[ SECRET POST #5671 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5671 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 46 secrets from Secret Submission Post #812.
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

[(Anonymous)]

Drawing "American media" with a very broad brush, there. You mean "all of Chinese productions are censored by their government" vs "a small number of big budget American productions self-censor". I know which media landscape I'd prefer, and I'm not from either of those countries.

[(Anonymous)]

Lol, no, I don't mean that. I mean, yes, I do mean that "all of Chinese productions are censored by their government."

But American production companies self censor all the time. It goes into how they approach the marketability of their media, and how they don't want to complete with their own projects. If a project is meant for the broader US market, they won't put in more overt content in something like a blockbuster because they don't want to alienate conservatives. For the most part, queer content will appear in projects that have already been delegated to the Queer Market (and these kinds of stories are almost always about coming out or tragedy) and increasingly the YA drama and more progressive/out-there youth markets.

It's the same phenomena that led them to cancel Teen Titans despite its success. It was too popular with girls, so they yanked it because it wasn't created to be a show "for girls." It's why queerbaiting is even a thing in 2022--production companies want the views and $ from those who want representation, but they're not going to actually provide that representation if it risks crossing markets.

NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

And independent queer creators can make whatever they want legally in the US, while women in China have been put in jail for writing gay fiction for free on the internet and others have gone off the grid to prevent the same treatment. But China is still better because big studios self-censoring for money offends you. LOL OK.

I hate capitalism too, but some of y'all are getting downright out of hand.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

You do know I can be critical of two things at the same time, right? Like, I can think censorship in China is a really bad thing, while also thinking US companies self-censoring is a bad thing?

You understand this isn't a "if I think US issue bad then I must think China good" scenario? Or are you just trying to provide the link other anon requested in the thread above?

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

I do take your point but the initial post in this thread very much says that Chinese media is preferable in this regard to American media. That's literally what the post says.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

... which is not at ALL the same thing as saying that China's government's censorship is "not that bad". Not even close. If anything, that's part of the original anon's point - that even with censorship by the government, cdramas are still turning out what the anon consider to be better queer romance than the American media.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

This is the post we're talking about:

https://fandomsecrets.dreamwidth.org/2644142.html?thread=1088285614#cmt1088285614

The view that this post is objecting to is the view that "China is still better because big studios self-censoring for money offends you". The post does not accuse anyone of saying that Chinese government censorship is "not that bad". I agree that no one has said that. The post does accuse someone of saying that Chinese government censorship is less bad than American corporate self-censorship, which is a fair summation of what someone actually did say.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

Anon who wrote the original comment: Upon re-reading, I can see where you might find my phrasing confusing. To clarify: I am stating that I find American companies self-censoring more offensive and cowardly than Chinese companies censoring, because Chinese companies are doing so because they have to.

I did not state, nor did I intend to state, that American companies self-censoring was worse than the Chinese government imposing their censorship. Obviously the Chinese government's censorship is worse, though that does not make American companies self-censoring okay.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

So you think big Chinese studios would produce things chock full of gay text if they could, and the only reason they aren't is because of government censorship. Cute.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, there's people in this comm who think that American studios would produce lots and lots of gay text if not for Chinese government censorship.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

Where in the comment was that stated?

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I take your point and I appreciate you clarifying, thank you.