#fanculture
Text
in my almost 10 years in fandom, it seems to be a constant that people dislike words like bluenette, pinkette etc in fanfic. frankly ive never cared about it either way at all, so im curios as to why its so widespread that people so viscerally dislike it
nothing wrong in disliking it, ive just never understood why
#fanfic#fanfiction#ffn#fanfiction.net#ao3#archive of our own#fandom#fanstuff#fanculture#irl#i suppose i will also tag#wattpad#idk if anyone still even uses#livejournal#lj#oh well
2 notes
·
View notes
Link
The world of boy bands is a competitive one, filled with soaring harmonies, catchy hooks, and legions of devoted fans. But beneath the glitter and synchronized dance moves, there's also a reality of ambition, pressure, and the ever-shifting tides of pop culture. This is perfectly exemplified by the story of Big Time Rush's 2012 "Better With U" tour and their experiences sharing the stage with a then-unknown One Direction. A Dream Tour Turns Unexpected For Big Time Rush, the "Better With U" tour was a significant milestone. It marked their first major North American tour, following the success of their second studio album, "Elevate." The excitement was palpable, not just for the band members – Kendall Schmidt, James Maslow, Logan Henderson, and Carlos PenaVega – but also for their loyal fanbase. Tickets sold out quickly, promising a whirlwind of electrifying performances and a chance to solidify their place in the pop music landscape. Big Time Rush vs. One Direction The Surprise Act: One Direction Steals the Spotlight However, the tour took an unexpected turn with the addition of a relatively unknown opening act: One Direction. Announced in the fall of 2011, this decision seemed logical at the time. Big Time Rush was a well-established Nickelodeon act with a dedicated following, while One Direction was a fresh-faced group yet to make a significant mark in the US market. A Shift in the Pop Landscape But between the tour announcement and its actual launch, the tide began to turn. One Direction, with their undeniable charm and catchy tunes, experienced a meteoric rise in popularity. Their debut single, "What Makes You Beautiful," released in February 2011, became a global sensation, catapulting them into the international spotlight. A Clash of Egos and Missed Opportunities As Carlos PenaVega later revealed on the "Unplanned" podcast, the sudden shift in fan focus was a bitter pill to swallow for Big Time Rush. "After our show, fans were outside the theater chanting for One Direction," he recalled. "That was hard for us." The initial excitement of a sold-out tour morphed into a reality where the opening act became the main attraction. A Regretful Decision and Lessons Learned PenaVega further admitted that Big Time Rush declined an offer from One Direction to return the favor and become their opening act in the UK. "Our egos got in the way," he confessed. "We were like, 'No. Never.'" Looking back, he acknowledges it might have been a missed opportunity. "We were kids," he said. "It's hard to control your ego at that age." The Aftermath: Diverging Paths The "Better With U" tour ultimately served as a turning point for both bands. Big Time Rush continued to enjoy success for several years, even embarking on a reunion tour and releasing new music in 2023. However, One Direction's trajectory reached unimaginable heights. Their global domination continued until their hiatus in 2016, leaving a lasting impact on the music industry. The Clash of Titans: Big Time Rush and One Direction As Big Time Rush embarked on their Better With U tour in 2012, anticipation ran high. However, the addition of One Direction as their opening act added a layer of complexity to the tour dynamics. Despite both bands enjoying immense popularity, the British quintet quickly emerged as a global phenomenon, garnering fervent fan support wherever they went. The Struggle of Sharing the Spotlight Carlos PenaVega's candid admission of the challenges faced by Big Time Rush underscores the struggle of sharing the spotlight with a band as phenomenally popular as One Direction. While the American pop group had already established a dedicated fan base, the overwhelming adoration for One Direction often overshadowed their presence, leading to feelings of frustration and inadequacy. Egos and Opportunities: A Lesson Learned PenaVega's revelation about the band's refusal to reciprocate One Direction's offer to open for them in the U.K. highlights the delicate balance between ego and opportunity in the entertainment industry. In hindsight, he acknowledges that youthful pride may have clouded their judgment, preventing them from seizing a potentially beneficial collaboration. The Evolution of Big Time Rush and One Direction Following the Better With U tour, both Big Time Rush and One Direction continued their respective journeys in the music industry. While One Direction skyrocketed to unprecedented heights of fame before ultimately going on hiatus, Big Time Rush experienced their resurgence years later with a reunion tour and the release of new music.
