theblackqueen-ofmyheart:bah-yumbug:theblackqueen-ofmyheart: gluten-free-pussy:abloodymess:Roger Eber
theblackqueen-ofmyheart:bah-yumbug:theblackqueen-ofmyheart: gluten-free-pussy:abloodymess:Roger Ebert just destroying some specific kind of nerd(s). This touched a nerve lol everyone is big mad in the notes Holy crap the sensitive children in the comments going “autism exists!” “Fandom isn’t like this!” “Fandom people support their community, they donate!!!” Like can y’all read at all? The caption literally says “some specific type of nerd(s)” those nerds are the whiny, bitchy, asshole dude bro types who only use their knowledge to make others feel like less of a fan, they are the ones you go into a game store, or to a movie premiere and they just go on and on and on about the colour of this characters eyes and how it’s not a continuity error it actually means something that’s been disproven and when you being up the fact they are actually wrong instead of accepting the new information and learning they throw a fit. This post doesn’t refer to an excited nerd info dumping and happily accepting new information. It doesn’t refer to an autistic person who’s talking about a special interest and wanting to share it. It doesn’t refer to a person who’s talking about their fandoms in hopes they can bring others into them. It’s referring to the cringe nerds who probably still live in their parents basement (for no reason other than they spend all their time and money on their fandom obsessions and can’t keep a job because they are assholes), verbally abuse women when a woman dares to have the same fandom interests because a woman can’t possibly know as much as they do and hence aren’t a real fan(and yes, women can be part of this type of nerd. They are the pick me’s who tear down others to make themselves more presentable to men).It’s referring to the dude bro types who make a single fandom their whole personality and anyone else who shares that fandom is subjected to a 20 questions style interrogation session to judge of this person is “worthy” of the fandom by the dude bro’s standards. It’s referring to the dude bro types who have a 50 page essay on why over sexualization of women is okay in media and why rape scenes in media are perfectly okay and add to the story and why we should have more. Like damn, before you get so offended learn to read and comprehend what’s being said. there’s a version circulating without a caption so how tf would they know that ^^ I’m talking specifically about this one and the replies to it. This one has the caption. And you cannot remove the original caption so I know the people responding to this one aren’t reading and/or comprehend the caption. If there’s another version going around without the caption then that one can be confusing. This one isn’t unless you don’t read properly “A lot of fans are basically fans of fandom itself […] their object of veneration are useful mainly as a backdrop to their own devotion. Anyone who would camp out […] on the sidewalk weeks in order to be the first in line to see the movie is more into camping on sidewalks than movies…”The caption may say it is about “a certain type of nerd(s)”, sure; but I don’t know who wrote that caption, and I don’t personally see a single place in Ebert’s text that specifies: “BTW, please note that I’m not talking about the autistic or other neurodivergent nerds that would camp out to go see a movie because they are simply very enthusiastic and happily intense about it, overjoyed to share that passion with like-minded people that will embrace their enthusiasm for the source material and expand on it, and really can’t wait for it to get out! And I do acknowledge that waiting outside in a tent with other fans provides them with an opportunity to socialize without boring those around them with a subject matter that non-fans may not be as passionate about, and spending a good time! Those are truly fans of the movie and the movie’s universe themselves, and it is great that fandom allows them to have a place where they feel safe enough to express their very specific, targeted passions and interests, and are welcomed with open arms by the rest of their community; thus building friendships, social bonds, etc. that they may not have had access to otherwise.”No, it’s basically expressed as: “***ANYONE*** having any interest in camping out to go see a movie when it comes out is nothing but a self-centered jerk, dedicated to worshipping themselves, that is so "socially inept” that they only care about being a Luke Skywalker to a Princess Leia.“The problem is that Roger Ebert is not telling us what "specific kinds of nerds” he is referring to, but only going by a lot of fans (thus making it sound like it is the norm, rather than the exception of the few dude bros that would likely get shut down by other fans, and be heavily avoided by the rest of the fandom anyway!) and making a point that anyone having any interest in doing something as outlandish as camping out to go see a movie, as soon as it comes out, is devoted to their own selves rather than being genuinely interested and passionate about the movie they are about to see. You may believe that it’s obvious that he’s talking specifically about the insufferable toxic dude bros that will try to make others feel inferior if they can’t remember a quote from the movie, and hate on women for daring to “want to appropriate their world”, etc. But he uses words like “a lot”, “anyone”, etc. while naming behaviors that may be common to different members of the fandom - including those that are neurodivergent and might indeed use fandom as a means of socializing more easily with others - for reasons utterly unrelated to narcissism or the wish to appear superior.Some people do struggle with making small talks and holding a “normal conversation”. Some people do use their interest in movies and the worlds built around them as a means of satisfying their need for human contact and interaction.And there should be no shame in that.The ableism that we see reflected in Ebert’s words is that he seems to imply that people that enjoy talking about what they already know about those movies, could instead choose to develop those social skills and other interests, but are simply “avoiding to make the effort” that would allow them to become interesting for others to get to know them instead.When my partner’s cousin gets into movies and series he loves, he really gets into them, and dives deep into that world, inviting you to tag along for the ride.He reaches out for me through his love of movies and gets overjoyed when I catch his references and quote some of those movies with him.We don’t leave the conversation having learned anything “new”, but it’s like going to the karaoke with a friend.There’s no backing tracks to the lyrics, but our fanboying/fangirling together is like making a duet to a song we both know and love.The sad thing is that out of his whole family, most are unwilling to “sing” along with him, and bond with him in such a way.Because it is repetitive, because it is focused on a single interest they don’t share, because it is “boring”.Whereas I can switch my “fangirling” on with him, and we have a great time “singing our song”.I simply have an easier time switching it off than he does, that’s all. But it’s being there in the moment, and the act of “singing” together, that matters.Not “showing off our knowledge” in a way that could be used to intimidate anyone.If you wish to join the song without knowing any lyrics, we’ll either sing for you, or teach you those lyrics, should you have any desire to learn them.So yes, I may find myself being a fan of “fandom as a social facilitator” in those moments. It becomes about emotionally connecting with a neurodivergent family member, and being together in the moment, rather than being about the movie “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword”.My own personal issue with this post, is that Ebert is drawing conclusions as to what motivates certain behaviors in fandom without realizing he’s casting too wide a net by assuming that those fans are all toxic and self-centered, or that social inaptitude is a trait that belongs to the realm of narcissism. Yes, you do meet the occasional “dude bros” .But you meet way more socially awkward people in fandom that may have autism, ADHD, social anxiety, etc. that will benefit from the safety net that fandom provides them, and socially thrive among other fans.And it can be hard, and make those more vulnerable members of the fandom feel even more misunderstood and isolated, to read about Ebert mocking *a lot of fans* for struggling socially, and ridiculing their need to use their interest in movies to avoid having to ad lib “normal conversations” between “non socially inept” people.It’s not explicitly stated Ebert’s targeting only the “toxic dude bros” that have all the social skills required to socialize normally with others, yet prefer making other people feel shitty about themselves by quizzing them too harshly about movies, because they’re cruel like that.It’s easy for those having been bullied over their lack of social skills all their lives to imagine that they are, once again, the target of such criticism.There’s way too much room for interpretation and for the wrong targets to suffer collateral damage in the way he expresses himself here, IMHO.As soon as you make generalizations such as “anyone behaving this way thinks that” to describe the motivations of an obnoxious minority, it no longer works. Which makes me wonder what the rest of his statement was, and if the nuance that I feel is really missing from it might have been found in the paragraphs above, or bellow. -- source link
#my thoughts