Regarding Online Bullying in Fandoms
Jan. 17th, 2020 04:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aikateriniGiven how the existence of fan policing and harassment on the Internet is sadly still an ongoing issue, causing multiple ongoing discussions of it, here are a few things for me to keep in mind:
One: Anybody who sends threats to other people and/or harasses a real person is a bully. It doesn't matter what their rationale is, what their politics are, what they identify as, what their target identifies as, or what good intentions they give as the reason for their behavior. Don't get caught up in their identity or reasoning, focus on their methods and actions. Once they send death threats to real-life people, they've effectively rendered their rationale null and void. Don't get caught up in who's doing it or who it's being done to, focus on what it is that they're doing.
Ex. It doesn't matter that you hated Rose Tico in "The Last Jedi." It doesn't matter if you thought that she was written poorly or she got in the way of your ship or she annoyed you or any other reason that you give for your dislike. Once you send death threats and harassment to Kelly Marie Tran, the real-life actress who plays her, that's it. Every reason that you have is now meaningless. Real-life people trump fictional characters.
Two: Just because you like something doesn't mean that everyone has to like it and just because you don't like something doesn't mean that everyone else has to dislike it. I think that this may be one of the reasons why shipping wars exist. It's not enough that you like a certain ship, no, everybody has to see the light and ship it also. It's not enough that you dislike a certain ship, no, everyone else has to dislike it too and if they don't, then there must be something wrong with them. The phrase "Ship and let ship" exists for a reason. Your opinion is your opinion and not everyone has to share it.
Ex. Just because Barbie's established boyfriend is Ken doesn't mean that kids can't make up a story where she falls in love with GI Joe or dates Midge instead. It's make-believe. None of it is real. Even if you don't agree with shipping Barbie with GI Joe or understand why people ship her with GI Joe, that doesn't give you the right to insult or attack them over it. Your idea of fun may not be someone else's and that's okay. Everyone has their own preferences, everyone has their own likes and dislikes. In short, mind your own business.
Three: It's okay to dislike something and you don't have to invent elaborate justifications for your dislike, especially not those that depend on moral superiority. I think that this is another facet of shipping wars, as well as character bashing in general. It's not enough to like a ship, it has to be canon and/or the 'correct' ship. And if you don't like a character, you have to be 'correct' in disliking them, so you pretend that your taste is objective. This is where you get the hypocritical bashing of one character and the defense of another, even though both characters have done similar things or have similar traits. It's not enough to say, "I just don't like this ship" or "This character really isn't my type." No, everything that you like has to be morally and objectively correct, so anybody who disagrees with you is obviously morally and objectively incorrect. When, again, these are fictional characters that people are playing with. Writing fanfiction and drawing fanart are hobbies that people do for fun. They are no more morally righteous than playing baseball or collecting stamps.
Ex. Liking Ron x Hermione, the canon ship in Harry Potter, doesn't make you morally superior to someone who ships Hermione or Ron with someone else. Even if you were proven 'right' by the series finale, that doesn't mean that people who favor other ships are stupid or bad for doing so. Likewise, just because the seventh book proved Harry x Hermione shippers 'wrong' doesn't mean that they can't still read and write stories where Harry and Hermione fall in love.
Four: People have the right to create art the way that they want and you don't have the right to stop them from doing so. Yes, even if it's poorly made. Yes, even if what they're creating is something that offends you. As terrible and awful as their work may be, they still have a right to create it. You have the right to dislike it and criticize it and avoid it once it's out there. But you don't have the right to bully the creator and discourage them from creating.
Ex. There is no excuse for the bullying that Amelie Wen Zhao endured from the online book community for her book that hadn't even been published yet, which caused her to withdraw it from publication before re-releasing it after online backlash (it's in print now). What those people did was not 'thoughtful critique' or 'helpful advice', it was an entitled tantrum that she didn't cater to their specific tastes. If you don't like what's in her book, then don't read it and instead read a book that has stuff that you do like.
Five: There are no acceptable targets. If it's wrong to generalize one group, then it's wrong to generalize another. Past history, common group trends, stereotypes, etc. are irrelevant. You are not dealing with an entire country, you are dealing with an individual on the Internet. Their identity is irrelevant. It is not 'better' or 'worse' for one group to do something or experience something. Equal treatment means that a person's words and actions are what needs to be examined, not their identity. Anyone who disagrees with this statement is just looking for excuses for their own behavior. Which is, coincidentally, what bullies tend to do.
Ex. Both Kelly Marie Tran and Jake Lloyd were bullied after starring in Star Wars films because fans didn't like the characters that they were portraying. At the end of the day, does it really matter that Jake Lloyd was a male Caucasian child and Kelly Marie Tran was a female Asian adult? Does that really make one case 'better' or 'worse' than the other? Does it really matter what group their bullies belonged to, when their actions speak for themselves? Focusing on group labels just distracts people from the core principle that you shouldn't bully or harass anyone.
