massive context

roteli  asked:

You mentioned in a post that fiction ≠ reality, but to kids it's not, fiction shapes how they see the world. Fiction is supposed to show them what's right and what's wrong. Adults who support adult/minor relationships make it had for children to distinguish that line if they haven't dealt with discourse (in the actual sense of the word) on serious subjects before. I can't make you stop shipping adult/minor ships, but I hope you consider what you're posting and the consequences that they have.

Is it fiction that shapes their perception or context?

I will agree that what we see in the media can influence us to some extent; a tragic movie can bring us to tears, just like a drama can educate us on matters across the globe, and propaganda has been used - even in modern day - to try and change the opinions of the masses to suit a greater power.

That being said, those things all rely on context: our tears spring from empathy, the education relies on a desire to be educated, and propaganda usually is on the back of a society willing to believe or being fed specific information from other sources. It’s like in children’s shows. We see Bart Simpson being strangled by his father, or Keith name-calling Lance, but children usually know these things are completely wrong.

They know not to imitate ‘Tom and Jerry’, because they have parents and teachers there to say: “it is wrong to hurt someone else”. They get time-outs on the naughty step, or a spanking in certain cultures, or just a long lecture … they usually have some trusted figure there to discipline and/or explain, so that everything they watch is through that same filter of understanding.

It’s why we need to supervise the media our children consume.

I think you are right: if this is the only discourse a child sees, it can have detrimental affects, but - massive ‘but’ here - where are the parents/guardians? Why are strangers on the Internet meant to parent the children of other people, whom they have not agreed to legally raise?

See, when we grew up, this was a constant discussion. We were taught basics of reproduction as soon as we asked questions. We were taught about ‘naughty places’ and ‘private places’. We were taught never to let an adult touch there. These discussions evolved over time, so - as a young teenager - we were taught about statutory rape, that even if we ‘want’ it that it’s still wrong, and so forth and so forth … 

We need to put the responsibility for raising a child on the parents.

Tumblr is 18+ on the app, 13+ on the website, I believe? While AO3 allows all content and explicitly states this, while having a tagging and rating system for you to make an informed choice about what you see. This means we have to lay responsibility upon the parents for not supervising or limiting the Internet activity of the child, instead of trying to infringe upon the rights of adults and remove their safe spaces to produce/consume art as they wish.

It’s basically a case of there being safe spaces for children, too, where they can discuss/consume art freely without coming across such materials, but that falls upon the parent to make sure that they are on the right websites … example, if I do not like porn then I avoid porn sites. If I don’t want to see shipping, I don’t go onto Tumblr or AO3.

What I’m advocating is personal responsibility. 

We need parents/guardians to stop the children from seeing these things, or for them (and schools) to provide a context to what they see … if a child knows that it’s fiction, just like child abuse in ‘The Simpsons’ or glorified violence in ‘Tom and Jerry’ is just fiction, they won’t normalise it and seek to emulate it. The answer isn’t to ban or censor such cartoons; no one would ever say ‘ban cartoons’, because they’re a part of life, but I think providing context to cartoons is absolutely key to these things.

One last example … 

I was around eight when “South Park” first came out; we watched it religiously as children, even with videos cassettes of it, because parents assumed that it was safe as all cartoons were for kids (that was their mistake and their fault as parents, because - like with shipping - the content isn’t the problem, but that it’s made accessible by parents unwilling to supervise their own children). 

In our case, we had massive context for what we saw (luckily, our parents were good on that score, which is part of why I always advocate teaching children, especially if you aren’t willing to supervise them). We never copied the bad language (some people I know today never swear; even I say ‘shoot’ or ‘darn’ as a general rule). No one I know copied the violence (I don’t have a single friend from that group who ever tried to kick a baby, for example). 

It was just entertainment. We laughed and enjoyed it, but we never copied it or held it up to a standard of normality … it was just a cartoon; we knew that, because our parents taught us that, as well as teaching us the behaviour in such cartoons was inappropriate in real life. This is why education is key.

If a child has parents that accidentally let them see Keith/Shiro, they should at least have the education and context to know that behaviour is inappropriate and should not be copied … it’s not up to shippers to stop creating such works, because the places we’re in are designed for adults or for all age-groups with explicit rules allowing such art. Now, if I went onto a children’s forum and posted such things -? Bad. On Tumblr -? Not so bad.

Sorry for the long essay back. 

We just need to realise that art/fanfiction isn’t the problem; the problem comes from parents/guardians not contextualising what children see, or preventing them from seeing it in the first place. We also need more safe spaces just for children, both moderated and supervised by responsible adults, so they have places to go that - well - aren’t Tumblr or AO3.  

anonymous asked:

*I don't want you to convince me phan is real, I'm just genuinely interested* I know your opinion is that they are together and they always have been, but from 2011 to 2013 they constantly repeated they were single and alluded they were only interested in girls. I remember them flirting with their female audience, explaining the characteristics they looked for in a girl and them saying to each other "you need a girlfriend" or things like "imagine you were making out with a girl and x happened"

and if I’m not mistaking Dan’s no homo phase didn’t end, definitely, until 2015. Doesn’t that make you doubt in the slightest?

Why would any of that make me doubt that they are either a) not straight - especially given that neither of them have literally ever said they were, or b) a closeted couple who is only just now in the past year being more open about their lives? 

There is massive context around their actions of that year or two. Closeted couples who genuinely are afraid that their sexuality or relationship might cause issues in their career, who believe that the pressure of coming out might impact their relationship, or who just plain aren’t ready don’t generally set out to sell a lie that they don’t want you to believe. The goal was to muddy the water enough that they weren’t held personally accountable for a video about their relationship that they weren’t prepared to address to their audience. It worked, for the time they needed it to work. They were, at that point, protecting what they thought they needed to protect. (And what, for all we know, they did need to protect.)

