Subject: Re: Ah, I get it. There's been a mistake.
Author:
Posted on: 2019-08-07 14:59:00 UTC
I'm sorry. You're right, I confused you two, and that's entirely my fault. I don't know why I didn't triple-check the usernames.
It might be good for the Nameless Admin to just zap my post, since it just reads like an angry rambling mess now (which, to be fair, it... kind of was anyway :P).
Disclaimer: I've put this on google docs so that you can choose to read this or not. If you really don't like even the tiniest hint of a rant, only read the first paragraph or two. I do go into depth about why I dislike what's going on right now, and I did try not to go into a angry, insulting tone. If you want to read the rant bit as well, that's your call. I would prefer if you did...but again, that's your choice. Comment below if you want to.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cX6obeiwbpbPaAaVOYE6H94tK3Zr4SNHKR5uf2ygk/edit?usp=sharing
> [Having the first black female lead] isn’t really all that special, because we’ve already had Janeway (who was female) and Sisko (who was black), so combining the two isn’t really that much of a big deal.
It's probably more of a big deal if you're a black woman.
Please be aware: the idea that you get to dictate when a minority group should be satisfied with their level of representation in mass media is pretty much the definition of privilege. You do not get to decide that. Only the group in question does.
Also, could I ask you to consider framing your critique of the show without reference to what the creators say outside of it? Anything said outside of the text is irrelevant to a critique of said text unless you're specifically intending a meta analysis. Referring to it constantly looks a whole lot like you're inserting politics into things yourself, which I wouldn't mind if it wasn't something you claim annoys you so much. What politics have actually showed up within the text, without reference to anything outside of it? (This is a sincere question; I don't know the answer because I haven't seen the show.)
~Neshomeh
Namely, Section One, Article Three:
3. The community will not tolerate the use of language which evokes any form of discrimination or persecution. The subjects mentioned above, and others which cause genuine suffering (such as rape, murder, abuse, and mental health issues) should be discussed with sensitivity. Even 'joking' about these subjects is Not Funny; ‘it was just a joke’ is not an excuse - it’s self-incrimination.
I don't find joking about "feminazis" being worse than actual Nazis funny, and attempting to defend those statements as a joke even less so.
"People are going to find it suspicious that you dislike neo-nazis less than what you called "femnazis". " is what I meant to say
I can't even count anymore how many times you've broken the Board's no-swearing rule. I get that you're passionate about your views, but do kindly watch your language.
I apologise if I let something slip through, but if I did swear, where exactly did I do that?
There's really no excuse for flagrant and repeated defiance of that rule when you've been told to stop.
I started this 24 hours ago as a means to point out some of my issues with Discovery. Since then, I have been accused of being a right winger (I vote for Labour. I’m also a bit of a control freak at the same time, and that may hsve caused some conflict here). I have been accused of gatekeeping due to some poor word choices on my behalf, and a admittedly unclean rap sheet here on the Board.
At the same time, I have been forced out if my comfort zone, and I admit that this has caused me to react rather poorly. This whole situation has begun to snoeball out of control, and I’m beginning to feel more than a little unwelcome around these parts. Should I take this as a cue to leave, or...?
2. The community will not tolerate any individual or group who intentionally discriminates against, abuses, persecutes, or otherwise attacks others in any way, shape, or form, for any reason. This includes, but is not limited to discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ability, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion.If you are capable of dropping the kind of language that your right-wing friends use to marginalize and discriminate against women and other people, and of interacting with us in a positive way, then you're welcome to stay.
3. The community will not tolerate the use of language which evokes any form of discrimination or persecution. The subjects mentioned above, and others which cause genuine suffering (such as rape, murder, abuse, and mental health issues) should be discussed with sensitivity. Even 'joking' about these subjects is Not Funny; ‘it was just a joke’ is not an excuse - it’s self-incrimination.
—The PPC Constitution (read it)
But the thing to remember is, as we collectively watched our way through the six seasons, we didn't know it at the time.
One part of the fandom latched on to the characters, and their journeys. Lost was unique, in its time, for having an absolutely massive cast of main characters. Generally speaking, each episode would focus on one character and reveal aspects of their history and personality from before the crash, through the show's infamous flashbacks. These revelations would often shed a new light on their behavior in the series' present. In the buildup to the finale episode, the portion of the fandom that latched onto the characters was primarily invested in seeing their personal journeys through to the end, and find out whether any of them would manage to escape the island.