In conclusion, your taste is subjective. Liking something doesn't automatically make it morally superior. Disliking something doesn't automatically make it morally inferior. Not everyone has to like what you like. Not everything has to cater to your tastes. And nothing justifies the harassment and bullying of real people.
One: Anybody who sends threats to other people and/or harasses a real person is a bully. It doesn't matter what their rationale is, what their politics are, what they identify as, what their target identifies as, or what good intentions they give as the reason for their behavior. Don't get caught up in their identity or reasoning, focus on their methods and actions. Once they send death threats to real-life people, they've effectively rendered their rationale null and void. Don't get caught up in who's doing it or who it's being done to, focus on what it is that they're doing.
Ex. It doesn't matter that you hated Rose Tico in "The Last Jedi." It doesn't matter if you thought that she was written poorly or she got in the way of your ship or she annoyed you or any other reason that you give for your dislike. Once you send death threats and harassment to Kelly Marie Tran, the real-life actress who plays her, that's it. Every reason that you have is now meaningless. Real-life people trump fictional characters.
Two: Just because you like something doesn't mean that everyone has to like it and just because you don't like something doesn't mean that everyone else has to dislike it. I think that this may be one of the reasons why shipping wars exist. It's not enough that you like a certain ship, no, everybody has to see the light and ship it also. It's not enough that you dislike a certain ship, no, everyone else has to dislike it too and if they don't, then there must be something wrong with them. The phrase "Ship and let ship" exists for a reason. Your opinion is your opinion and not everyone has to share it.
Ex. Just because Barbie's established boyfriend is Ken doesn't mean that kids can't make up a story where she falls in love with GI Joe or dates Midge instead. It's make-believe. None of it is real. Even if you don't agree with shipping Barbie with GI Joe or understand why people ship her with GI Joe, that doesn't give you the right to insult or attack them over it. Your idea of fun may not be someone else's and that's okay. Everyone has their own preferences, everyone has their own likes and dislikes. In short, mind your own business.
Three: It's okay to dislike something and you don't have to invent elaborate justifications for your dislike, especially not those that depend on moral superiority. I think that this is another facet of shipping wars, as well as character bashing in general. It's not enough to like a ship, it has to be canon and/or the 'correct' ship. And if you don't like a character, you have to be 'correct' in disliking them, so you pretend that your taste is objective. This is where you get the hypocritical bashing of one character and the defense of another, even though both characters have done similar things or have similar traits. It's not enough to say, "I just don't like this ship" or "This character really isn't my type." No, everything that you like has to be morally and objectively correct, so anybody who disagrees with you is obviously morally and objectively incorrect. When, again, these are fictional characters that people are playing with. Writing fanfiction and drawing fanart are hobbies that people do for fun. They are no more morally righteous than playing baseball or collecting stamps.
Ex. Liking Ron x Hermione, the canon ship in Harry Potter, doesn't make you morally superior to someone who ships Hermione or Ron with someone else. Even if you were proven 'right' by the series finale, that doesn't mean that people who favor other ships are stupid or bad for doing so. Likewise, just because the seventh book proved Harry x Hermione shippers 'wrong' doesn't mean that they can't still read and write stories where Harry and Hermione fall in love.
Four: People have the right to create art the way that they want and you don't have the right to stop them from doing so. Yes, even if it's poorly made. Yes, even if what they're creating is something that offends you. As terrible and awful as their work may be, they still have a right to create it. You have the right to dislike it and criticize it and avoid it once it's out there. But you don't have the right to bully the creator and discourage them from creating.
Ex. There is no excuse for the bullying that Amelie Wen Zhao endured from the online book community for her book that hadn't even been published yet, which caused her to withdraw it from publication before re-releasing it after online backlash (it's in print now). What those people did was not 'thoughtful critique' or 'helpful advice', it was an entitled tantrum that she didn't cater to their specific tastes. If you don't like what's in her book, then don't read it and instead read a book that has stuff that you do like.
Five: There are no acceptable targets. If it's wrong to generalize one group, then it's wrong to generalize another. Past history, common group trends, stereotypes, etc. are irrelevant. You are not dealing with an entire country, you are dealing with an individual on the Internet. Their identity is irrelevant. It is not 'better' or 'worse' for one group to do something or experience something. Equal treatment means that a person's words and actions are what needs to be examined, not their identity. Anyone who disagrees with this statement is just looking for excuses for their own behavior. Which is, coincidentally, what bullies tend to do.
Ex. Both Kelly Marie Tran and Jake Lloyd were bullied after starring in Star Wars films because fans didn't like the characters that they were portraying. At the end of the day, does it really matter that Jake Lloyd was a male Caucasian child and Kelly Marie Tran was a female Asian adult? Does that really make one case 'better' or 'worse' than the other? Does it really matter what group their bullies belonged to, when their actions speak for themselves? Focusing on group labels just distracts people from the core principle that you shouldn't bully or harass anyone.
In conclusion, your taste is subjective. Liking something doesn't automatically make it morally superior. Disliking something doesn't automatically make it morally inferior. Not everyone has to like what you like. Not everything has to cater to your tastes. And nothing justifies the harassment and bullying of real people.
