Founding Fatherfest @foundingfatherfest - Tumblr Blog

rammstein - mein teil, bruxelles, stade roi baudouin

#paul landers #richard kruspe #paulchard #gifs

There comes a time when fandom becomes less of an escape from anxiety to being the source of anxiety. Sometimes I need to remind myself what’s important to focus on, and I made this chart to help me with that.

(Posting this at the request of a few people. The design/concept was inspired by an instagram post about covid-19 located here).

todaysbird

hands are safe places

edensmidian

Word of the day…..

mudwerks

today’s word is fucktangular

dwergas-deactivated20180817

everyone wonders why trees are so big, but I know.

dwergas-deactivated20180817

OK, I can tell you, but the world will never be the same

dwergas-deactivated20180817

their bigness comes chiefly from their height and their girth, which are both enormous. if you look at small things you will tend to find that they are very low in height, width, etc. (you get the picture). trees, however, have a very tall height and wide girth, which makes them extremely large

frogmp3

me: huh damn i’m bored

the 2% of my brain that isn’t actively sabotaging me: do your assignments. read a book. take a fucking shower

me:

sorry folk’s it’s discourse night on this blog

@tin-tower

tin-tower said: t Well, for sure I’m getting a crash course in fandom discourse and culture! I’m not talking about debating what is hot or not (I agree a debate on that seems pointless). A discussion is not a debate, and not every fic is a pwp where it’s only merits lie in its hotness. If I read a book, it’s rare that the whole book from cover to cover disgusts me. Even if there are elements that disgust, it would not be weird to me if someone else explained what they liked about the book.

tin-tower said: For example: I didn’t care for the detailed description of the murder either, but I liked the athmospherics of the description of Berlin, or I liked the writing. Most works of fiction contain more than one element.

There’s a big difference between fic discussion and squick discussion. I am not talking about discussion of fics in general at all.

We’re talking about discussion of squicks. A squick is a person’s feeling of dislike or disgust for certain subject matter in a fic or other piece of media.

This is a discussion of a fic.

Person: I was enjoying the relationship development in the fic, but child death is my squick so I couldn’t get through the rest of it. Other Person: Oh, yeah, that part was pretty brutal. But I also enjoyed the relationship development. I cried at the art gallery scene. This is a discussion of a squick. Person: I was enjoying the relationship development in the fic, but child death is my squick so I couldn’t get through the rest of it. Other Person: Child death is your squick? Why? Is there some personal reason behind it? I thought that it really added to the drama. Let’s talk more about your feelings on child death and why it makes you uncomfortable to the point that you consider it one of your squicks.

It’s possible to discuss one’s squicks, but very often trying to discuss someone else’s squicks is going to come off as combative no matter what you do. If someone is uncomfortable enough with a subject that they don’t want to read about it in a fic, then they probably don’t want to get into the details of why. Maybe they are comfortable with it, but you’re still asking someone to talk about their personal feelings, psychology, etc.

So, if someone calls squick on a fic, it could be ofcourse that everything in that story disgusts them for personal and sensitive reasons - or it could be that there’s a certain element in it they don’t like. Where’s the rudeness/weirdness in asking what the reason for the dislike is?

I’m not clear on what you mean by ‘calls squick on a fic’. A fic isn’t a squick. A fic may or may not contain someone’s squicks.

A person would either A) Mention the fic contains one or more of their squicks without specifying the details of those squicks, or B) Mention the specific squicks the fic contains that turn them off.

In scenario A, you can ask them what specific squicks of theirs popped up in the fic, and they may or may not tell you them. In scenario B, you already know what content the fic contains that the person doesn’t like, ‘cause they told you what squicks of theirs were in the fic.

‘The point of a discussion to me is not to convince the other, it’s to understand their point of view. And to be able to understand someone’s perspective, I at least usually need more information than one word. ‘

‘Point of view’. ‘understand someone’s perspective’. Thinking terminology. Great for discussing one’s opinions on a work of fiction. Not so useful for discussing the squicks of a specific person.

