By Vibrathor (in quotes)
with commentary by Toomanylokifeels (me - not in quotes)
This is a post discussing some of the more obnoxious aspects of fandom culture. This isn’t based on any one person but fandom as a whole and some of the more toxic aspects of it.
Some people are complaining about Tom’s “hair” in both Thor 2 and Only Lovers Left Alive. Let me remind you that Tom is an actor and is required to look the part of his characters. He can’t just go in with his own reddish-blonde hair and he can’t always have slicked back perfectly styled in appearance type of hair.
Loki’s hair looks fine to me considering he’s a prisoner. Of course his hair is naturally wavy-like. No one is born with perfectly slicked back hair. It has to be styled. My hair actually looks pretty similar to Loki’s in Thor 2 and I can tell you right now that just because it’s wavy does not mean it’s not clean. People tend to automatically associate straight hair with cleanliness with other hair types as dirty, unwashed, and/or tangled. Aside from the fact that different hair types = different care regimens, if I failed to clean my naturally wavy hair for a few days my hair would look straight to you because of all the grease. Anyways, what I’m trying to say here is shut up about his hair looking dirty - it’s likely not - and even if it is, he’s a fucking prisoner.
As far as his OLLA hair, I think they did a great job. He looks the part. He’s supposed to be a musician, right? My dad is a musician and he plays in multiple bands. He has also worked as the manager of multiple music stores. 99% of the musicians he works with have long hair, dreads, and/or ponytails. If you don’t like it, tough. As I’ve said. Tom is an actor and part of the whole acting thing is looking the damn part. If he looks the part of a musician, like an actual musician not these poor exaggerated stereotypes of musicians often portrayed in Hollywood, than he’s going to have his hair like that and he’s going to have to wear those clothes.
I’M SO FUCKING DONE WITH THIS GOODBYE.
slytherlocked replied to your post: *talking about bullies in high school*…
in elementary school, when they said they wouldnt hit a girl, id bap my guy friends on the arm til i got them to hit back. i was terrified what their parents had told them would lead to them being unwilling to defend themselves should they have to.
It’s just so stupid and I cannot stand the double standard that even some feminists support because it benefits them. That is that men shouldn’t hit women but women can hit men just fine no consequence. This is rooted in sexist ideology on who can be an aggressor and who can be a victim.
It benefited me all the time on the playground when I used to rough-house with my male friends. They would get in trouble for it. I wouldn’t, because apparently I wasn’t a threat being a sweet little girl. This is not to say that this is in any way part of a “matriarchal” system of oppression on men, MRAs, but to show that patriarchal systems that posit women as weak victims really backfires on men.
It tricks men into thinking that women aren’t and cannot be a threat to them. It justifies abuse against them and teaches them that they should disarm, so to speak, rather than defend themselves when absolutely necessary. Heck, the expert sniper in Full Metal Jacket was a young girl and what really irritates me is that here she is downplayed as “fragile” and that it can be assumed she was “forced to fight” as if women are entirely incapable of having a drive for warfare and as if men are naturally in a state of having a constant desire for conflict.
Now, I understand that the large percentage of victims of abuse are women and that women may feel forced to behave violently in certain situations, but reinforcing that physical abuse can only be doled out by a specific gender to a specific gender is a harmful mentality.
If you don’t want someone hitting you, don’t make your reasoning behind it be their gender identity or sex. Don’t give yourself tunnel vision when it comes to abuse. Anyone can be an abuser and anyone can be a victim.
I guess my main worry with ships I don’t like is not so much stopping people from shipping that particular thing altogether but making sure that people are aware of the problematic aspects of certain ships that I don’t like. Liking a problematic ship is not necessarily the problem itself. Excusing the problematic things or erasing them for convenience is the issue I have with it.
Of course you’re allowed to ship x, y, or z even if they’re not canon. It’s for your enjoyment, not mine! However, some people ship non-canon pairings that can be really really problematic if we look at the relationship between those characters in canon. (ex. Loki x (insert any character here) tends to have problematic implications) and those aspects are often ignored or romanticized which is a whole other issue that bothers me - romanticizing unhealthy relationships.
What also bothers me, and I covered this before, is that some are deluded into thinking that their ship is or will become canon when it’s not. Then, in thinking this, they force their ideas and romanticized view of these characters onto canon wildly misinterpreting key characterizations and events, and erasing important relationships within canon.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I don’t mind that people ship things that I personally don’t like. I can block it, whatever. However, I really do want people to be conscientious about what they ship, even for pairings that I do ship. Not absolutely everything I ship is canon and not everything I ship is considered “healthy” (because most relationships aren’t picture perfect but I digress) but I recognize this and don’t allow it to affect my interpretation of canon nor do I allow it to excuse problematic things. Then again, I am not a romanticizer at all when it comes to relationships between characters.
