Tw Discourse - Blog Posts
Not to be dramatic but if I see one more person call the Lucanis romance shitty because he’s demisexual, I’m going to start biting
Once again I am reminding folks to stay the hell off Twitter, that shit gives you mental illness
I’m tired of seeing drama about things I like and being expected to stop liking it because the creator fucked up.
Like bruh, I understand the creator isn’t great, but I can’t be compelled to care-
Just let me enjoy shit without being bombarded by people calling me horrible things cause I enjoy shit
REMINDER TO TAG YOUR DISCOURSE AND CHARACTER CRITICISM
It can be super upsetting for someone to be scrolling through a fandom tag only to find someone talking about how a particular character is a shitty person or any other type of fandom discourse about their comfort characters. I came a across a post like that a few minutes ago and it really upset me seeing such an important comfort ship to me be so ruthlessly criticized for stupid things.
This is also for people who are scrolling through Tumblr and don’t want to see posts upon posts of discourse they don’t care about.
Keep in mind somethings deserve to be called out and criticized, though! Also don’t be discouraged from making character analysis posts and posts to let people know what you are uncomfortable with! Treat yourself AND others with respect!
I love how on Tumblr, "media literacy" has become "Um, just because someone writes about this doesn't mean they're endorsing this. I hate all these media puritans ruining everything."
I'm sad to inform you that knowing when and whether an author is endorsing something, implying something, saying something, is also part of media literacy. Knowing when they are doing this and when they're not is part of media literacy. Assuming that no author has ever endorsed a bad thing is how you fall for proper gander. It's not media literacy to always assume that nobody ever has agreed with the morally reprehensible ideas in their work.
Sometimes, authors are endorsing something, and you need to be aware when that happens, and you also need to be aware when you're doing it as an author. All media isn't horny dubcon fanfic where you and the author know it's problematic IRL but you get off to it in the privacy of your brain. Sometimes very smart people can convince you of something that'll hurt others in the real world. Sometimes very dumb people will romanticize something without realizing they're doing it and you'll be caught up in it without realizing that you are.
Being aware of this is also media literacy. Being aware of the narrative tools used to affect your thinking is media literacy. Deciding on your own whether you agree with an author or not is media literacy. Enjoying characters doing bad things and allowing authors to create flawed or cruel characters for the sake of a story is perfectly fine, but it is not the same as being media literate. Being smug about how you never think an author has bad intentions tells me you're edgy, not that you're media literate. You can't use one rule to apply to all media. That's not how media literacy works. Sorry! Sorry! Sorry! Aheem heem. Anyway.
I refuse to let this stay in the tags, because it's so fucking good:
#'well I KNOW bad from good so i can't be affected by media!' #'everyone else also knows bad from good and defines it the exact way i do!' #'so if i think this is bad then the author must also think this is bad!' #i have bad news ....
You have perfectly described why I hate these responses when it comes to criticizing romanticized CSA. People will roll their eyes at you as if it's implausible the person writing it might not actually view it as bad. I am genuingely concerned about people who will defend romanticized CSA to their dying breath, all while refusing to acknowledge some groomers and predators write this content because they genuingely view their relationships as cute and harmless. It's usually not even intentional, because these individuals don't even blink an eye at these themes in their work. Not every person who writes this content is a groomer or predator, but that does not mean those who do suddenly poof away like magic. Refusing to ackowledge the writers that are and behaving as if their victims are just "lying puritans", like I see so many folks do, is so childish and harmful.
Like, I really wish people understood breaking away from purity culture is not this magical remedy that makes shitty people suddenly go away. Using the idea that believing the exact opposite of purity culture somehow erases all evil is falling into the same trappings that purity culture does. Like, purity culture refuses to acknowledge predators within their community because, so long as someone has specific beliefs and follows specific rules, they can't be bad. I am concerned seeing people who claim to believe the opposite pushing the same beliefs. Aka "so long as you think fiction never affects reality, you can't be a predator!". It's just purity culture repackaged.
In summary, great post OP. I know this was posted in 2023, but it's still extremely relevant right now.
I love how on Tumblr, "media literacy" has become "Um, just because someone writes about this doesn't mean they're endorsing this. I hate all these media puritans ruining everything."
I'm sad to inform you that knowing when and whether an author is endorsing something, implying something, saying something, is also part of media literacy. Knowing when they are doing this and when they're not is part of media literacy. Assuming that no author has ever endorsed a bad thing is how you fall for proper gander. It's not media literacy to always assume that nobody ever has agreed with the morally reprehensible ideas in their work.
Sometimes, authors are endorsing something, and you need to be aware when that happens, and you also need to be aware when you're doing it as an author. All media isn't horny dubcon fanfic where you and the author know it's problematic IRL but you get off to it in the privacy of your brain. Sometimes very smart people can convince you of something that'll hurt others in the real world. Sometimes very dumb people will romanticize something without realizing they're doing it and you'll be caught up in it without realizing that you are.
