Taking a stand against toxic fandom (and other ) — Page 6

Handman said:

Suddenly, everyone who’s on the opposite side is at best potentially a commie/toxic, or at worst guilty by association.

That’s always been a fear of mine.

Don’t worry, Malik Obama has your back. Just don’t dress funny.

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

Kellythatsit said:

These people deserve to be called out as the abhorrent jerks they are. Seriously, this is a series of fictional films! People are sending death threats and behaving like absolute nobs just because someone made a star war they didn’t like, or wrote a story they felt was boring, or were a bit confused by all the long words they used.

It’s time these “fans” chilled the **** out and realised their sense of entitlement doesn’t give them the right to troll and abuse people whose only “crime” was to try to make something others would enjoy. It sickens me to see Daisy Ridley and Kelly Marie Tran forced to close down their Instagram accounts because idiots think it’s their right to post hateful dribble at them when they post a photo, just because they were in Star Wars.

Meanwhile shows like RFR and Geeks and Gamers pander their self important drivel to these dregs of the community in a wholly transparent attempt to get more subscriptions and likes.

Well said mate ✊

I disagree with the latter part. Once you start conflating critical platforms such as RFR and Geeks and Gamers with toxic fandom and the like, you’re on a very slippery slope. Similar tactics were used against many liberals in the cold war. Suddenly, everyone who’s on the opposite side is at best potentially a commie/toxic, or at worst guilty by association.

That’s ok that you don’t agree. For many they aren’t considered critical platforms - they are considered toxic. Some may think they are a little of both or varying degrees of. That people enjoy them and like them is up to them - personally I think they’re toxic.

I also like to think many of the people on here, and SW fandom in large, can differentiate between genuine, balanced, legitimate, or informative criticisms of a film(s) - and alternative views therein - and the type of toxic content often found on those and similar platforms (as well as a lack of genuine, balanced, legitimate, or informative criticism on them). Though again, if people like them, or believe they do the find above in those platforms, or aren’t interested in those things… then fair play - it’s up to them.
 

If I want to see shite like this…

(^ the cover used by Geeks and Gamers for their ‘The Last Jedi - Disney Basically Admits That Rey is a Mary Sue’ video (Disney didn’t ‘admit’ anything))

… and numerous articles on Kathleen Kennedy perceivingly ‘failing’, or doing something ‘wrong’, or not to their liking, or have words put in her mouth… I’ll know where to go. Until then I stay away from the toxic shite like that - and can get what I consider to more quality, balanced insight and actual factual-based criticism elsewhere.

Just my two-penneth.
 

In my view as long as people criticize content, business decisions, or politics, and don’t personally attack people, it’s fair game. I don’t agree with everything these people advocate, but to me not liking someone’s (sometimes strong and outspoken) opinion should not be equated to toxicity. Saying Rey is a Mary Sue, and depicting this with a caricature is not toxicity in my view. Personally attacking or harrassing Daisy Ridley is. Saying Kathleen Kennedy is a crappy President of Lucasfilm, and advocating her removal isn’t toxicity. Personally attacking or harrassing Kathleen Kennedy is. Conflating harsh criticism with toxcity is in of itself toxic behaviour imo.

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

Who said anything about free speech?

They have the right to do it. I have the right to think it’s shitty, and despite knowing nothing about them, I think I definitely know enough now.

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

There is a lot worse things one could do.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

There is a lot worse things one could do.

That’s a worse defense than free speech.

You’re right, they could have sent her a letterbomb. That would have been far worse. What’s your point?

Kellythatsit said:

Seriously, this is a series of fictional films!

We’ve nicknamed a whole generation of people based on this “series of fictional films” Perhaps they are a little more special than other series of fictional films.

oojason said:

Warbler said:

Kellythatsit said:

Seriously, this is a series of fictional films!

We’ve nicknamed a whole generation of people based on this “series of fictional films” Perhaps they are a little more special than other series of fictional films.

Used in the context of ‘People are sending death threats and behaving like absolute nobs just because someone made a star war they didn’t like’ it seems fair enough, yes?

