A response to "When A Homophobe Has 1480 Followers, You Know You're In The Wrong Fandom" · 11:27am Jul 14th, 2014
((This is meant as a response to the blog post here -> http://www.fimfiction.net/blog/349325/when-a-homophobe-has-1480-followers-you-know-youre-in-the-wrong-fandom
I chose not to put this here because I think it'd get lost in the clutter and honestly, I doubt that Bad_Seed_72 would appreciate my ranting at her.))
Let's see... how to respond to this blatherskite without ridiculing you...
Dammit. -_-
Seriously, Bad... not safe to be a female? You're not safe to be a female in a fandom that spends its every waking hour fangasming over six female characters? Where in the name of good bread can it be more safe than in a fandom that's all about the six females who play the starring roles? Where can you possibly be more safe as a female than in a show that exists to represent the full goddamn spectrum of femininity: athlete, farmgirl, extrovert, smart girl, business owner, dress artiste extraordinaire, an unabashed girly-girl, a proper lady, someone who loves fashion and the latest "in" thing... every possible permutation of being a female I can think of is represented in the show this fandom worships and you belch out some tripe about how you don't feel safe here? Good lord, lady! This sort of crapola reminds me of some sniveling "rights" group I tried to participate in while I was in college who dropkicked me because I don't personally know any homophobes! Bad, if you can't feel safe in this fandom, you're in for a life of fear and misery and profound lack of safety because this is about as safe as you can possibly get outside of a circle-jerk group with so little spinal column that they have absolutely no grasp on reality.
And another thing... this business of not feeling safe as an LGBT person (I'm just inferring this from your comments, apologies if I misunderstood). Are you shitting me? Seriously, Bad... are you completely off your nut? See above for the composition of the main cast: they're all female. In fact, there are very, very few characters on the screen in this show that aren't female. So take a wild freaking guess what sort of pairings authors resort to when they decide to ship characters. To be blunt, Bad, this is a fandom where all of the more adult material is built on lesbian relationships. Some do it well, some do it bad, but the headline is that it's pretty much THE top choice of this fandom for stories with intimate relationships between characters. Another thing you might notice is how very rare it is for someone to pop into the comments section of one such story and start a homophobic rant. This is not because a giant mixed community like ours is totally free of homophobes, but because the community makes it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that they are not welcome and need to sit in a corner and not bother us. You might notice that I'm ignoring the "homophobic" blog that set you off; there's a reason for this. That reason is that however you slice it, the blog proves my point. It either isn't actually homophobic (I notice that the term is thrown around with irresponsible recklessness) or it is and the participants are being identified and subjected to a public shaming for their ignorant and hateful perspective. Personally, I tend to favor the first explanation because it does a better job of explaining why the authors and contributors get support from the community. To bring it all to a point, Bad, you're absolutely drowning in support and safety in this community and you have absolutely no excuse for smearing the greater mass with the condemnation belonging to a fetid few. If you can't see this, it's a comment on your personal willful blindness, not on the fandom.
And now for the creme de la creme of this entire diarrhea of the typing fingers: the jabberwocky about this fandom having no place for someone with a heart. I'm going to be short here because I've pretty much already took a sledgehammer to this absurdity twice now and I don't feel much inclined to rehash it all. The fandom is all about heart. It's all about bathing its members in so much Loyalty, Generosity, Kindness, Laughter, Honesty and Magic that we all don't know how to come up for air anymore. The fandom of this show, to the credit of that show, is drenched in the message that Lauren Faust and her crew started with and successors continue to honor: it's all about the strength of your heart, and all about the innumerable things you can do with a heart full of the five virtues being espoused and a healthy belief in the magic of people going forward together and working as one. You can certainly obsess about the negative things; you certainly seem very, very attached to seeing nothing but bad in a group that contains vastly more good. It's your right and privilege to fixate on the foul and ignore all the good... but that simply makes you an object of pity and of some well-deserved scorn. You have no basis for what you say about this fandom, and no amount of hicotronics will change that.
The fandom is certainly worth it, and definately worthy. The question is, are you? The other question is, how do you plan to push in your own small or great way to make us all even better than we already are?