So just, please think about the implications of these characters forming relationships and understand the difference between AU/OOC and canon?
Also, someone pointing out the critical flaws in your argument is not necessarily disagreeing with your opinion. It just means that your argument is weak and shouldn’t be used to support your opinion. In that case, when they tell you where the flaws in your argument exist and how to modify your argument to better suit your opinion then that person is doing you a favor.
Using dictionary definitions is a flawed approach to defending your opinion whether that be in fandom or in actual political discourse. Why is that? It’s because dictionary definitions only give you a general sense of a word and are not the ultimate authority on word meaning. People and how they choose to use words give them meaning and power. A word may start off with a denotative meaning, that is the meaning is explicit and standardized. However, the word may also gain a new meaning due to the connotations surrounding the word becoming denotative.
A good example of this, and I wrote an etymology paper on this before, is the word villain. This word originally referred to peasant people. Over time, it has come to refer to a character type that does evil deeds in a story. The word received negative connotations in part because it referred to someone who was already low class. It was also used in friendly contexts to refer to someone, like when you refer to your friends using words like “bitch” and the like; the word has negative connotations but you are using it to be friendly and show a close relationship to the person.
Arguing that dictionary definitions are the ultimate authority is weak because words are mutable. Language is very mutable. Furthermore, dictionaries can capture a small sense of a word - usually in its most common and standard sense - but not all senses of the word are included. In addition, the implications of the word are not necessarily included.
You may very well be justified in your opinion but dictionary arguments fail time and again. Dictionary arguments have also been traditionally used to support and uphold “ism” like attitudes. If we start tolerating dictionary based arguments in non-political contexts such as fandom, we might as well be tolerating them in other contexts where they could be more harmful. Don’t use them.
notice how it does not say ‘misunderstood, antagonized, used, whiny little bitch with daddy issues’
a villain is someone who does bad things and no one else influences their actions or behavior
don’t try to look over what a villain has done
it’s villainy, there’s no excuse for it
I understand this is likely not meant to be taken so seriously but I’m going to anyways. I’m sorry.
Though I understand the dictionary approach, linguistically it is a seriously flawed approach. Words are not concrete and they take on new connotative meanings that become denotative over time. Therefore technically the word villain to others may have the connotative meaning of a character who on the surface is reprehensible and awful, but beneath could be misunderstood. This sort of understanding of the word villain has become increasingly popular with the rise of villain worship in pop culture.
I am not saying it should be interpreted this way, just that some do with or without a dictionary definition and the increased tendency to define the word differently over time may impact/change the commonly accepted definition of the word, which is troublesome to think about! If we don’t want this shift to happen we need to address the issue of apologism and the glorification of evil in pop culture. In addition, we should ideally address how being wronged or perceiving being wronged does not justify doing wrong.
Technically the word villain means many different things. Initially it referred to someone who had a low standing in society, a peasant basically. It also is used playfully to refer to someone in older literary works. Also, it is used to refer to someone who has wronged you. In much more recent times it has come to refer to someone of low moral character, a criminal or scoundrel. This is because the connotative meanings of the word “villain” have taken hold and become denotative over time.
To say “notice how it does not say misunderstood, etc…” using the standard definition, is a rather weak argument. It also does not mean that no one else influences their actions or behaviors. This is because while it does not explicitly say that, it also does not say this cannot be implied. Words do not simply exist with their standard dictionary definitions alone, but have different implications when used in different contexts.
IF you want to make it clear what a villain is or should be within the context of films, comics, books, etc. - as in, this is a character who is considered to be irredeemably evil and that is their purpose - I recommend this definition from the OED instead:
“The character in a play, novel, etc. whose evil motives or actions form an important element in the plot”
This definition only came into use around the 1800s. It’s much clearer what the character’s purpose/place is in the work and what they are responsible for (evil deeds) using this definition. I think it is more appropriate because while the standard definitions of the word villain may be manipulated by strengthening certain connotations, this particular definition is more concrete or immutable.
(Source: dielife)
There’s been a lot of concern lately over blogs trying to expose every thing a celebrity has done wrong and show the fans that those that they love are problematic pieces of shit. While I totally think it’s important to openly discuss the problematic behaviors and attitudes influential celebrities may hold, it’s really important to focus on the issue itself.