And I guess my only other response to this is: look at them right now, anon. Do these look like two straight men to you? Do they act like two straight men, in terms of expressing attraction? Do they act like two men who are still trying to hide that they fully complete each other’s lives in every single way that counts? Why would behavior they left behind years ago mean more than what they are literally saying and doing right now? 

anonymous asked:

/watch?v=bYnK96PbJEE what do you think about this clip? from what I know, this happened around the time the vday video leaked for the second time and shit went down *sigh* glorious customer service blog days but he seems quite interested in her, though I'm not sure.

(link to video)

My answer to asks like this is literally always going to be the same. There is no point where I’m suddenly going to say oh shit, you’re right, that one thing they said on camera is totally different from every other closeted push to hide their relationship. 

So I’m just going to c/p what I said a few days ago: 

There is massive context around their actions of that year or two. Closeted couples who genuinely are afraid that their sexuality or relationship might cause issues in their career, who believe that the pressure of coming out might impact their relationship, or who just plain aren’t ready don’t generally set out to sell a lie that they don’t want you to believe. The goal was to muddy the water enough that they weren’t held personally accountable for a video about their relationship that they weren’t prepared to address to their audience. It worked, for the time they needed it to work. They were, at that point, protecting what they thought they needed to protect. (And what, for all we know, they did need to protect.)

bioshock infinite is the worst game in the world and foodfight! is the worst film in the world and now i think about it they have a lot of similarities both in content and context (massive wasted budget, severely delayed production, hugely overambitious hack directors, racist, terrible half-assed allegories, sunshine goodness and elizabeth are literally the same, ditto for dex dogtective and booker dewitt, the profound sense of exhaustion that slowly grips you the more you play/watch) like i can easily imagine a universe where they switch roles in the popular consciousness. the highly cursed hard-drives containing all the data for bioshock infinite are stolen mid-way through production so the dev team has to start from scratch, all the merch that was pre-emptively manufactured ends up in crane machines across the globe to be won by confused children who cant understand how among the dozens of bootleg minions up for grabs they managed to score a statuette of george washington with a gun. the game is quietly released years after the intended date and internet communities that happen upon it are sickened, delighted and baffled wondering what those involved could possibly have been thinking. meanwhile the latest ultra-hyped installant in the acclaimed Fight! franchise, featuring a multi-layered dystopian city themed around the beloved brands at your local supermarket, garners rave reviews and gets a Movie Of The Year 2013 Edition limited re-release including over fifty dollars worth of bonus content, the Burial At Food (Part 1 and Part 2) DLC, and an exclusive Cheazel T. Weasel plush toy. “Foodfight! blew my mind and then my dick. Ten stars.” - 

Perhaps the trickiest aspect of the scarcity problem is that it enormously complicates the issue of whether you want a portrayal of a female character to specifically engage her being a woman or not. Do you want Black Widow to be exactly like the other Avengers and incidentally a woman? Because there’s an argument that parity calls for that. Or do you want the story to be about the fact that she’s a woman, as in fact it is here, and to deal with that fact and make it part of the story of her life? There’s an argument that parity calls for that, too.

The answer, of course, is yes, to both. I want there to be stories about women that aren’t specific to the fact that they’re women, and I want stories about women that acknowledge that fact and build it into the story. This is how it is with men: every story you’ve ever heard of a man who learns years later that he has a child he didn’t know about is specific to his role in baby-having, just as much as Natasha’s story is specific to hers. Those stories should be told; it’s rich subject matter. It’s not sexist to tell that story. But most stories about men in movies are just about them doing stuff, and there should be stories about women just doing stuff, too.

The problem with trying to look at a film outside of the context in which it exists – a context of massive underrepresentation behind and in front of the camera – is that it’s entirely theoretical. You can’t remove a film from its cultural context; that’s part of what makes movies interesting. There’s no such thing as analyzing a Hollywood movie as something separate from what Hollywood unceasingly is; it’s like analyzing wine without having ever heard of grapes.

—  “Black Widow, Scarce Resources And High-Stakes Stories,” aka Linda Holmes being brilliant and saying everything I wanted to hear on this

anonymous asked:

don't you think we're reaching critical levels of ziam denial? larry blogs are acting like elounor and zerrie blogs. they're ignoring them and sidestepping when asked about them. the evidence is piling up but nobody but ziam blogs will touch it with a ten foot pole. when louis used to get visibly aroused on stage, it's the biggest big deal ever. zayn gets visibly aroused on stage (twice recently) and we get crickets. if they're so supportive of same sex couples, where is the ziam support?

I don’t disagree with you nonnie. In the interest of fairness, I think it’s a conversation that needs to be had–honestly. But, I can’t force any Larry blogs to discuss it. As time goes on, the hypocrisy becomes more glaringly obvious. It’s becoming an elephant in the room.

I read a couple of good posts tonight that I would’ve reblogged were it not for what I call “Ziam erasure”. I also don’t like the near biblical tone of Larry martyrdom that comes from some Larry blogs. Things are dramatic enough already, thanks.

Hey, if they don’t see it, they don’t see it. But this is a very observant and intelligent part of the fandom. It’s getting harder and harder to believe they don’t see it. In ignoring Ziam, Larry supporters are ignoring a massive amount of context clues that actually support all the Larry arguments. They really help bring the bigger picture into focus. But fandom, y'know..whaddaya gonna do?