ADDENDUM: If you're laboring under the delusion that RealityCheck qualifies as a homophobe, then my suspicion about your use of the word has just gotten a gigantic boost in credibility. If you think RealityCheck is a homophobe, your delusion must be truly profound.
ADDENDUM for My Blog Readers: RealityCheck is a first-rate asshole but to call him a homophobe is to remove all meaning from the word. There is no possible universe in which RealityCheck's impatience with LGBT sermonizing and clinging to the banner of victimhood is even remotely similar to a hate for homosexuals generally. Years of reading his personal blog on the site LiveJournal has made me absolutely certain of this and his FimFiction blogs differ in neither tone nor content nor perspective from his other blog. I sense that this requires its own exclusive entry, which I'll eventually get around to... perhaps.
Why can't we have more people like you, who actually have the mental capacity to pick apart idiocy with real sensibility.
2283582 In the modern age when you can beat someone down with a baseball bat of "racist", "homophobe", "misogynist", and the like, you have to be a little crazy to be as blunt as I am. I'm more than a little crazy.
And this also begs the question of what's meant by "safe" here. "Safe" from physical violence? Almost definitely -- the MLP:FIM fandom is hardly noted for settling disputes violently. "Safe" from mere criticism? Well, no, given that the other fans have minds. "Safe" from hearing opinions with which one disagrees? Of course not, and anyone who wishes that sort of "safety" would be well-advised to live in a box and have their food delibered to them.
I just got on Fimfic and decided to check my feed, and I am glad that I have done so.
Personally, I hate it when people blatantly throw around terms such as "homophobe" and "racist" at even the slightest comment. If you disagree with a homosexual or "African American", then you're automatically against them for just being a homosexual or "African American".
(Beginning of side mini-rant):
Speaking of which, isn't "African American" a racist term? You're assuming that, based on their skin color, they are an American person whose lineage comes from Africa. What if they're from India or another non-African country?
And, by definition, shouldn't "homophobe" apply to more than just homosexuals? "Homo-" is the prefix meaning "same" (such as in the word "homophone") and "-phobe" is the suffix meaning "fear" (well, not the exact definition). Therefore, "homophobia" would be the fear of things (in general) that are the same, right?
(End of mini-rant and start of new mini-rant
)
Personally, I think Bad Seed flew off the handle with that blog and wasn't thinking straight at all. I have to agree that RealityCheck does not seem to be a pleasant person in the slightest, but it doesn't mean that we must label him as a homophobe.
I'll be honest and say that I do not support LGBT people; however, I believe that they should do whatever they want and just not involve me at all. My lack of support of them doesn't mean that I fear them, but just that I am practicing non-maleficence towards them.
Anywho, I most certainly believe in what you said in this blog. Very blunt and very true, in my eyes. I'm just curious if this would be seen as an attack blog by the admins. .-.
(EDIT: It probably would, actually. :/ )
...
Some of the finest constructive criticism I've seen by far, Dual, that's for sure.
Someone who creates an image like this is most certainly a homophobe:
images.encyclopediadramatica.es/2/2d/Rhjuniorfestive.jpg
And no, I do not appreciate this ranting. But I thank the person who linked me to this.
You can take shots at Bad Seed's blog all day, and some of your points might be true, but at the end of the day, one thing is very certain.
Reality Check is a real scumbag.
Why yes.
i.imgur.com/9mS0mgT.png
Of course.
i.imgur.com/S9cehWi.png
RealityCheck isn't a homophobe.
i.imgur.com/kz54CWa.png
Who could possibly think of such a thing?
i.imgur.com/Uo1X2Fl.png
Certainly not I, after seeing RealityCheck's tolerance.
2283582
2283605
2283738
2283843
2283985
Considering this, I politely ask that this blogpost be deleted. I will not block you, as others have suggested, and I will give you a chance to reply.
To everyone who is calling me an "idiot":
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a harder battle."
—Plato
Not everything people get upset about it simply "blargh someone said something on the internet that I don't like!!1!" People may have other things going on in their life that makes seeing things like this in their "place of refuge" consider leaving that place.