You are definitely not obligated to like said celebrity because of x, y, or z and you are certainly free to express dissatisfaction/disgust with said person. However, if you really care about the issues themselves - ex. cultural appropriation - you would step away from the hunt for problematic people and look at how pervasive the issue itself is and how important it is to be an informed consumer.
Because at the moment it just feels like these issues are being used solely for the purpose of picking apart individuals and some of these very important issues are not being taken seriously. I was talking to my mom about this the other day. She believes evil will disappear if we expose the right individuals and bring them to justice. It will not. Evil is pervasive. What we need to do is destroy it from the roots, and in the case of terrorism, that means ceasing the violence, reducing tensions we are creating, lift up the voices of peace, and stop indoctrinating future generations into hate.
The world ain’t gonna get fixed if we focus entirely too much on individuals. Pointing out problematic behavior when you see it and addressing it is one thing, hunting down problematic behavior is a whole other thing that will likely lead you to more frustration than progress.
No, I am going to talk about this and you are going to listen.
Asexuals often receive rape threats because people believe that asexual-identifying individuals cannot possibly not want to have sex; even though the idea that asexuality is defined by specifically not wanting to have sex is a false one. (And I’ve explained that here) It is for this reason why I am tired of the constant oppression game people like to play with the asexual community. Are we oppressed? Are we not?
It doesn’t matter, all these arguments do is mask the fact that this unacceptable thing is happening. People actually think that “corrective” rape will change someone’s sexual identity. It starts with people asserting your orientation does not exist, and asexuality is not the only orientation to face/to have faced this. Then people assume things about yourself that “made you the way you are.” Then people move into threats territory. Then people move into the actions part.
There is a real fear even among the asexual community that people who identify as anything other than heterosexual will be harassed and assaulted. They have a reason to be upset and a reason to be afraid, it has happened to many people before. Many people within the asexual community and the LGBTQ+ community as a whole have experienced harassment and assault.
By denying that asexuals exist despite evidence that they in fact do, solely based on your misconceptions and political agendas that have little to do with our identity, you are perpetuating this dangerous mindset that people who do not fit into your idea of what a human being should be, need to be corrected.
My question to you is why then in situations where asexuals become upset over people harassing them, do asexuals get blamed for sticking up for themselves? Why are we not questioning why people think it’s okay to send rape threats to people who identify as such? Why are we not questioning what their problem is, instead of what ‘our’ problem is?
My right to exist and to be safe should supersede your right to say whatever the hell you want. Your words have consequences and the consequences of them should not result in people like me getting harmed. This is more than about hurt feelings. This is an attack on our entire existence.
You do not belong in our spaces. You need not voice your “opinion” on our orientation, it’s not a debatable topic and it is not a matter of conflicting opinions. The fact that you get defensive when asexuals rightfully become upset when you attack them shows that the problems lie with you and not with them. Furthermore, it is not your job to regulate what the asexual community does or says, that is something people within the community can debate and discuss critically.
1. You can post whatever you want on tumblr and you can react to whatever you want on tumblr.
2. Understanding these two things requires acknowledging that people will be reacting to the things you post.
3. You can choose how you want to react to them in return.
4. Your actions and reactions to things on tumblr have consequences.
5. These consequences can be positive, negative, or neutral.
6. These consequences depend on what people perceive is socially acceptable for the tumblr community and what is perceived as not socially acceptable - which may vary from micro-community to micro-community (ex. fandom to fandom), but there will be general social rules in the macro-community (all of tumblr) just as there are in the whole of a society.
7. These consequences will vary also depending on the individual view-points and experiences of other tumblr users.
8. Again, you can choose how to react to them.
9. However just because you can do something or say something, doesn’t mean you should.
10. Evaluate how you feel about something first. If it’s something negative to you, think about whether this something is just a minor annoyance or critically problematic to you that immediately affects your happiness and more importantly, your rights as a human being, and then respond.
11. Finally, realize that opinions are that - opinions - and while you may wish someone to stop doing something or start doing something (ex. insulting a character of any given media), you cannot force people to bend to your will but rather give convincing arguments for or against something.
11. Why? - because so many of you complain about the pettiest things like someone adding a two word comment to your post that doesn’t even matter because it’s on their blog and it’s non-problematic, when you could be discussing more important things or handling things better. My god you sound like a bunch of toddlers sometimes, especially when you don’t understand the things you do and say in real life have the same or similar ramifications as they do online. Many of you try to act so mature but I’ve seen so much high-school level catty behavior and bullying it’s ridiculous.