Warning, I talk a bit about my own squicks bluntly below, mostly torture. Maybe don’t read if sensitive.

desert-neon

How was squick used? Like would you tag something you didn't want to see or comment "X is my squick because of Y"?

For the original ask, requesting the definition of squick, please see this post.

Squick is a fun term that was often used as both a noun and a verb. Either X was one of your squicks, or X squicked you, or squicked you out, or squicked you hard.

It was often used in fic exchanges. They would ask for a list of your squicks so that the gifting author would know not to include any hint of them. It was also used in casual conversation with fandom friends, authors, artists, etc. It could be left in comments, or as a reason you just didn’t read your best fandom friend’s latest fic. “Sorry, bff, you know I love your writing, but you have X tagged at the top, and that just squicks me out.” “Hey, no worries, best reader friend! I totally get it. Give this one a pass, but I’ll send you a note when I post my next one! I promise it will be totally X-free!”

Here’s the thing though. In your example, you explain why X is your squick with Y. But the beauty of squick was that (at least in my experience) no explanation was necessary. Not only was it not necessary, it was rarely asked for. A squick is a squick, and there doesn’t have to be any rhyme or reason. In fact, why would you have a rational, bullet-pointed, well-thought-out argument as to why something squicked you out? Very often it’s a visceral reaction, and if you don’t like the thing, you’re likely not going to sit and do deep meditation on why not.

Squicks were respected by fandom. You don’t like the thing, okay, we will tag the thing appropriately, you do not have to read the thing, no judgments on either side. There was no fandom policing, only respect.

And this, I think, is super important, because fandom policing is a problem, especially when it comes to triggers. “Trigger” has become so overused, so all-encompassing, that people feel they have to defend their legitimate triggers. If X triggers you, it triggers you, and you DO NOT need to provide an explanation. But because “trigger” is so often used in place of “squick,” some people feel they have the right to “call out” those who use the word. They want explanations, they want you to tell them what that triggering concept does to you, so they can call bullshit and feel superior. You don’t have to explain either your squicks or your triggers, but using the correct word stops the fandom police from feeling as though they have the right to ask.

Bring “squick” back, people. Don’t devalue triggers, which are horrible, nasty, dangerous things.

ghostcat3000

ibroketuesday:

#the beauty of squick was that it offered no moral judgement#merely a statement of personal taste#and let you estate when something just wasn’t your cup of tea#without having to justify it#plenty of things squick me out in fic which are absolutely not triggers#but now there’s a real culture of having to justify not liking stuff on a moral basis (via clarias)

the culture of justifying dislike on an ideological/moral basis in part one: chapter one of my novel, Let Me Show You My Issues With Tumblr Fandom. the requirement for ideological purity has become so impossibly strict, and is valued so highly, that tearing the thing you dislike from an ideological standpoint is the quickest way to shut it down. it’s a cheap, disingenuous shortcut that exploits social justice language for personal leverage. it’s not like we were free of wankery and ship wars back in ye olde lj days, god, far from it, but at least the insults we flung at each other were subjective: A is so bad for B and if you can’t see that you’re an idiot!!! B/C OTP!!! (i should also disclaim that we did have moral policing as well, it was just FAR less extensive.) leveraging social justice concepts is an attempt to gain a kind of objective superiority. “they’re a dark ship and i don’t like that” holds little power; “they’re abusive and you support abuse by shipping this” is a trump card to shut down the content you don’t like and the people who fan it. that kind of rhetoric is all over the damn place and it continues to be propagated because it works and it has created a culture from which a variety of problems like the trigger issue explained above consistently arise.