Sorry Dual, I'm with you on Bad's overreacting and over generalising but RealityCheck is pretty much the picture perfect definition of a homophobe, a blind person who never learned how to read could tell that from his blogs.
2284904 No arguement from me. Being a scumbag, however, changes nothing about whether he's what Bad accuses him of being.
2284984 As Alex said... he's a nasty piece of work. Does this make him a homophobe? Not really.
2285211 I do not see the homophobia, Obsidian. Sorry, but after watching RC ranting on every topic under the sun wither in his blog or his comics or his commentary, I do not see this homophobia you're alleging. But you know where to reach me if you want to explain it to me further and I cross my heart that I'll listen respectfully.
2285118 And I will politely decline UNLESS you wish to also allege that I violated one of the three standards laid out by Wanderer D in his latest site post. If so, I will alter the post to comply with that standard because I have no desire to disrespect the site administration by blatantly breaking the rules right after they took extra effort to lay them out for all to see.
I wish to add that while I do not find your comments in the heat of the moment to be tolerable or legitimate, I fully understand that they come of being hurt by what RC says and the way he says it. In that, you have and always will have my empathy because I know exactly what it's like to have your emotional state torn asunder by the meanness of someone else.
2285538
...Did you not catch the part where he called homosexuals self-serving and sodomy obsessed? Or the part where he called their lifestyle evil? Replace the words "gays" and "homosexuals" with "blacks" or "asians" and what you get is racism. But not homophobia? Shit, dude, what does he have to do, beat a gay person in the street with a sign that says "God Hates Fags" to convince you he's a homophobe?
2285579 No, he actually has to express homophobic views. To call something a sin is not hateful. To regard people as self-serving is not hateful and "sodomy-obsessed" is a reasonable reading of how "gay rights" people approached anti-sodomy laws and how they presently approach the discussion of anal sex in sex ed courses. And since there's no reasonable way to replace "gays" and "homosexuals" in his posts with "blacks" or "Asians", your comparison doesn't make sense to me.
2285591
Well then, my bad. I guess you're right. There's no possible way that RealityCheck could be homophobic or anything similar to—OMG WHAT'S THIS!?
images.encyclopediadramatica.es/2/2d/Rhjuniorfestive.jpg
Aww, it's RealityCheck wishing everyone a Merry Christmas. Isn't that sweet?
2285600 It's RC being blatantly and purposefully offensive on a site dedicated to blatant and purposefully offensive content. So?
2284600
2284904
2284984
2285211
2285566
Seems I have a bit of explaining of my own to do. First off, no, I do not know RealityCheck. But then, my comment wasn't about him, but the way Dual gave criticism to Bad_Seed_72. That said, if I misread something in her blog, then I'll offer due apologies on that end, but that's it.
2285608
He's expressed his views on homosexuals multiple times in the past all across the internet. That it is sick. That it is wrong. How is that not homophobia?
2285619 You're asking me to prove a negative; certainly you know thats not logically possible especially when we're trading opinions on what someone means by something they write, and if their words evidence hatred.
2285637
Um... okay then, whatever. I think he's a douchebag homophobe asshole, you think otherwise, whatever. Good day with you.
2285658 A good day to you and the avatar pic is nifty. :)
2285591
Oh, you mean the right not to be jailed for having consensual anal sex in the privacy of one's bedroom? That's over and done with (at least in the U.S. and Lawrence vs. Texas). I wouldn't call not wanting to be jailed because of a consensual sex act between two adults "sodomy-obsessed". Also, I know more straight people who like anal than the gay ones (of either gender), so there's that. "Sodomy" is not limited to gays.
2285591
They want sex ed to include a tagline that, even if you are having non-procreative sex, you should still use condoms/dental dams. Again, that is not obsession. That would be like saying my parents were sex-obsessed for giving me the sex talk and telling me that exact thing.
2285746 Yes, I mean the right not to be jailed for having consensual anal sex in the privacy of one's bedroom. And what I mean is that sodomy was elevated from just one more way to have sex to some kind of symbol of a right. Outdated and silly laws were turned into a big deal instead of just a routine matter to be rid of, the way that states regularly purge their law books of outdated and silly language that's null and void anyway. I tend to see this as more obsessive than rational.