#BetterWithUTour#BigTimeRush#BigTimeRushvs.OneDirection#BoyBands#careertrajectory#FanCulture#missedopportunities#Musicindustry#OneDirection#PopMusic#TourLife
0 notes
Photo
🤯 LeBron's Fan Base Unveiled! Zen Master's Bold Analysis of Bronsexuals 🏀 #LeBronJames #NBA #FanCulture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTnmPpxh7N4
0 notes
Text
Yena of APRIL and Young Woo: A Budding Romance in the Spotlight
The entertainment world is abuzz with the latest news of APRIL’s Yena and actor Seol Young Woo, reportedly dating. This rumor, sparked by a series of photos showing the two celebrities at a soccer game, has gained significant attention. Both their agencies have issued statements, adding fuel to the public’s curiosity about this potential new celebrity couple.
Agencies Respond to Dating…
View On WordPress
#April#CelebrityDating#EntertainmentNews#FanCulture#KoreanEntertainment#Kpop#PublicRelations#SeolYoungWoo#SocialMediaImpact#Yena
0 notes
Text
Analysis of the video essay: "How to Build a Franchise Like Gene Roddenberry"
youtube
Here is a summary of the key points discussed in bullet points:
The document is an informative/educational video essay analyzing Gene Roddenberry's approach to franchises through Star Trek.
It makes a clear, well-evidenced central argument that Roddenberry knew how to build lasting franchises.
Perspectives are balanced, scholarly, and aim to constructively identify modern lessons rather than criticize.
Arguments are logical, evidence-based, acknowledge counterpositions, and reach sound conclusions.
Contents and evaluations align well with broader critical/fan consensus perspectives.
Ethical standards of fairness, accuracy, objectivity and respect for individuals are modeled.
Relevant stakeholders and their influences are identified and assessed comprehensively.
Psychological principles of fandom, creativity, thinking and motivation are reflected.
Ideas empower creative growth while challenging some rigid or nostalgia-focused approaches.
Logical reasoning avoids fallacious patterns and remains focused on empirical facts.
Overall evaluation is that the document is persuasive and effective in achieving its educational goals through strong argumentation and evaluation.
Here is a summary of the document in bullet points:
It discusses how media franchises are overwhelmingly dominant today but many have reached a "breaking point" with audiences.
The Marvel Cinematic Universe has struggled to maintain quality after Endgame, DC films have had flops, and Star Wars hasn't felt like a dominant pop culture force since the sequel trilogy.
Fans also express feelings of oversaturation for Star Wars and Star Trek streaming shows.
Gene Roddenberry knew how to build franchises that last through his approach with Star Trek.
Some of Roddenberry's proposed Star Trek spin-offs included a comedic mod show, sci-fi medical drama Hope Ship, and thriller starring Gary 7.
This showed Roddenberry was bold in expanding the franchise through different genres not directly tied to Star Trek.
Lesson: Spin-offs are not sequels and should not rely on previous material or share the same genre/format.
Roddenberry cared little for continuity in Star Trek and invented vague stardates to avoid concrete timelines.
Continuity errors in Star Trek are blown out of proportion by some fans contrary to Roddenberry's intent.
Roddenberry saw The Motion Picture as a reboot and wrote the novelization to freely alter canon as he saw fit.
Traditional mythos were expanded freely through various authors, not strictly adhering to canon like modern franchises.
Roddenberry kept the Star Trek setting open to change and viewed The Next Generation as another reboot at first.
Lessons are that spin-offs should stand alone, canon is not set in stone, and the mythos is bigger than one author.
Based on the content and style of the document, I would evaluate its genre as an informative/educational video essay. Some reasons for this assessment:
Tone and language: The document uses an explanatory, analytical tone when discussing topics like Gene Roddenberry's approach to Star Trek and lessons that can be learned.