Being aware of this is also media literacy. Being aware of the narrative tools used to affect your thinking is media literacy. Deciding on your own whether you agree with an author or not is media literacy. Enjoying characters doing bad things and allowing authors to create flawed or cruel characters for the sake of a story is perfectly fine, but it is not the same as being media literate. Being smug about how you never think an author has bad intentions tells me you're edgy, not that you're media literate. You can't use one rule to apply to all media. That's not how media literacy works. Sorry! Sorry! Sorry! Aheem heem. Anyway.
People really need to realise that “media can affect real life” doesn’t mean “this character does bad things so people will read that and start doing bad things” and actually means “ideas in fiction especially stereotypes about minority groups can affect how the reader views those groups, an authors implicit prejudices can be passed on to readers”
I love how on Tumblr, "media literacy" has become "Um, just because someone writes about this doesn't mean they're endorsing this. I hate all these media puritans ruining everything."
I'm sad to inform you that knowing when and whether an author is endorsing something, implying something, saying something, is also part of media literacy. Knowing when they are doing this and when they're not is part of media literacy. Assuming that no author has ever endorsed a bad thing is how you fall for proper gander. It's not media literacy to always assume that nobody ever has agreed with the morally reprehensible ideas in their work.
Sometimes, authors are endorsing something, and you need to be aware when that happens, and you also need to be aware when you're doing it as an author. All media isn't horny dubcon fanfic where you and the author know it's problematic IRL but you get off to it in the privacy of your brain. Sometimes very smart people can convince you of something that'll hurt others in the real world. Sometimes very dumb people will romanticize something without realizing they're doing it and you'll be caught up in it without realizing that you are.
Being aware of this is also media literacy. Being aware of the narrative tools used to affect your thinking is media literacy. Deciding on your own whether you agree with an author or not is media literacy. Enjoying characters doing bad things and allowing authors to create flawed or cruel characters for the sake of a story is perfectly fine, but it is not the same as being media literate. Being smug about how you never think an author has bad intentions tells me you're edgy, not that you're media literate. You can't use one rule to apply to all media. That's not how media literacy works. Sorry! Sorry! Sorry! Aheem heem. Anyway.
I really don't want to discuss this issue in greater detail, and plan to avoid doing so in the future, but I will say this:
You can be anti censorship without silencing the voices of victim's whose experiences do not conveniently back your viewpoint. We are not tools for your arguments, we are living people with lived experiences we should be allowed to express.
Also, just like you wouldn't assume someone talking about how the teachings of the Bible hurt them means they want the Bible to be censored, you shouldn't assume someone talking about how certain media hurt them or was used to groom them automatically means they want it to be censored. I was groomed by certain media, but I am anti censorship. I want to see more human potrayels of victims in media. I am still anti censorship. These things can co exist. I am not going to suddenly stop talking about it because some brain dead idiots on the internet can not fathom nuance. I promise you it is worthwhile sitting down with yourself and examining why you assume victims are always out to get you if they don't repackage their experiences in a way that kisses the ass of your world view. We are people, we are not here for your comfort or convenience. If you are not ready to hear about certain experiences, be mature and block instead of treating us as evil.
If you are using being "anti purity culture" as a weapon to silence victims, you are just as bad as the people who use purity culture to silence victims. Being "for victims" means respecting the experiences of victims viewed as "sexual weirdos" and victims viewed as "too prudish" equally. Pressuring victims to not bring their experience to the table because you constantly assume we want to censor you is a shit thing to do.
I really don't want to discuss this issue in greater detail, and plan to avoid doing so in the future, but I will say this:
You can be anti censorship without silencing the voices of victim's whose experiences do not conveniently back your viewpoint. We are not tools for your arguments, we are living people with lived experiences we should be allowed to express.
Also, just like you wouldn't assume someone talking about how the teachings of the Bible hurt them means they want the Bible to be censored, you shouldn't assume someone talking about how certain media hurt them or was used to groom them automatically means they want it to be censored. I was groomed by certain media, but I am anti censorship. I want to see more human potrayels of victims in media. I am still anti censorship. These things can co exist. I am not going to suddenly stop talking about it because some brain dead idiots on the internet can not fathom nuance. I promise you it is worthwhile sitting down with yourself and examining why you assume victims are always out to get you if they don't repackage their experiences in a way that kisses the ass of your world view. We are people, we are not here for your comfort or convenience. If you are not ready to hear about certain experiences, be mature and block instead of treating us as evil.
If you are using being "anti purity culture" as a weapon to silence victims, you are just as bad as the people who use purity culture to silence victims. Being "for victims" means respecting the experiences of victims viewed as "sexual weirdos" and victims viewed as "too prudish" equally. Pressuring victims to not bring their experience to the table because you constantly assume we want to censor you is a shit thing to do.