The other part of the fandom latched onto the worldbuilding of the Lost setting. Without giving any substantial spoilers, the world of Lost contains no less than two mysterious organizations, overt breaking of various laws of physics, freaky breeding experiments, and a very literal smoke monster. The writers did an excellent job of portioning out both the discovery of new mysteries, and the answers to problems already discovered. In the buildup to the finale episode, the portion of the fandom that latched on to the mysteries was excited to finally get answers to every strange and inexplicable thing that had happened in the series.
The final episodes came and went. And the Lost fandom, which had previously seemed like a single group, was split in two. Because the writers delivered on one group's wishes, but not on the other's.
It may be due to cuts necessitated by the Writer's Strike—the last three seasons are noticeably shorter than the first three. It may be because the writers wanted some mysteries preserved for the fandom to puzzle over long after the show ended. It may be that the writers themselves were more invested in the characters than the mysteries. Whatever the reason, the finale focused on finishing the stories of the characters, and left much of the setting's mysteries unresolved. And suddenly, a fandom that had been so united for six seasons suddenly saw infighting on a massive scale, with the mystery fans feeling that they had been cheated out of the answers they had craved for so long.
Here's the thing, Minh: Even though one half of that fandom was vindicated through the writing and the other disappointed, both groups were legitimate fans. They both enjoyed watching the show. They both enjoyed interacting with each other, up until the finale. They took different things away from the show, enjoyed it for different reasons, expressed their fanlove in different ways. The experience of both factions was valid. It wouldn't be right for either group to look at the other and say, "You aren't real fans, because you don't like it the correct way—the way I do."
You are allowed to dislike Jodie Foster's acting. You are allowed to dislike the newer Star Trek material. But other people are allowed to like those same things, and dislike the aspects of those fandoms that you like. Because everyone is different, so everyone can potentially like a different thing about a story. But that doesn't mean that only some of those fans are "real fans."
—doctorlit would give anything to line up the entirety of the PPC in front of a screen and make them binge all of Lost while doctorlit sits next to the screen watching the Boarders's faces just so he can see their reactions
Also, when did Jodie Foster come into this?
Whom you keep insulting, despite repeated requests to cut it out already.
Strangely enough, Lost was also by Alex Kurtzman.
You were saying...?
I do feel that my understanding of other people, and the reasons for their emotions and actions, has been helped greatly by all the fiction I've consumed over my life. Since I've never been very emotionally complex myself, being able to read the internal thoughts of characters through narration has helped me to understand real people much better, and developed my ability to empathize.
Another aspect of this, of course, is hearing other fans' interpretations of things, and discovering even more points of view. Being only a single human, my view of the world is inherently limited, so learning how other people experience that same world gives me a broader view of it, and a deeper understanding. That's why variety is so critical within a fandom; it lets everyone within that fandom share a broader understanding of it, and of the real world truths that canon can teach us.
And that aspect ties into your other point about politics in fiction, which I wasn't initially planning to go into, but the conversation has segued me there. I've never liked the argument that fiction shouldn't be made political. Politics is composed of people, and fiction is created by people. Fiction isn't just plain entertainment to be sucked down our eyeballs; fiction is a message communicated to us by the creator, even after the creator is long dead—their own views of humanity and the world, more new perspectives for us to understand and learn. Lost wasn't just an action mystery about characters trapped on an island; it was Cartlon Cuse and Damon Lindelof examining the weaknesses of humanity through the eyes of characters trapped in their own fears and pride. The original Star Trek wasn't just science fiction; it was Gene Roddenberry communicating his dreams for humanity's cultural development through the medium of science fiction. And just as our favorite creators share their views with us through their medium, we can learn even more from the views of our fellow fans, even if we don't agree with everything we learn.
—doctorlit and his philosophical view of consuming fiction
Doc was saying the exact same thing everyone else says about your attitude towards fandom culture: that you don't get to say who is a true fan of something and who isn't, regardless of *how* they choose to enjoy that piece of media. His example was of Lost, a series which was viewed completely differently by the two halves of its fandom - and he was saying that neither interpretation is less valid than the other, or makes one camp "true fans" while the others aren't.
I get the feeling that you guys are putting words in his mouth because the way he worded his points in an awful way.
Are you trying to be constructive here?
Phobos' post explains it very nicely, everyone should read it.
But it's not just that the points are poorly worded, it's that they're worded in such a way as to invoke really ugly and damaging ideologies. For instance:
> The fact that I found the idea that the Trek fandom- something I felt privileged to be a part of, and thought of as a “exclusive” group (ie ‘go away you filthy normies’ exclusive)- was now considered mainstream was also horrifying.