Structure: It follows the structure of a traditional essay, beginning with an introduction to the context of modern media franchises, then exploring Roddenberry/Star Trek in more detail through multiple paragraphs/points.
Purpose: The clear purpose is to inform and educate the viewer on this particular aspect of franchise storytelling and Roddenberry's philosophies, rather than simply entertain.
Citations: It references direct quotes and details from Star Trek sources to support its analysis and arguments about continuity, canon, etc.
Visuals: As a video, it likely contains visual aids like clips, images and graphics to illustrate points - a common technique in video essays.
Target audience: The language and depth of analysis suggests an audience interested in learning more about this topic, rather than purely casual viewers.
So in summary, while it may contain some entertainment through its visual/clip elements, the overall style, structure and aims of the document place it firmly in the genre of informative/educational video essay about media franchises and Roddenberry's approach. The goal is analytical discussion and teaching viewers lessons.
Here is an evaluation of the arguments made in the document:
Main Argument: Roddenberry knew how to build franchises that last through his approach to spin-offs and canon flexibility. This is a reasonable argument supported by good evidence.
Evidence: Examples of Roddenberry's proposed spin-offs and his own comments on canon/continuity provide solid primary sources to back the claims. This helps strengthen the argument.
Logic of Reasoning: The document logically reasons that Roddenberry's approach emulated mythos-building traditions and allowed for freshness, which contribute to long-term success. The logic flows well.
Counterpoints: It acknowledges some valid criticisms of Roddenberry but argues he still offers lessons, adding nuance. Alternative views are recognized.
Connects to Thesis: Each piece of evidence and each point made coherently connects back to supporting the central argument regarding Roddenberry's approach.
Conclusions Follow: The conclusions drawn regarding lessons align with and follow from the argument and evidence presented.
Scope is Limited: The document focuses its argument specifically on Roddenberry/franchises, avoiding broader claims, so the argument remains reasonably scoped.
Overall, the arguments made are logically structured and reasoned, well supported by relevant and persuasive evidence, acknowledge other perspectives, and lead to sound conclusions that follow the argument made. The arguments are clear, coherent and compelling.
Here is an evaluation of some key statements in relation to broader scholarly/fan consensus:
Roddenberry's flexible approach to canon/continuity: This perspective aligns with most scholarly/critical assessments of Roddenberry's documented attitudes.
Viewing TNG as a soft reboot: Scholarly works tend to agree Roddenberry saw it this way initially before more direct connections emerged.
Fans overemphasizing continuity importance: Wide consensus that some fans get too immersed in continuity debates, contrary to creators' intent.
Spin-offs benefiting from independence: Aligns with most analyses that successful spin-offs differentiate rather than mimic the original.
Modern franchise fatigue: Critical consensus is franchises face challenges sustaining quality/appeal with excessive new content.
Marvel struggles post-Endgame: Reflective of box office/critical reception trends for recent MCU entries.
DC film faults: Agreements that recent DC films underperformed far more than their Marvel counterparts.
Star Wars saturation: Fans extensively document feelings of Disney Star Wars overuse online.
So in general, the perspectives and assessments presented correlate very strongly with the broader critical and fan consensus perspectives on these issues. The document is assessing the topics in line with established mainstream understandings.
Here is an evaluation of the ethics presented in the document:
Accuracy: The claims are supported by facts and direct evidence from trustworthy sources, enhancing accuracy.
Fairness: Multiple perspectives are acknowledged and counterarguments recognized. Franchises are assessed even-handedly.
Objectivity: The analysis strives for an unbiased scholarly evaluation of ideas rather than promoting subjective agendas.
Honesty: There appears to be no deception, half-truths or intentional omissions of relevant information.
Plagiarism: All direct citations and references are properly attributed to original authors.
Respect: Roddenberry and other individuals/works are discussed respectfully despite critiques of certain aspects.
Impartiality: The document evaluates the issues from a neutral stance rather than one favoring particular individuals or factions.
Beneficence: The aim is to educate and inform the audience constructively rather than deliberately mislead or harm comprehension.
Overall, the document models strong ethical standards of accuracy, fairness, objectivity, honesty, attribution of sources, respect for individuals, impartial analysis, and beneficence in seeking to enlighten rather than mislead its audience. No apparent ethical lapses were identified.
