NS: Creators are responsible for the "problematic behaviour" of their characters, apparently

[sadoeuphemist]

CONTEXT: 

janegray is upset at Avatar creators Michael DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko for saying, "and I quote, 'people who think that Katara and Zuko make a good couple would never have a lasting relationship in life.'"

It's a "really shitty attitude" they have, she says. It's "disturbing" that they're doing this as writers and producers. They're conflating "enjoyment of something in fiction with personal flaws IRL" and practically accusing Zutara shippers of "abuse apologia." And she knows that they meant it seriously, she says, because of the statement's "serious and accusatory tone." 


Hm, this all does sound pretty bad. But wait, where does this quote come from to begin with? Well...

Watch on YouTube

It's from a comedy skit meant to celebrate fanart and to lightly poke fun at shipping! Mike and Bryan never even said the quote themselves! It's a line said by Sokka, one of the fictional characters in the parodic video!


So I asked a mod, icon_uk:

"...all this stuff she's saying about them being "disturbing" and trying to analyze their characters based on a single line in a comedy short they produced - doesn't this cross the line into personal attacks against creators?"


icon_uk's response:

"As to the other matter, in situations where a creator is being called out for their problematic behaviour, S_D has always allowed more leeway.

Now this discussion IS finished."


So you heard it here first, folks! You have the "leeway" to attribute a character's quotes to the creators themselves, and then to assume all sorts of things about the creator's personality and beliefs based on that. That's just "[calling] them out for their problematic behaviour"!

Comments

(frozen)

[beyondthefringe]

Are you seriously taking your argument with two other members of S_D, including a mod, to a new top level post, just to air the dirty laundry and drag the rest of us innocent bystanders into the mess?

For fuck's sake.

(frozen)

[sadoeuphemist]

Oh absolutely. It's mod involvement. When a mod declares something is law, no more discussion, what recourse do I have but to take it to the populace?

But seriously, you agree with the ruling or not? Should we have the 'leeway' to call out authors for the things their characters say as long as it's calling out 'problematic behaviour'?

(frozen)

[julian]

In among the options you have, you could, say, *stop commenting*.

(frozen)

[sadoeuphemist]

Sure. I just legitimately think it's fucked up to attribute a character's quote to the creators directly, and then cast aspersions on them because of that, and then have a mod sign off on this as a legitimate tactic. What, everyone who writes the Joker can be smeared as a sicko now?

In any case, I will stop commenting one way or the other, eventually.

(frozen)

[lissa_quon]

What the hell is happening? I'm too tired to process but this looks like drama mongering.

(frozen)

[shadowkat]

I don't know, the writers kind of made their views of shipping Katura and Zukio clear in the second to last episode of the final season of Avatar: The Last Airbender - with that play.

Also, it's nowhere near as bad as some of the things writers of BTVS called Spuffy and Bangle shippers on the BronzeBeta to their faces.

This is sort of tame.

(frozen)

[sadoeuphemist]

There's a difference between saying the creators aren't into Zutara, and then there's taking personal offense at that and accusing them of having "shitty attitudes" and attributing to them quotes they didn't say to make them look bad.

I think the second crosses the line into personal attacks. Do you agree?

(frozen)

[shadowkat]

I'm kind of ambivalent on the topic, to be honest.

Except that I find it to be an amusing distraction from 2020.

(frozen)

[lego_joker]

I'll be honest, I didn't even know the comm had a hard-and-fast rule about this, let alone that anyone cared this much about it.

(I know, vaguely, about the Peter David incident, but I was under the impression it ended with everyone agreeing David was a special case and too short-tempered to be worth bothering. Am I wrong in this?)

(frozen)

[stubbleupdate]

As a very basic guide, yes, that is what the Peter David story is.

(frozen)

[salamangkiero]

Meh. If you don't like it, leave. No, Really. Been here a pretty long time, now mostly just reading up on opinions and posts to get a better handle on what's going on, used to be pretty active before, even tried to help with admin once.

The Internet is a wide, free-ranging place that has infinite "space". Make your own community if you don't like whatever rule that offends you enough in this one to post something like this.