And the reference to sex ed is about how discussing anal sex is a matter of political correctness. Stray too deeply into the territory of discussing its numerous downsides, risks, and associated health hazards and you're somehow mistreating gay mean. The complaint is never about demonizing a particular form of sex, but how it might make homosexuals feel, regardless of whether the presentation is clinical and factual. I tend to see this as more obsessive than rational.
2285566
From the site blog post:
The three rules:
Let's look at what you have written here.
Calling someone insane is usually seen as insulting.
"Histrionics". Delusional raving. Delusional.
Delusional again.
So, you're saying I'm crazy and delusional. That is insulting. Period.
I have already made an apology blog and politely asked you to take this down. If you indeed have the heart you claim to have, you will respect that, because all this is doing is driving your followers to my blogs.
2285797
You realize that in Lawrence vs. Texas two gay men WERE jailed for this "crime," which led to it being taken to the Supreme Court and overturned, right? It wasn't just a bunch of whining. People were actually being thrown in jail for this!
Well yes, if you say things like "anal sex penetrates the intestines" or that it will lead to having to wear diapers, as many "Christian conservatives" would like to believe, then sure. Again, this is not "obsessing," and it is a valid complaint because people still don't understand how gay people have sex and think of it as some foreign, disgusting perversion, when everything two people of the same gender do in bed, two people of the opposite gender do. And if condoms, lube, and a gentle touch are used, it is no more hazardous than vaginal or oral sex.
I think you qualify any kind of objection as "obsession," which is really butchering that word.
2285803
If this blog goes, then yours should go too, no? I still see it up, calling out RC on whatever he's doing. This petty arguing is completely pointless and getting mad over someone's beliefs is stupid. This entire situation would be different if RC was praising the rights of gays and calling out those who are opposed to it and everyone would be cheering him on. This is not Tumblr. We're not here to complain about feminism or world atrocities or flailing about like wild animals. This is a site about ponies and having some sense of fun. Your bickering is fueling the flames to a pointless debate over someone's opinion.
TL;DR: stop and go your separate ways.
2285840
I already discussed my blog with the mods and it is fine.
2285803
I respect the hell out of it. But what I said needed to be said and needs to remain said. Unless you wish to renounce your opinions, which would be a totally unreasonable, mine shall remain.
2285856
Then leave this one alone. Both of these blogs are, technically, in violation of our rules. If yours stays, this stays. End of discussion.
2285591
I'm going to argue the other side now.
How would you feel if something you did in privacy with your beloved, with both your consents, happened to be illegal; if you could be arrested for it and sentenced to years in prison for a felony, losing the rights to vote and bear arms, and being forever tarred as a "sex offender?"
That is exactly the situation faced by homosexuals in states where "sodomy" is illegal.
"Sodomy" makes it sound very depraved and evil, but all it means is "sex other than genital to genital." (Depending on the particular sodomy statutes, it may or may not be confined to genital-anal, or include genital-oral, or even manipulatory stimulation).
By the standards of some sodomy statutes, for instance, I commit sodomy with my wife on a regular basis. And if arrested and convicted for such a "crime," I would consider myself morally justified in hunting down and murdering the arresting officers, judge, prosecutor and jury, for they were willing to do the same to me.
Note that I say morally justified. I wouldn't actually do it, because the State outguns me. Still, if anyone is arrested or convicted for such a crime, and he killed any persons on that list, I would not morally condemn him for his act, and if I could help him make his escape and get away with it myself, I would. Without batting an eye or feeling a moment's remorse.
That's how strongly I feel about it.
How dare anyone punish a mutually-consenting expression of love with forcible imprisonment and still lay claim to human moral stature?
2285863
Renounce my opinions? On what? I already made an apology blog where I took back painting the fandom with a broad brush and being a downer.
2285864
I don't think you're listening, Shadow. I talked to a mod about my blog, modified it, and he said it was fine.
2285872 BOTH of these blogs are fine. If yours isn't a problem, then this one certainly isn't. DualThrone has no obligation to apologize for this.
2285830
Of course someone was jailed; if no one was affected, there would be no standing and the Supreme Court couldn't have taken the case.