The key stakeholders mentioned in the document include:
Gene Roddenberry - As the creator of Star Trek, how he envisioned the franchise has major implications. His approach is a primary subject of analysis.
Star Trek fans - Specifically referenced are those obsessed with continuity debates or embracing new visions. Their perspectives and fatigue shape the franchise.
Star Trek writers - Others like those on TNG who had to convince Roddenberry to reference past elements, showing his influence.
Franchise creators - Broadly referenced are those building modern franchises who could learn from Roddenberry's approach.
Audiences - How well franchises sustain audience interest and quality over time is a major issue discussed. Audiences experience fatigue.
Studios - Blockbuster franchises are major commercial properties, so studios have influence and stake in their directions.
The document considers the perspectives and impacts of these key stakeholders in a franchise ecosystem in a fairly balanced manner. It acknowledges the different aims and viewpoints between creators, fans and general audiences in how franchises develop. The stakeholders analyzed seem to cover the major involved parties comprehensively.
The perspective taken in this document can be characterized as:
Admiring yet balanced perspective on Roddenberry: While revering Roddenberry's influence, it acknowledges his inconsistencies and that others contributed greatly to Star Trek as well.
Scholarly/analytical perspective: The tone is that of an analyst seeking to objectively examine Roddenberry's approach and draw evidence-based conclusions, rather than a subjective fan perspective.
Appreciative of new visions: It advocates embracing new interpretations of the Star Trek mythos rather than clinging too rigidly to Roddenberry's original vision.
Forward-looking perspective: The aim is to identify useful lessons for modern franchises rather than criticizing past iterations through nostalgia or loyalty to canon.
Even-handed treatment of franchises: Both positive and negative aspects of franchises like Star Wars and Marvel are acknowledged in discussing modern fatigue issues.
Intertextual perspective: It considers Roddenberry's work in relation to concepts like mythos-building traditions, not in isolation from other storytelling influences.
So in summary, the perspective can be characterized as scholarly, appreciative of new interpretations, forward-looking in its aims, even-handed in its franchise analysis, and seeking to place Roddenberry in an intertextual context rather than a strictly insular fan lens. The perspective aims for balance and drawing constructive lessons.
There are a few aspects of psychology reflected in the document:
Fan psychology: It acknowledges that some fans become overly wedded to continuity and obsessed with Canon, losing perspective. This correlates with research on parasocial relationships in fandom.
Audience fatigue: The concept of franchises potentially reaching a "breaking point" with audiences reflects principles of habituation and novelty-seeking in psychology.
Creative evolution: Roddenberry's flexible approach to canon mirrors modern perspectives in creativity research about myths/stories organically shaping over time rather than being static.
Franchise building: Roddenberry saw spin-offs as an opportunity for new genres/styles, intuitively understanding diversity maintains interest per psychological models of novelty.
Critical thinking: The document advocates an analytical, evidence-based perspective over subjective fandom, aligning with psychological models of rational vs. emotional thinking.
Constructive lessons: Focusing on identifying helpful strategies rather than criticism correlates with psychological theories of growth mindsets versus fixed mindsets.
So while not explicitly a work of media psychology, the understandings reflected correlate quite strongly with key established principles in areas like fandom, creativity, learning/thinking, and motivation/mindsets from a psychological lens. This adds authenticity.
Potential beneficiaries of the ideas presented in the document include:
Franchise creators - Could apply lessons to sustain quality/appeal over the long run through innovative spin-offs vs clones.
Studios - Successful franchises translate to large profits, so lessons may help minimize fatigue/failure risks.
Audiences - Would continue enjoying well-told stories in new forms that feel fresh rather than recycled.
Artists/writers - A philosophy valuing flexible mythos-building may empower more creative control and expression.
Those who may not directly benefit or could be challenged include:
Rigid continuity "purists" - Their hyper-focus on continuity may be reframed by the perspective.
Those resistant to change - Embracing new visions departing from origins risks upsetting traditionalists.
"Nostalgia-mines" - Adaptations mostly focused on fan service over original storytelling.
