiki/Fandom states that the term was used "to refer to the organized society/culture they were forming" all the way back in the 1920s, as opposed to passively watching a story that people were doing beforehand. Fandom is inherently a get-together, not a solitary pursuit.

Re: OP

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Many reviewers are a part of larger genre or media fandoms. They not only see the movies and read the books, they also follow and participate in discussions of how those works are produced and who's doing what.

Obviously you're aware of what the discourse is about the show to express your opinion on it multiple times here, how is that not fandom?

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Roger Ebert: Biggest Twilight fan there is, just because he watched the movie and reviewed it. Journalists: biggest fans of the Alt-Right fandom. Allied soldiers during the WWII: big fan of nazis, wouldn't stop discussing them. Because apparently knowing that something exists = fandom to you. With that broad of a definition, isn't the whole world a part of a fandom?

Your definition of fandom and fan has many scenarios where it doesn't apply. People have been trying to tell you that modern day fandom is a Thing That Exists (a subculture), and has conventions and corners of the internet to discuss stuff, but apparently those are non-distinct social phenomena to you, contrary to what sociologists and researchers have determined.

Your definition doesn't always apply, and that's okay. Years after I make this post, people will continue using the definition of the word that you don't agree with to describe the unique social phenomena that apparently you don't recognize. The word definition has changed already in online discussion, and whether that's going to be acceptable to you actually doesn't matter.

Re: OP

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Roger Ebert: Biggest Twilight fan there is, just because he watched the movie and reviewed it.

There is a cinema fandom, and Ebert had a particular soft spot for classic B movies.

Journalists: biggest fans of the Alt-Right fandom.

There is also a journalism fandom, with its own channels of conversation about who is producing what in that area.

Because apparently knowing that something exists = fandom to you.

A fandom is the set of fans who routinely follow a body of artistic or athletic work. Knowing that something exists doesn't make you a fan, but religiously watching every episode does.

People have been trying to tell you that modern day fandom is a Thing That Exists (a subculture), and has conventions and corners of the internet to discuss stuff, but apparently those are non-distinct social phenomena to you, contrary to what sociologists and researchers have determined.

It's not that those groups are not distinct, it's that they're too distinct. People on twitter, tumblr, facebook, and AO3 don't necessarily talk to each other. They don't even talk to people who have different interests in the franchise. Focus on this or that social network to the exclusion of all others and you miss out on a lot. Like little old ladies who obsessively collect Disney kitsch and make annual pilgrimages to Orlando. Or intergenerational Star Wars families. Or fandom discussions that happen in off-topic channels in workplace Slack.

Those are also Things That Exist, and they're part of Fandom even if they don't show up on your narrow news feeds.