Reminds me of the incel quoted as saying "I laugh at the death of normies." Just Google the terms "incel normies" and see if the results don't disgust you. That's not the kind of exclusive group I want to associate myself with. It's extremely troubling to me that Minh doesn't seem to mind using their hate-soaked rhetoric.
~Neshomeh
"Go away you filthy normies" is honestly a chilling sentence to read, given the connotations of such phrases. This sort of mentality led to Gamergate, to name just one of the nasty scandals associated with fandom gatekeeping.
Normies, as in fans who aren’t hardcore fans. Not thisincel stuff. Whatever the frak it is.
This sort of "us vs. them" mentality is a very unhealthy way of viewing fandom culture.
In response to mirage fontaine:
- By definition, I am progressive. I support gender equality. I support the gay rights movement. I am a advocate for action against climate change. I want the future to look more like what Star Trek envisions. What I do NOT support is the extreme left. Tumblrites. Femnazis (my least favourite kind of Nazi). Men-haters. Basically anyone who’s a dick about being progressive and tries to ruin the fun for everyone else. I despise people like Anita Sarkeesian because they want to corrupt a entire industry to fit their veiwpoint and their’s alone. I despise people like Alex Kurtzman, who make such a big deal over trivial things like ‘the first interacial gay couple on Star Trek’, before invoking the ‘Bury your Gays’ trope, and making the whole point moot anyway- just to tick a box on the ‘Social Justice’ checklist. Diversity has become the sole hiring quality in Hollywood. People who act worse than others in a specific role are now selected for their skin colour, sexuality or gender; rather than valid qualifiers like experience, skill, or even suitability for the roll they are tasked with playing. THIS is what pisses me off more than anything.
* BSG isn’t a problem for me. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have brought it up immediately after mentioning the bad stuff.
*I don’t gatekeep. What I don’t expect is to go onto a Trek message board, and encounter people who think that the Jar Jar Abrams movies are representative of real Star Trek. People used that “oh, I’m a fan because I watched three seconds of that movie” back when I was in Hogh School to bully me. I don’t appreciate a similar sentiment being used to qualify someone as a dedicated fan. Especially if they claim to have no idea what a Tribble is.
*My issue is with the writers, and how they can somehow hijack massive pillars of fandom without having watched ANY of the show that they’re writing for. It’s obvious from the entire first two seasons of Discovery that the writers hadn’t given more than a cursory SKIM through any of the five CANONICAL series of Trek. As in TOS through ENT. The disrespect to me as a dedicated fan, the canon violation that would qualify STD as badfic if it was as mundane as fanfiction...it’s criminal that none of those Peta’Q writers attempted to watch more than a cursory selection of episodes.
You profess to have Progressive values, and I believe you might. However, it is hard to find any of that in any of your posts because you are so pissed off all the time and use rhetoric more akin to the Alt-Right to express that anger. Your behavior is the polar opposite of your stated beliefs, and that is a problem.
If you want to improve your reputation, and not just in this community, you need to cut out the name calling (Tumblerites, Femnazis), the personal attacks (Jar Jar Abrams, Mrs Scronch-face), and learn to let go of the anger. I don't care that you don't like Star Trek Discovery, you are entitled to that opinion and no one is trying to make you like it. I care how you express your dislike.
-Phobos
You like progressive movements insofar as they don't make you uncomfortable and refuse to disrupt the current social fabric and order, yes, we get it. This is not an uncommon opinion.
You're a progressive and yet you use the exact same terminology and arguing points, constantly, as a conservative. You whinge about SJWs, you keep referring to TV shows as 'family shows' to justify them leaving out politics that you think are unsuitable. You do not outline what politics you do consider suitable for family television. I'm interested, a little, in what that might entail. I've never, ever once seen you act in any way to suggest you might be progressive, except when you say something arbitrarily in the middle of a rant to prove that you are. Your entire time here has been complaining about science fiction you dislike, and the reason you dislike that science fiction is because of its progressive political content. The one time you haven't complained about too much social progressiveness and too much politics in a media property was when you were arguing that you didn't care about the conservative and transphobic politics of Cyberpunk 2077.
Minh, you don't need to be progressive. Oh, I would rather you be. I'll disagree with you on many a thing, if you aren't, and I certainly do already. But that's fine, man, I disagree with plenty of people. Whatever.
I just find it really hard to believe you're as progressive as you keep saying considering that you consider the mediocre and audience-friendly leftism of hugely popular science fiction franchises, in which the examples you provided boldly dared to criticise blatant racism, Brexit, and Donald Trump, extremist, literally extremist, that's the word you used, the word people use to describe terrorists who kill people for their ideologies, you used that word.