Certain fan factions - Some obsessive factions may lose sense of sole ownership over a mythos/franchise.
So the ideas primarily empower those seeking to enrich a creative franchise for new generations, while potentially challenging some with inflexible or opportunistic approaches more focused on stasis or nostalgia over artistic evolution. Overall it aims to benefit the health of franchises and storytelling rather than specific parochial interests.
I did not detect any logical fallacies in the arguments presented in the document. The reasoning appeared logically sound. Some potential fallacies it avoided include:
No strawman arguments - It did not misrepresent or exaggerate opposing views to make them easier to refute.
No ad hominem attacks - No attempts to invalidate arguments by attacking individuals rather than evidence.
No post hoc fallacies - Reasoning about causality did not assume correlation implies causation.
No false dichotomies - Issues were not reduced to binary without valid middle grounds.
No red herrings - Reasoning stayed focused on topic without diverting to unrelated issues.
No slippery slopes - Did not assert unreasonable extreme conclusions from more modest premises.
No hasty generalizations - Individual examples were reasonably extrapolated as representative lessons.
No anecdotal evidence - Direct quotes/examples were used evidentially rather than anecdotally.
No composition/division errors - Logical reasoning did not fallaciously apply qualities of parts to a whole or vice versa.
Overall, the arguments presented evidence, acknowledged counterpositions, and drew sound conclusions based on empirical facts rather than faulty logical assumptions or problematic reasoning patterns. No logical fallacies seemed to undermine the persuasiveness of its case.
Here are some common evaluation criteria for an informative/educational video essay genre and my evaluation of the document based on each criteria:
Thesis/central argument: The thesis that Roddenberry knew how to build lasting franchises through his approach to spin-offs and canon is clear and well presented. Effectiveness: Strong.
Organization: The document is well organized in a logical flow from context to Roddenberry/Star Trek details to conclusions. Effectiveness: Strong.
Coherence: All details and examples coherently support the central argument and flow logically. Effectiveness: Strong.
Analytic depth: It offers insightful analysis beyond surface facts through direct examples and Roddenberry's own comments. Effectiveness: Strong.
Persuasiveness of argument: The argument is persuasive due to concrete evidence, logical reasoning and compelling presentation. Effectiveness: Strong.
Citation of references: Relevant direct references and quotes are cited to strengthen analyses. Effectiveness: Strong.
Clarity of presentation: Concepts are broken down and explained clearly for audience understanding. Effectiveness: Strong.
Engaging style: While text-heavy, the semi-dialogue style keeps it engaging for the genre. Effectiveness: Moderate.
Achieving educational goals: Viewers would gain understanding of Roddenberry/franchises as intended. Effectiveness: Strong.
Overall, the document is highly effective in achieving the goals of the informative/educational video essay genre through strong organization, argumentation, analysis, citations and clarity despite some room for more engaging visual/audio techniques.
Gqv0NVDH59mZTBIPnTR0
#GeneRoddenberry#StarTrek#StarTrekFranchise#StarTrekContinuity#StarTrekCanon#FranchiseFatigue#MarvelFatigue#DCFilms#StarWarsFatigue#FranchiseLessons#SpinOffs#MediaFranchises#MediaMythos#FanCulture#FanTheories#FandomDebates#CreativeProcess#Storytelling#MediaCriticism#FilmAnalysis#MediaPsychology#MediaBusiness#AudienceEngagement#EntertainmentIndustry#IPManagement#Copyright#TransmediaStorytelling#Youtube
0 notes
Text
Harry Styles' Startling Encounter: Struck in the Eye by Hurled Object During Concert, Highlighting a Disturbing Trend
A Concert Gone Awry: Harry Styles Falls Victim to a Disturbing Incident
In a shocking turn of events, international heartthrob Harry Styles was struck in the eye by a hurled object during a recent concert, leaving fans and the music industry in a state of disbelief. The incident occurred during Styles' highly anticipated performance at a packed stadium, where thousands of fans had gathered to witness the star's captivating stage presence and powerful vocals. However, what should have been a night of celebration quickly took a terrifying turn as an unidentified object made its way towards Styles, connecting with his eye and sending shockwaves through the crowd.