Also as a writer myself, you can either believe in the death of the author, so to speak, or talk about the work with the creator integrated into its fabric, re: context. Both are viable modes/opinions.

As for one-line throwaways, and all that... well, jokes are always made with a point, even if the point is "nothing."

Thanks, cheers.

(frozen)

[starwolf_oakley]

This is a *little* like how the writers and producers of "Cheers" say Sam and Diane didn't have the healitiest of relationships.

(frozen)

[lilacsigil]

How about "don't bring wank into new top level posts"? Can that be a rule?

(frozen)

[laughing_tree]

I agree that this "problematic behavior" is nothing of the sort, for the reasons you mention, but I'm not sure there's any way scans_daily can police some sort of "attacking creators for problematic behavior is not acceptable if it isn't actually problematic" rule, since whether something's problematic can be a very subjective thing.

By the same token, I think the disagreement you were having with janegrey was valid and it wasn't the mods' place to step in to shut it down when neither of you was breaking any rules.

If someone accused a Batman writer of being a sicko for writing the Joker as one, they'd be dumb, but it's honestly the sort of dumb that pops up here all the time.

(frozen)

[cricharddavies]

Oh, get over it, you're just annoyed that you couldn't browbeat them into agreeing with you.

(frozen)

[stubbleupdate]

There are a number of poor choices here, but your biggest one is starting a post just for dragging another user.

Either the original thread was frozen, in which case the subject is dropped.
Or the original thread was not frozen, in which case continue your conversation there without embarrassing yourself in front of evrrybody

(frozen)

[coldfury]

You know, I've disagreed a lot with some people on here. But this is, generally, a friendly community. I can't believe you got to the point where they said "I'm done, let's agree to disagree" and you still tried to drag it on, tried to involve a mod in your discussion, and then made a top post complaining about censorship.

I hope, if the mods allow you the privilege of remaining in this community, that you learn how to drop the rope when it's time.

(frozen) Mod Note

[icon_uk]

As you might imagine this thread is frozen

(frozen) Mod Post: First Warning

[sistermagpie]

To be clear about rules etc., speculating as to how seriously a creator meant something that they said is not a personal attack. The thread was not frozen because that discussion is off limit. It was frozen because you were continuing to badger someone who agreed to disagree. No one is obligated to continue arguing for someone else's sake. That's what made the discussion over.

Even leaving aside the issues in the original post, which have been addressed elsewhere, creating a post purely to vent against a perceived slight by another poster AND a member of the Mod Team is entirely inappropriate behavior.

As such this is your First Official Warning. Please note that if you receive two further warnings you will lose the ability to post on this community.

(frozen) Re: Mod Post: First Warning

[sadoeuphemist]

To be clear: the creators in fact did not say that at all and it is just a flat-out lie to claim they did.

This is what I object to: janegray attributed those words as a direct quote from the creators, without any indication that it was from a work of fiction. I believed her. I took her at her word. I assumed it was something they had said IRL, until I actually googled the quote for myself!

Did Mike and Byran even write that line themselves? Unclear! Animation's a collaborative project! It could have been someone else on the writing staff, it could have been ad libbed by the actor, etc.. This is not 'speculation on how seriously they meant it.' This is an elaborate series of logical leaps to put words into creators' mouths that they never said themselves, and then to attack them for the imagined sentiment and motivations behind those words.

If this is permissible, where is the limit? Again, am I permitted to start openly speculating on the mental health and stability of everyone who writes a Joker story?

Secondly, I object to the notion that mod intervention is justified whenever someone says 'agree to disagree'. Of course janegray is not required to continue arguing. She can stop replying to me any time she wants. Then it's over. I won't be able to continue the discussion at all.

But the idea that someone can say 'agree to disagree' and then a mod intervenes to stop the other person from replying further - that's preposterous. 'Agree to disagree' means that both people have to, you know, agree to disagree! What if I don't agree to disagree? What if I think her behavior is so egregious that this is a matter that cannot be settled by simple disagreement?