These are not extremist positions, Minh! They, like, actually super aren't!
...isn’t what you’re doing here ‘gatekeeping’? I am progressive. I’m quite offended that you think I’d support that asshole in the White House, but honestly? I use that language because I think it’s apt language. I use it primarily because the people online who tend to agree with me on STD tend to be- more oftenthan not- right wingers.
As for whether I’ progressive or not...I’ve voted for Labour here in Oz every election since I turned 18. We’ve had quite a few of those in the past decade. Far too many, mainly due to excessive political backstabbing with the Australian parliment. So please. Go and call me a right winger again. I might laugh abit more.
That's because gatekeeping somebody out of a fandom of something that's fake and doesn't exist and is meant to be enjoyed by a wide audience, and gatekeeping somebody for failing constantly to live up to their stated beliefs are two very different things which probably shouldn't be compared.
It sure takes a lot more than voting for the less-blatantly right wing Aussie political party and disliking Donald Trump of whom even alt righters are getting sick of to convince me you're half as progressive you like to say you are. Oh, you aren't my racist grandmother, I'll give you that. Cheers. But this isn't going to devolve into a series of debating about specific actions that merit this or that as if expressing political ideology is like a videogame karma system: I've already mentioned the way you keep hooting conservative ideology with conservative terminology.
My point is made and you have done nothing to really counter it. You espouse conservatism constantly! You denegrate progressivism constantly, except in the most tokenistic sense. You equally constantly present this sense of gatekeeping nerd-entitlement and ownership over your favourite media, furious at the idea of your once small exclusive club being invaded by new people who Don't Get It, being hostile towards inclusivity in general, which is itself a way of acting and thinking massively associated with right wingers.
You keep saying you're progressive but I dunno what to say, I've still never seen you act on it. If it sounds like a duck and acts like a duck and looks like a duck, and all that. What am I meant to think?
The people who most hate Discovery are mostly right-wingers, huh?
Hmm.
The people I know who like it are liberal women.
Hmmmmm.
~Neshomeh
First: You said, quote, "What I don’t expect is to go onto a Trek message board, and encounter people who think that the Jar Jar Abrams movies are representative of real Star Trek."
The argument you made is that the J. J. Abrams movies are not "real Star Trek," and that fans of those movies who don't also like the classic TV shows therefore cannot call themselves fans of "real Star Trek". Therefore, you are telling people who call themselves fans of a franchise, or at least a portion of that franchise, that they are not really fans of that franchise. How is that not "trying to keep others out of [a] community?"
Second: "we don't talk like that on the Board" is gatekeeping the Board. You are trying to exclude someone from commenting on what you said in what is more or less a public forum in addition to saying that you don't care what they have to say. It's fine if you don't care what people have to say, but that raises a question: if you don't care about what others think, then why did you make a post at all? From here, it looks like you wanted to produce drama, especially since your original post basically said "Don't like, don't read" right at the start.
Geema, I think you've confused me with Minh - I wrote the "I can't just not say anything about this" post. My saying "this is not gatekeeping" was referring to Larf criticizing Minh's very Alt-Right sounding rhetoric; Minh in turn had called said criticism gatekeeping.
My second point was about Minh using language unsuitable for the Board, and justifying it by saying that they find it "apt". I don't think that's a good excuse for breaking the Board's no-swearing rule.
My third point, about Alt-Righters agreeing with Minh's position on the liberal politics of Discovery, probably doesn't need explaining. It is a very interesting> coincidence, is all I'm going to say here.
I'm sorry. You're right, I confused you two, and that's entirely my fault. I don't know why I didn't triple-check the usernames.
It might be good for the Nameless Admin to just zap my post, since it just reads like an angry rambling mess now (which, to be fair, it... kind of was anyway :P).
I was the one who said "we don't talk like that on the Board", and I was referring to Minh using the word "***hole", because it was breaking the no-swearing rule.
Could you clarify who you're talking to with each of these points, please? The first definitely reads like you're quoting and responding to Crazy Minh, but I'm not sure who you're addressing with the second - it was Mirage Fontane who said "we don't talk like that here," but your further points read more like they're aimed at Minh?
First of all, apologies for getting shirty for your typo, but I'm even more upset now after your response.
1. "Feminazis" aren't simply trying to force their own opinions on people. They want to challenge oppressive ideologies that to this day cause a great deal of suffering to many people - people like myself, if you care to know. You might not like them, I myself disagree with Anita Sarkeesian on oh so many things, but if they "ruin your fun" by pointing out that certain media tropes and types of representation are actively harmful to people, maybe you should reexamine your own views. And trust me, diversity has NOT become the main hiring point in Hollywood. Wanting to give more work opportunities to more women, queer people and POC doesn't mean the poor fragile white men will be out of a job any time soon, trust me.