Billy and Teddy are gay. They’re not too gay. They’re not too little gay. They just happen to identify as being gay. It’s just a facet of who they are. Their clothes don’t make them gay. Their hair and piercings don’t make them gay. They are gay because they identify as such, because they are attracted to males. More importantly, they are attracted to and love one another.
If you noticed in the original Young Avengers, Billy and Teddy’s affections for one another were much more subtle. They freaked out when the other was in danger. They put their arms around one another. In Children’s Crusade they would lie together and kiss one another. It wasn’t frequent, but it was still there. We knew from issue #1 that they had something special. The Young Avengers issues coming out now aren’t really taking things to the next level, we are just seeing a side of them - that was probably there before - that we weren’t able to see as much. They aren’t changing their relationship, making them “more gay.” They aren’t making them look “more gay.” That’s just nonsense.
Y’know, as much as the Loki fandom and the Tom Hiddleston fandom can get out of hand (like a lot ok), it’s really annoying when people think it’s funny to purposely rile them up. It’s one thing to think a fandom is awful. It’s another thing to bait people in fandom or encourage that, and then complain that the fandom is awful for some people in fandom reacting negatively to it. (What do you expect? especially with a fandom so large?)
Some people just want to sit here and enjoy their fandoms after a long strenuous day and forget about all their anxieties (hint hint) but no, people have to go out of our way to destroy even the good things in fandom just because they hate a fandom for whatever reason. It’s fine to point out the problematic aspects of fandom, I do that in every fandom that I’m in. It’s about being a conscious consumer of media.
However, you offer no solution for problematic aspects by oversimplifying and exaggerating the problem by targeting everyone in said fandom labeling them x, y, and z. Worse, you exacerbate the problem by purposely riling the fandom up with some nonsense that can keep the fandom in a whirlwind of anger and chaos for literally months.
Don’t do that please, it’s bad for my mental health. ( ✿◕◡◕)
Why does everyone seem so obsessed with trying to make canon Loki the most fluid in terms of gender and sexuality. Why. You don’t actually need canon for you to fantasize a character as such, why are y’all so determined to find a canon basis for it. Why do y’all reference mythology when Norse…
Trials of Loki is canon via marvel .com.
The true origin of Thor’s archenemy and Marvel’s most unpredictable villain! He is the lie-smith; he is the shape-changer; he is the fire that burns. The God of Mischief and Trickery, Loki. Meet the mirthful, beloved young man that made all the Asgardians laugh…until the first time he killed. Discover the gnarled roots of his twisted, unrelenting hatred of the Asgardians. And learn the chilling truth of why he’ll never be stopped..
This is a very good Loki story, where the origins of who he is and the things he does are made clear, and rather than trying to revamp the character it magnificently gives him a backstory that makes his relationship with his step brother Thor, Odin and the rest of the Asgardean pantheon to be viewed under a completely new light.
This story jars with regular Thor continuity in little ways, which is explained by Loki and Thor disagreeing on versions of their lives (Loki remembers Thor bullying and hurting him, Thor remembers Loki lying and swears he never hurt Loki in return.But Thor is not sure..and this is a fact.this is a review from Loki’s perspective that sheds some light on his feelings of isolation and why he turned on them.The story was fantastic, brutal and proper in places and heartbreaking in others. The Trials of Loki in itself is a great story, an great interweaving of the Norse legends, and just beautiful to look at. The artwork is breathtaking, and the writing is intelligent and subtle. I love getting to see a beautiful rendition of Loki and an intelligent understanding of the Norse myths. I can’t recommend this enough.
No, I don’t think you totally understood this post at all. You’re doing exactly what I was expressing annoyance over. That is, you’re conflating different versions of Loki and using unreliable narratives as strong evidence. That’s not how things work.
Trials of Loki is canon to Marvel - this is obvious. However, as I’ve said, Trials of Loki takes inspiration from the Poetic and Prose Eddas but it is not the exact same. (Also define “regular Thor continuity” - there are many and subtle changes over time can actually make a big difference.)
In Trials of Loki and in Blood Brothers, Loki is the quintessential unreliable narrator. That’s the whole point. The fact that people don’t understand that is kinda important. This is why we could never have a Loki live-action movie, people would entirely misinterpret his character because they easily believe everything he says. He’s a master manipulator and a word-smith. The fact that people fall for it is a testament to how well his character is written, drawn, animated, and acted.
It has been a long long time since the events Loki is retelling, thus both Thor and Loki have trouble remembering it “correctly.” While he is retelling these supposed events, Loki has been sitting in a cave increasingly becoming mad and feasting on raw fish. Loki is a liesmith to begin with and he’ll lie to Thor and everyone else to gain pity. He lies so often and so much that he begins to believe his own lies. Loki is straight up making things up; the things he is making up are inspired by real events in the Poetic and Prose Eddas.