To quote a former surgeon general, "Anal intercourse, even with a condom, is simply too dangerous a practice." That has not changed in the thirty years since C. Everett Koop said it.
Obsession... fixation... whatever you want to call it, it's the same thing.
2285869 Your outrage is a couple decades out of date, Jordan, since the laws you speak of do not exist any longer.
2285895
I'm almost 50 -- they weren't eliminated until I was in my late 20's. And heck, I'm a historian -- I'm still a fervent Abolitionist!
2285872
I saw that, and I accept your apology.
2285902 *lol* Good on you, Jordan. And it's a joy to meet a fellow historian even though I'm only 30.
2285884
Fine then.
I just thought someone who was a follower of mine would respect me better, but I suppose that's wishful thinking.
2285886
No, it's not. If all gay men did was have anal sex 24/7, you would have a point. This isn't the case.
While the FDA has not reviewed this statement, considering that C. Everett Koop was an evangelical Christian and this was said at the start of the AIDS crisis, I would take it with a grain of salt. The fact of the matter is that many people of all sexual orientations have anal sex and don't end up using diapers or having their bowels removed.
2285905
So what do you want me to renounce then?
2285928
The FDA doesn't need to evaluate it; it's been reviewed and supported unequivocally since it was made.
That would be relevant if either of those statements about using diapers or having their bowels removed was the "factual presentation" I was referring to. As it's not, it's not.
The statements you made. You apologized for them, certainly, but didn't renounce them as wrong and not an actual expression of your feelings. But again, requiring you to renounce them at all is so unreasonable that any further discussion is fruitless.
2285962
Yeah, I see and hear people dying from anal sex every day.
The FDA hasn't even tried to review this. They approved ephedra for a while, too, you know. But I digress. The FDA probably doesn't have a statement on masturbation, but that doesn't mean it's dangerous or wrong.
Why should I denounce my own feelings?
You know what... the fact that you made this post at all should have been an indicator that it wasn't worth my time discussing anything with you. Many other people were angry with me, but they had the courtesy to address it on my own blog and/or PM me about it.
2285991
The health hazards associated with anal intercourse are rarely fatal because medical science has reached a point where they can effectively treat all of them, even AIDS. This was not the case in the 1980s when HIV and AIDS were extremely poorly understood.
You shouldn't, and this would be the third time I've said that it'd be unreasonable to expect you to.
Keeping this in my own space instead of cluttering your blog with it was a courtesy. This was also not fit as a private message, any more than it would have been appropriate for my previous blog post to be put into an email and thrown at the person whose statements I was criticizing therein.
And this would be why I moved the discussion to a space where the other party losing their patience with me wouldn't prevent my continued commentary.
cdn.gifbay.com/2013/04/how_i_felt_while_reading_the_morgan_freeman_ama-43395.gif
2286136 You know, a gif of someone picking up their lunch tray and walking off doesn't mean anything to me. It's a very nice gif, though, and I thank you for it.
2285118 I only said that I believed you were angry and a bit out of control; I never said you were an idiot, and never considered such. If I gave off that impression, I apologize.
Even so, I still, personally, would not consider him a homophobe. I'm going to be straight and say that I do hold some similar views to what he said, even if they're not as violently rude or… uh, overly intolerant?
I would not consider him a homophobe mainly due to my own not supporting homosexuals. Even so, I do not condemn homosexuals or want to tell them that they are sinning, as that's not my duty. As a Christian, I can truly say that such a thing would be God's duty and His alone.
Again, I apologize if whatever I said irks you in any way. This is just a bit of what my stance is on the issue. Especially the idea of labeling people "racist", "homophobe", or another term for another issue. While I do believe that such people do exist, I don't believe they are as common as they're said to be.
I'll simply end by apologizing, again, if I have said anything that troubles you. I'd be willing to continue talking if you are or to cease talking if you are willing to do so.
RealityCheck does seem like a bit of a… colorful person, that much I think we all can agree on. I'd use worse language, but I don't feel as though that's appropriate.
Pffft, you're such a whiny bitch.
2286465 Hey, be nice to Bad. There's no need for that.