2. What you are doing here, Minh, is the very definition of gatekeeping. You don't get to say who is a true fan and who isn't. Anyone who likes a piece of media can call themselves a fan - that's the whole point of fandom culture. I don't care how much obscure trivia they do or don't know, or even if they like Star Trek without having seen the goddam Tribble episode. I don't even like the JJ Abrams movies but they were my gateway into TOS, does that mean I'm not a """true fan""" because I didn't start with """real Star Trek"""? And you don't get to say what is true canon and what isn't unless you write the damn thing. You can criticize it if you think is bad, like what you keep and keep and keep doing with Discovery, but I'm sorry, pal, if it's been written into the franchise, that means it's a part of it now. Deal with it.
And Minh? What you absolutely don't get to do is say that feminists are worse than actual Nazis who literally want people dead based on their ethnicity or sexuality. I'm genuinely amazed that you can say that and call yourself a progressive with a straight face.
Minh, I can't even deal with you saying "feminazis" are worse than the actual Nazis who are actually murdering people on the basis of white supremacist rhetoric. Have you heard about the latest mass shootings? The shooters are white men, full of hate for anyone who isn't a white man. Show me one mass shooting by a man-hating woman, if you can. I'll show you thirty or more by white supremacist men. That is not hyperbole.
It's that sort of thing that overshadows the rest of what you have to say so much that we can't take you seriously. Take it on board that that what you said is seriously, seriously offensive, then take it back, and then please spend a very long time reconsidering your priorities. People (and dogs) losing their lives is vastly more important than a TV show, any TV show.
~Neshomeh
I'm so, oh so very fed up with nerd culture's gatekeeping attitude and complaining about the damn SJWs. Larf said anything I wanted to say but couldn't articulate, so if you don't at least consider what they'd said, I won't try to change your mind anymore. There's been way too much playing chess with pigeons going on here in the past few days anyway, and you know what, I ain't even mad anymore, I'm just tired.
Larf said EVERYTHING I couldn't, is what I wanted to say.
Until then, do kindly try to get my name right next time.
Oops. Sooty, phone keyboard and a demerited autocorrect.
I'm glad you came to see why your previous attitude didn't mesh well with our community's standards, but I have huge problems with what you've said here.
I don't watch Doctor Who or BSG, so I can't pass judgment on the quality of those shows and the views expressed in them, but I've told you already that entertainment and politics aren't as separate as you seem to think. Your beloved Star Trek (which is also my beloved Star Trek, incidentally) has always, always been political. During the run of The Original Series, Nichelle Nichols was asked by Martin Luther King himself to stay on the show, because her character was so important for black representation in mainstream media in a time when the Civil Rights Movement was actively happening. You can hardly call Star Trek "not political" if you know... pretty much anything about the show. And you know, complaining about those damn SJWs and calling progressive writing "propaganda" is hardly a good way to convince us that you're on the progressive side yourself. That's all I'm going to say on this subject - I'll leave the rest to people who know more about these shows.
What I myself am getting very upset about here is your attitude towards nerd culture. I myself am a nerd, I myself was bullied pretty cruelly in middle school, and stories have always been my number one refuge. But - and this is very important - just because you love a story doesn't mean you own it>. Nerd culture is not an exclusive club anymore, and you don't get to dictate who and how can enjoy the stuff you like. I won't go into how Star Trek has always been mainstream because it's one of the biggest and oldest franchises in sci-fi - that's a rant for another day. But if you have a problem with your favorite shows and whatnot being accessible to more people than before, that's your problem, not theirs. You don't get to tell who does and doesn't get to be a part of nerd culture. Your enjoyment of something doesn't, or at the very least, shouldn't depend on who else happens to also like it.
You were disappointed in Discovery, and it was a big deal for you, I can understand that. I myself have had giant disappointments in fandoms that were literally keeping me alive in dark times, but that doesn't mean I get to cry about how MY THINGS PERSONALLY were ruined. These fandoms don't belong to you, or to the Elite Nerd Club. Your opinions and love for them does - but that's it.
Complain about the quality of TV shows and other stories, sure. But don't say that they were ruined because they became mainstream. Don't gatekeep, Minh - it's anything but progressive.
I... seem to still have problems with formatting my text on the Board. Maybe I should have waited for my temper to cool a little so I could pay more attention to my typing.