This incident serves as a grim reminder of the increasingly disturbing trend of celebrities facing harassment during live performances. Artists who pour their hearts and souls into entertaining their fans now find themselves vulnerable to such unexpected attacks, questioning the safety measures in place at these events.
The Rising Trend: Celebrities Facing Harassment at Live Performances
Harry Styles joins a growing list of celebrities who have fallen victim to harassment during live performances, raising concerns about the safety of artists and the well-being of concert-goers. From pop sensation Justin Bieber to the iconic Adele, numerous high-profile musicians have faced similar incidents that have marred their performances and left lasting impacts on their lives.
Read the full article
0 notes
Photo
5 DAYS until @fanexpochicago at the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center! Who’s going? Anyone dressing up? #fanexpo #fanexpochicago #rosemont #donaldestephensconventioncenter #convention #marvel #dc #starwars #startrek #lordoftherings #clerks #50yearsoffandom #fanculture #thingstodo #convention #scifi #superheroes (at Donald E. Stephens Convention Center Rosemont) https://www.instagram.com/p/Cfha80wpra5/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=
#fanexpo#fanexpochicago#rosemont#donaldestephensconventioncenter#convention#marvel#dc#starwars#startrek#lordoftherings#clerks#50yearsoffandom#fanculture#thingstodo#scifi#superheroes
0 notes
Text
honestly i’m so sad that community has such a small fan base bc like. i wanna have ship wars. viral trobed edits. more content on ao3. people writing essays discussing jeff wingers mental state. oh my GOD
#community deserves a bigger fanbase#also it’s like an incredible show and everything#but cmon i NEED the fanservice. the fanCULTURE#UGH#community#nbc community#community tv#trobed#troy x abed#troy barnes#abed nadir#jeff winger#annie edison#britta perry#shirley bennett#pierce hawthorne#and a movie#six seasons and a movie
2K notes
·
View notes
Text
Finan being Uhtred's cheerleader during the scrap with bloodhair is so themcore 💖
#Someone what is the ship name for Uhtred x Finan#Is that still a thing people do#And I losing thought with fanculture?#I guess we'll find out#Liveblogging tag#the last kingdom#Finan#Uhtred#Tlk s3e4#Uhtred x finan#Fintred
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
Look I get that selling fanmerch is already a huuuuuge legal grey area but it is terribly ballsy to be heavy on the cease & desist hammer when you are a show that is a game of DnD
18 notes
·
View notes
Note
Love how we've been trending for 8 hours but the video itself hasn't reached 100k yet lmao
dnp having such a dedicated fanbase is truly smth that's been very unique and special all these years 🤌
#and the way that they've been trending a lot recently and that's not even counting all the posts where people Don't use tags#like the lil fanculture we have is just smth so special like all the ppl making posts and liking/reblogging and lurking are so important <3
4 notes
·
View notes
Note
Claveleraux
-frog anon
Ohhhh, you guys are new to shipping in this universe. Gotcha. You see, when it's things like MPA or whatever, you can get all name-mashy.
But here? Real life? You've got to go with the most deranged connections you can think of. FFS, do you know about that champion of Galar? And her gym leader 'friend', Marnie? Yeah. People call that Goth GF Shipping. Energy like that is what I'm looking for.
#pkmn irl#pokeblogging#ask clive#hasta la vistar~*#//as a kid in pkmn fanculture i was so surprised how simple all of the ship names were in other fandoms.#//like; tf do you mean you didn't think of how water meets lava and hardens as a result. what do you MEAN you just put their names together
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
“Skipping Jojo parts is Bad.”
Okay but. Consider. When I started watching Stone Ocean and thought to myself “Gee, they’re hyping up her dad a bunch, I bet he’s a character from a previous part? Oh gee, I hope I can puzzle out his role in the earlier narrative.”
And then the camera shows a six foot tall unreasonably muscled man wearing a big hat with a star on it and a custom coat that says ‘JoJoJoJo’ down the sleeves.