…i would go into further chapters on my novel but i am tired now

laylainalaska:

ibroketuesday:

#the beauty of squick was that it offered no moral judgement#merely a statement of personal taste#and let you estate when something just wasn’t your cup of tea#without having to justify it#plenty of things squick me out in fic which are absolutely not triggers#but now there’s a real culture of having to justify not liking stuff on a moral basis (via clarias)

the culture of justifying dislike on an ideological/moral basis in part one: chapter one of my novel, Let Me Show You My Issues With Tumblr Fandom. the requirement for ideological purity has become so impossibly strict, and is valued so highly, that tearing the thing you dislike from an ideological standpoint is the quickest way to shut it down. it’s a cheap, disingenuous shortcut that exploits social justice language for personal leverage. it’s not like we were free of wankery and ship wars back in ye olde lj days, god, far from it, but at least the insults we flung at each other were subjective: A is so bad for B and if you can’t see that you’re an idiot!!! B/C OTP!!! (i should also disclaim that we did have moral policing as well, it was just FAR less extensive.) leveraging social justice concepts is an attempt to gain a kind of objective superiority. “they’re a dark ship and i don’t like that” holds little power; “they’re abusive and you support abuse by shipping this” is a trump card to shut down the content you don’t like and the people who fan it. that kind of rhetoric is all over the damn place and it continues to be propagated because it works and it has created a culture from which a variety of problems like the trigger issue explained above consistently arise.

…i would go into further chapters on my novel but i am tired now

…

I can’t really think of any other words we have for the same concept that aren’t judgmental to some extent. Anything I can think of to try to define “squick” using non-slangy words (disgusting, unpleasant, etc) have a judgy sort of vibe. And we really do need a word to talk about tropes and kinks in the same kind of way we can talk about how you like that ship and I like this ship but that doesn’t make your ship bad.

(Er, ideally we’d be able to talk about ships that way, obviously, in a perfect world … XD)

I was also thinking about how the original ask implies a very modern fannish mindset that’s just … not there, in the original fandom milieu that the squick concept came out of. Not that I’m saying fandom was better in the old days or anything, god no. But trying to explain why you have a squick, or asking someone else why they have theirs, is just not a thing you’d generally do. Squicks are irrational; that’s baked into the meaning of the word. Squicks aren’t something you explain. They just are. I mean, you could obviously try to figure it out, just like you can try to figure out why you have a particular kink, but in both cases, you don’t have to explain or justify it in order for other people to accept it as valid. I don’t need to explain that I like h/c for X and Y reasons in order to request it in an exchange. And squick functions the same way.

All of which makes it a very useful word for talking about fandom concepts without implying that someone else’s tastes make them a bad person!

I think the thing I love most about the term squick is that it’s not meant to be judgmental to either party. It’s a respectful acknowledgement of non-negotiable dislikes. It doesn’t question why someone likes things anymore than it questions why someone doesn’t like the same thing. It’s not about quality. It says, simply: some of my preferences aren’t discourse-fodder, they are what they are and don’t need to be explained. I hope you can respect that.

If you recommend a fic that has a non-canon pet death* in it and I tell you, I don’t like that because I think it’s manipulative or maybe I don’t think the writer can write the scenario believably etc… then we’re having a discussion. If I tell you I’m squicked by pet death in fics, then we’re not having a discussion. I shouldn’t have to explain to you why I’m squicked by non-canon pet death in fic. Saying that’s my squick is enough.

By that same token, I don’t need to know why you love something that squicks me, though I understand the impulse to want to justify that love. It’s natural to think: I love this and I want to tell you about it. And this is why we have tumblrs, no? To share our loves. But it’s important to keep in mind that it’s personal to the person who is squicked and has nothing to do with you or your taste. It’s not about you at all.

If you want to write or read about something but it’s my squick, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t, just that it’s not for me–this shouldn’t be a deterrent to creating fanwork or enjoying it. There are plenty of other fanworks out there that we can discuss that don’t come close to being squick.

*This is just a random example, not an actual squick or an actual fic.

tin-tower

This makes very little sense to me. Fandoms are strange places! To my ignorant mind, having a word that means ”I think x and you are forbidden to ask for reasons” is a strange thing to have in a discussion. It seems like a trump card you can pull out whenever: ”I call squick, and that’s that! Not another word from you on this, you have now been silenced!” How can silencing another person not be about them?

I understand there sometimes ARE no reasons, but not why you need an etiquette rule that makes it taboo to ASK for them.

Also, I think that to assume that the only reason anyone would ask why you think x is so that they can call bullshit and laugh at you is a foregone and misantropic conclusion. It could actually just be because they are interested in your opinion.