‘Seriously, this is a series of fictional films!’ - That’s the bit you have decided to take issue with? Fair enough…

 

I agree sending death threats is totally unacceptable. Anyone that does so should be prosecuted. I agree harassing the actors and forcing them to shut down their Facebook pages is totally unacceptable. As for behaving like abosolute nobs, I’d have know exactly what you refer to before condemning them.

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

Kellythatsit said:

Seriously, this is a series of fictional films!

We’ve nicknamed a whole generation of people based on this “series of fictional films” Perhaps they are a little more special than other series of fictional films.

Used in the context of ‘People are sending death threats and behaving like absolute nobs just because someone made a star war they didn’t like’ it seems fair enough, yes?

‘Seriously, this is a series of fictional films!’ - That’s the bit you have decided to take issue with? Fair enough…

 

I agree sending death threats is totally unacceptable. Anyone that does so should be prosecuted. I agree harassing the actors and forcing them to shut down their Facebook pages is totally unacceptable. As for behaving like abosolute nobs, I’d have know exactly what you refer to before condemning them.

and you thought you’d learn this by taking issue with ‘Seriously, this is a series of fictional films’? Okay, good luck with that.

Huh? I learned sending death threats was unacceptable a long time ago, so I really don’t understand what you are saying here.

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, or any other term used to label people or put them in a box for having a different or controversial opinion.

I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. Calling out someone for being shitty is not the same as shutting down free speech and democratic society.

The use of “communist” here is a weird thing as well. It has no bearing on the topic at hand.

I think I’m done here.

TV’s Frink said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, or any other term used to label people or put them in a box for having a different or controversial opinion.

I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. Calling out someone for being shitty is not the same as shutting down free speech and democratic society.

The use of “communist” here is a weird thing as well. It has no bearing on the topic at hand.

I think I’m done here.

Good for you. Toxic is a label originally meant for those that harrass people, that is too easily applied by those that would like to use it as a weapon against those they disagree with, and so now even those with more outspoken opinions against LFM or the recent films, and their characters are labeled toxic. The label communist was applied to liberals by their opponents to attack their political views, or to demonize them. There’s your connnection. It is an apt analogy.

This whole conversation is so awkward to watch. Thanks Ojason for ending it. In terms of the topic at hand I suggest appointing some sort of representative of this site to do a you tube video detailing the more positive aspects of our cause.

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.

Like I said above - it’s okay that you do disagree. Nice one.

I have empathy with anyone who’d offended by a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad - and can see why such a picture would be toxic. Hey, I live in a free democratic society and accept it’s foundations too - as do many who may think it toxic too - or even those who don’t.

Now let’s get back on topic re taking a stand against toxic fandom - not re the Prophet Muhammad and communism being aligned with evil, degraded and blasphemy - your words.
 

It was on topic, since I specifically criticized those that abuse the term toxic for their own agenda, perpetuating toxicity within the fandom. Toxicity ends with respecting different, sometimes more outspoken points of view. Labeling people toxic for having an opinion does not.

Apparently the analogies I used, are too far out there, so I’ll leave those for another time, and place.

However, in the vein of my original argument, is toxicity a one way street? Are only those that harshly criticize LFM, Disney, the films, and the characters toxic? Is “toxic” the new “sexist”, to be labeled on anyone with a strong negative opinion of the current canon? In my view any form of intolerence or animosity within the fandom is toxic, whether it is perpetuated by critics or fans of the new films.

DrDre said:

Apparently the analogies I used, are too far out there, so I’ll leave those for another time, and place.

However, in the vein of my original argument, is toxicity a one way street? Are only those that harshly criticize LFM, Disney, the films, and the characters toxic? Is “toxic” the new “sexist”, to be labeled on anyone with a strong negative opinion of the current canon? In my view any form of intolerence or animosity within the fandom is toxic, whether it is perpetuated by critics or fans of the new films.

For what it’s worth Dre I think you’re absolutely on topic and not being ‘toxic’ at all. I respect the moderators’ right to draw their own conversational lines, so I won’t belabour the point, but I absolutely get what you’re saying.

Toxicity is not a one way street but one direction has multiple lanes and the other has a bike path.