One thing that annoys me to no end is how a lot of people in the fandom think that Murphamy is just a crackship that people ship as a joke... Other, equally non-canon yet extremely heterosexual, ships don't get the same treatment... Is it homophobia? Is it these new generations that don't really understand shipping non-canon things? So is it about the probability of becoming canon? In any case it's so condescending
Yeah I wonder if it's just that fandoms have shifted their definition of what "crackship" means, like you’re saying with the new generations thing. All the focus on CANON being the be-all-end-all is just exhausting, and I say that as someone whose main ship is extremely canon. :-/ There’s a pretty big difference between (1) genuinely shipping something that may not be or is unlikely to be canon, and (2) having a fun time with ‘random’ ‘crack’ pairings that never interacted or would make no sense for various reasons.
(And there is homophobic or at least heteronormative baggage to it when the main/only reason a crackship is SO ridiculous is that they’re unlikely to kiss onscreen because the show hit its 4 Established Gays limit. I’m risking hate for this but... Bellarke and Murven are also pretty unlikely to kiss onscreen at this point, but their fans would take offense - fairly! - at being dismissed as crackshippers.)
Honestly I don’t see an issue with people defining their own ships as crackships when that’s how they approach them. But I get that it’s derogatory and mean when people say that about OTHER people’s ships.
Not all criticism is in bad faith, but you're using the smaller representations to paint all criticism in the same light. Insert a meme for that. Much of the criticism (or whatever word you care to use) of RWBY can be traced to the broken fundamentals of storytelling in the show that have never been fixed, and that is the deeper issue reflected in the story. And for what it's worth, there's no greater damage I can do than what your representation of the fanbase or the show does.
whether we agree or disagree, you've given a fantastically respectful take on rwby and in the criticism of it.
I'm going to add positive tags for this one.
Thank you for your input.
I shall respect your constructive criticism on this matter.
Criticism is generally levied against a policy that all agree is true, but opinions differ whether the policy is proper or needs correction.
Excerpt:
Is there a meaningful difference between an accusation against Israel and criticism of Israeli policy? An accusation is a charge that isn’t definitively true; it might be true, or it might not be true, but the accuser is of the opinion that it is entirely accurate. Criticism is generally levied against a policy that all agree is true, but opinions differ whether the policy is proper or needs correction. Many in the pro-Israel community would accept legitimate and fair criticism but not tolerate unfounded accusations against Israel.
...
THERE ARE others, both within and outside of the pro-Israel community, that counter the argument that all criticism by non-Israelis is out of bounds by arguing that if the criticism is reasonable and accurate, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be said. They add that if a Zionist is offering the criticism, it is being said in a constructive manner, and should be heeded. To this group, there is no such thing as fair criticism that is out of bounds.
The IHRA added to their examples of criticism of Israel the following caveat, “However, criticism of Israel like that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” The IHRA would never reject fair and warranted criticism of Israel, (as long as it wasn’t delivered within a double standard) no matter who was delivering it.
...
The IHRA definition attempts to restrict the metrics of appropriate vs. inappropriate criticism to what is being said, the who, why, what and where it is being said are irrelevant to characterizing the criticism as antisemitic. There are Zionists who agree and disagree with the IHRA restrictions.
Zionists shouldn’t be concerned or overly defensive when reading criticism of Israel. Although there is a tendency to perceive all criticism as a threat or a call to delegitimize Israel, Zionists should reject criticism that crosses a line as antisemitic but embrace criticism that is legitimate.
Instead of shifting into defense mode and twisting themselves into pretzels to demonstrate the criticism might not be accurate, Zionists should admit Israel can make mistakes and work on improving them. Not only is defensive rejection of criticism rarely convincing, but it also doesn’t allow for constructive advice to be heard and genuine growth to develop.
Criticism of government policy is not only the role of a nation’s citizens, but it is their responsibility. Every citizen of a democracy, and Israel is a democracy, has a right to freely criticize the government without fear of persecution. A nation can’t improve without an involved and critical citizenry that vocalizes their criticism to their leadership. A nation’s leaders tend to live in an echo zone assuming their policies are correct; an informed and critical citizenry allows their leaders to hear opinions from outside their echo chamber.
/End Excerpt
In case there was some confusion as to where I stand on Israel, this pretty much sums it up. You can - and should! - fairly criticize genuine Israeli policies that you think are wrongheaded. You should NOT level accusations at Israel that are false or only very debatably true, or that involve double standards. I most definitely don't agree with every Israeli policy or politician; that would make me a sycophant, not a supporter. It's when media outlets, celebrities, UN officials, etc. refuse to acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist, or apply double standards, or glorify Hamas and other terrorist groups that I get annoyed.