But what do I know.

foundingfatherfest

You’re not getting what a squick is; I can tell ‘cause you’re using the words ‘think’ and ‘opinion’. Calling something a squick isn’t saying, “This is a thing I disapprove of and have opinions on that you are not allowed to question.” It’s saying, “Ew, not my thing. No thanks.”

I mean, if I say have a squick for, say, a particular sexual act in erotic fiction, feel free to exercise your free speech and try to engage me in a debate about why that sexual act is totally hot in fic. But it will be a waste of your time, cause I’ll just say, “Well, I’m glad you get enjoyment out of that content but I still don’t like it.”

‘But what do I know’

Not the actual definition of squick I guess? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Maybe some more research will help inform that ‘ignorant mind‘ you’re dealing with.

EDIT: Reblogged this to the wrong blog. Sorry folks.

rasamune

So I was afraid of them pulling a gotcha like “The assassination of Pink Diamond was fake” or “Pearl did it actually” because I thought it would invalidate a big part of Steven’s character arc by wiping the blood clean from Rose Quartz’ hands

Then I got to watch as the Crewniverse gleefully upended a gigantic bucket of blood over Rose’s hands and face and filthy lying mouth

#su spoilers #steven universe

I have a question. Is it bad to like Thomas Jefferson? I'm fond of him and love to write about him a lot (usually about his relationship with his wife, children, and grand-children). I am aware of and do acknowledge all the bad things that he did, as I do with the other founding fathers, but sometimes it feels bad to like particularly him and personally relate to and connect with him due to some of his bad actions.

No, I don’t think so. A person’s beliefs and actions are what define their character. As long as you’re capable of acknowledging the various messed up and immoral things T.J. did in reality , write what you like about him. I might tread pretty carefully if you intend on writing something about Jefferson meant to be published and widely distributed to an audience, because you would want to be extra careful that you don’t whitewash or downplay, well, the real horrors of slavery. But otherwise, I don’t think you’re doing any harm. Follow your heart, use your own judgement. :)

bannock-and-biopolitics-deactiv

A lot of adulthood is shouting “AUGH MY LAUNDRY” hours after you put it in the washer/dryer and running to go fetch it

curlicuecal

oh shit my laundry

mishafletcher

reblog to save someone’s laundry

serjeffers-deactivated20221106

I’m at work and currently have wet laundry that I just remembered.

erindrifter

I… This… I need to go get my laundry.

fredthe13th

Well it’s probably cursed

feebledungeons

When you Crit Fail your Arcana roll and the GM says “It seems harmless”

British taxation on America without sufficient representation: *results in Boston Tea Party, revolution, etc.*

White reactionary: These acts of property damage and militant resistance are justified and good =) because Britain was clearly tyrannical =) liberty needs to be fought for sweaty =)

Eight people control more wealth than half the world's people, climate change threatens to bring catastrophic damage to the planet, and a proto-fascist sexual predator was just made most powerful man in the world: *results in some shattered windows and limo bonfires, calls for revolution, etc.*

White reactionary: Um =\ violence is never the answer =/ protest is good and all =\ but this is taking it too far =/ can't you see you're just hurting any credibility you had =\ protests shouldn't interrupt my day =(

sedgewina

Founding Feathers

Henry Laurens: Do not get your ass killed.

George Washington: Do not get your ass killed.

Alexander Hamilton: I am sure you will exert yourself to save your country; but do not get your ass killed.

John Laurens: ...

celtic-pyro-deactivated20230725

You’ve been hit by…

You’ve been struck by….

…a small mineral.

yourthomasjefferson

I take my turn at the podium during my debate on July 8 with John Dickinson (Doug Thomas). The occasion was the 239th anniversary of the 1st public reading of the #DeclarationOfIndependence , which took place in front of The Pennsylvania State House ( #IndependenceHall ), just outside the doors of where we held our debate, to wit: Congress Hall, Independence National Historical Park. Photo by INDE Park Ranger Tom Tulba. #foundingfathers #YourThomasJefferson #USHistory

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Founding Fatherfest