Throughout, Loki wallows in self-pity. He plays up and distorts the bad things that have ever happened to him and stifles the good. Still, you learn about Loki’s malicious demeanor throughout. He cut Sif’s hair out of jealousy. He planned the death of Baldr and framed Hoder. He antagonized his family post Baldr’s death, insulting his mother. But all this is ignored by the fandom because poor misunderstood Loki had his lips sewn shut and was called a cow by Odin. Even though we don’t know for certain if any of this is actually true. (Again: unreliable narrator)
Marvel takes inspiration from the Norse Myths quite frequently. This does not mean that their interpretations and the actual North Myths line up. You may really like Trials of Loki, I do too, but you’ve completely missed the point of it. It is not the same thing as the Norse Myths. It is not a reliable narrative. It does not line up perfectly with other continuities.The whole purpose of this post was to express my frustration over people doing this.
Why does everyone seem so obsessed with trying to make canon Loki the most fluid in terms of gender and sexuality. Why. You don’t actually need canon for you to fantasize a character as such, why are y’all so determined to find a canon basis for it. Why do y’all reference mythology when Norse mythology and Marvel canon aren’t the same thing. Even within canon, why do you cross-over universes and treat them like they’re all the same universe when they’re not. Why do you not take into account how stories - especially origin stories - have been retconned/altered over the years therefore making it difficult to compare earlier versions with the latest versions.
I can give you a bunch of different versions of Loki from a bunch of different authors and illustrators and animators who are using different origins and characterizations for Loki and try to assert that the Loki in each work is the same - but they’re not the exact same. There are some over-arching themes or characteristics in many works that you can apply to all or most versions of Loki but there are some things that are just unique to each work and cannot be applied universally. How can you take something that is unique to one work and assert that it’s proof of x, y, or z for a totally different version of Loki or Thor for that matter. How.
Why do you need to do that? Doing that doesn’t give you proof of anything it just shows me and others that you have the inability to look at one continuity and comprehend Loki’s characterization in it. You try to find evidence to the contrary of what we’re telling you in terms of Loki’s characterization but it doesn’t actually matter.
For example, if I show you Trials of Loki and you rely on stories from the Prose and Poetic Eddas to understand it, you’re going to entirely miss the point of it because while it takes inspiration from the Prose and Poetic Eddas, it is not the exact same thing. While the things in the Prose and Poetic Eddas really did happen to Loki, the things that happen to Loki in Trials of Loki are questionable as to whether they happened or not. He’s been sitting in a cave eating raw fish. He’s practically gone mad and any story told in his perspective in unreliable. He is the quintessential unreliable narrator.
See, you cannot conflate the two. Do you not understand how this works or…
Things important to understand in regards to sex…
I realize that the majority of individuals that feel the need to defend a person they admire against anyone’s opinion that may be construed as “negative,” stems from their fear of someone they perceive as being perfect or the ideal person to them, not turning out the way they’d hope they be. Well, you have to let that fear go. That mentality that those you admire must be perfect is inherently selfish. You’re placing your desires for someone to behave a certain way over that certain someone’s need to grow as a human being… because guess what, that’s what human beings do, they learn and they grow but you halt people from any little bit of progress with your ridiculous need to validate your interests in someone painting them as the picture of perfection.
…and when you become violently defensive you make things worse for those you admire - not better. You garner them disdain from others and you make yourself look foolish. What could be a smaller mistake that they need to learn from, could blow up into a huge controversy because you chose to get defensive when it wasn’t warranted and you chose to provoke those who would criticize them. Then that criticism blows up into hate and violence against them. It blows up into hate and violence against you too. You promulgate it. You bathe in it…and what is it all worth at the end of the day? Nothing but broken hearts, bruised egos, low self-esteem and the perpetuation of ignorance and violence.
Do we no longer, in this day and age, understand cause and effect? Do we think critically at all? Is the answer really…”that’s just the way it is” so let’s just move on and forget about everything that bothers us, no further questions?
The answer is no, and if that’s your default you’re being lazy and you’re being an enabler.
If you truly gave a fuck about a person you admired, you’d give them the fucking decency to let them grow as one. You’d understand that defaulting to automatically hating them and turning your back on them when they stumble is a piece of shit thing to do because it assumes you never stumble. But…you’d also understand that defaulting to ignorance is also a piece of shit thing to do because it puts your desires for perfection in others, validation for your likes, and more… above real problems and others’ personal development and growth.