#jjba#jojos bizarre adventure#jotaro kujo#jolyne cujoh#I was like "hm....I WoNdEr if he was the previous jojo#honestly the jjba fanculture of insulting anyone who watches parts out of order is Bullshit#And I'm not afraid to say it#Might be 'Aggravation by Briton Riviere'-ing with this one
95 notes
·
View notes
Photo
🤔 Bronsexuals Exposed: Zen Master's Insightful Take on LeBron's Fandom! #LeBronJames #NBA #FanCulture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTnmPpxh7N4
0 notes
Text
man just scrolled thru the ao3 tag. you people are fucking insufferable about a fanfic site huh
#sorry idk how to even explain it You guys are just annoying#wirt scrambles#dgmw i USE the website too! the fanculture is so shit
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
i said this somewhere else but not here, but i think a big reason why ofmd fandom is struggling so much with certain topics (especially race) is mostly due to unfamiliarity with the marginalized identities. from my perspective as a black american, convos about race in polynesia is next to nonexistent even in antiracist spaces. topics on the caribbean is something that more people have a passing knowledge of, but even in real life antiracist spaces, they're rarely talked about in depth (and in black spaces we mostly just all bicker on twitter with the biannual diaspora war someone always kicks off with a hot take.) this isn't everybody of course. there's plenty of māori and people from the caribbean in fandom, and sometimes fandom acts like there isn't. this is also an american perspective, although i feel like it'd be a wee bit egotistical for people outside those regions to assume they know everything.
with ofmd it's not just being familiar with the culture, but its history as well, and then analyzing what happens in the show through those lenses. the time period and historical figures being depicted reflect a very complex moment in history that had a lot of nuances that aren't as widely present today. when you throw in being critical of the show's writing and what our modern day biases look like that gets even more complicated. but that still means we have to then determine how much the writers intention matters here. so people are juggling analysis that involves culture, history, writer's intention, and our own biases.
which kinda uses a bit more active work than people are used to. fandom's always bad at talking about race no matter what but lmao ofmd really be struggling. at the very least i be struggling 😭
so, for many people these are conversations they haven't held before and lenses of analysis they haven't used. that means there's a lot of new information they're learning often from fandom folks' meta and commentary. that means people have to do more work than usual to determine what is and isn't true. usually there's a bit more check and balances happening where a lot of the time (but not always) misinfo will be corrected by others in fandom more familiar with what they're talking about. this on its own is already a pretty bad way to tell real info from misinfo, but it's even worse now.
this whole ramble is also me saying that i'm also in the process of learning, and i think people should be more open to admitting that. nobody knows everything and learning involves making a lot of mistakes. i wish fandom had a more rehabilitative culture of being able to own up to mistakes. with things born of ignorance to not always be treated like purposeful, unforgivable crimes. that kind of pressure makes for a miserable environment where people are scared of being wrong and more likely to default to just agreeing with whatever statement is least likely to get them in trouble. which also means when people suspect that something isn't correct they just stay silent and work off the assumption that someone else will fix.
which, by the way, is called morally motivated network harassment so if you ever wanted to read a study that feels like it's describing tumblr perfectly i would highly recommend it.
i've been super wordy all day so my bad lol but i guess tldr:
a lot of people in ofmd fandom aren't familiar with some of the more complex topics around race because it involves marginalized identities that often are erased in schools/antiracist activist spaces
stuff being more confusing makes sense because not everything is straight forward. especially when talking about things in a historical context where there's more active engagement needed (also most schools teach us to not engage in this way. so like it fr is hard??)
fandom's too mean about things. when people are learning we should encourage that, but it's hard to do that when people feel like they're going to be punished if they make a mistake.
idk fact check stuff i guess? and be careful to not mistake someone's own interpretation for fact when listening to someone's opinion. ppl should also look at the sources and draw their own conclusions.
also i think it's dumb when someone learns new information and then pretends that they knew this all along and that everyone else is dumb and bigoted for not knowing. just as a bonus point i guess.
16 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
ziadziad125
عرفتُ الله رحمنً رحيما ...
g0ldenpeach
g0ldenpeach
scanje
scanje
mr-smilelyfry
*＊✿❀hello🙃❀✿＊*
peachyxin
peachy