Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{GlossaryTerm | | {{GlossaryTerm |
| |synonyms= antonym of [[kink]] | | |synonyms= antonym of [[kink]] |
− | |seealso= [[Kink]], [[Squee]], [[Bulletproof Kink]], [[Trigger]] | + | |seealso= [[Kink]], [[Squee]], [[Bulletproof Kink]], [[Trigger]], YMMV |
| }} | | }} |
| | | |
− | '''Squick''' is a term commonly used in fannish discussion about [[fanworks]] or professional media that describes anything that is a deep-seated, visceral turn-off for the fan. | + | '''Squick''' is a term commonly used in fannish discussions about [[fanworks]] or professional media that describes anything that is a deep-seated, visceral turn-off for the fan. |
| | | |
| Squicks may be shared by many fans or be specific to one; one person's [[kink]] may be another person's squick. It is more frequently used when discussing sexually [[explicit]] works or ones involving forms of violence. | | Squicks may be shared by many fans or be specific to one; one person's [[kink]] may be another person's squick. It is more frequently used when discussing sexually [[explicit]] works or ones involving forms of violence. |
| | | |
− | For example, some fans may have an [[Embarrassment Squick|embarrassment squick]], and do not enjoy works where a character is embarrassed or in an awkward situation. To quote [[User:Vee]],{{quotation| | + | For example, some fans may have an [[Embarrassment Squick|embarrassment squick]], and do not enjoy works where a character is embarrassed or in an awkward situation. To quote [[User:Vee|Vee]]:{{quotation| |
− | Among my kind, "watch from the hall" is what we call the embarrassment squick, because it's so bothersome you can't even watch it through your fingers and have to leave the room when it's happening.}} Although squick in its original use conveys an ''intensely'' adverse reaction, through [[Fannish Drift|fannish drift]] its meaning has been diluted so that today it may also be used to mean "stuff I don't want to write, read, or receive in a [[Gift Exchange|gift exchange]]." | + | Among my kind, "watch from the hall" is what we call the embarrassment squick, because it's so bothersome you can't even watch it through your fingers and have to leave the room when it's happening.}} Although squick in its original use conveys an ''intensely'' adverse reaction, through [[Fannish Drift|fannish drift]] its meaning has been diluted so that today it may also be used to mean "stuff I don't want to write, read, or receive in a [[Gift Exchange|gift exchange]]."{{cn}} |
| | | |
− | In the 2010s, the term appeared to be less popular, to the point where a 2016 Tumblr post lamented the loss of the "old fandom term".<ref name="desertneon1"/> On the other hand, two years later, that post had generated over 38,000 notes, so maybe rumors of ''squick'''s death are greatly exaggerated. | + | Fanwork creators also sometimes use the term to describe their own work; as of August 13, 2018, there are 319 works on [[AO3]] tagged "Squick."<ref>[https://archiveofourown.org/tags/Squick/works/ Squick tag on AO3]. Accessed on August 13, 2018.</ref> |
| + | |
| + | In the 2010s, the term appeared to have become less popular, to the point where a 2016 Tumblr post lamented the loss of the "old fandom term."<ref name="desertneon1"/> On the other hand, two years later, that post had generated over 38,000 notes, so maybe the rumors of ''squick'''s death are greatly exaggerated. |
| | | |
| ==Origin== | | ==Origin== |
| + | According to [[The Foresmutters Project]], the term was coined on the [[Usenet]] group [[alt.sex.bondage]] before 1995."<ref name="foresmutters">[http://foresmutters.org/squick.html Squick] page at [[The Foresmutters Project]] (accessed December 9, 2009)</ref> [[Fail_Fandomanon]] cites alt.tasteless.jokes in 1993 as the source of the term;<ref>[https://fail-fandomanon.dreamwidth.org/251609.html?thread=1409375705#cmt1409375705 2017-04-14 comment] at [[fail_fandomanon]]</ref> alt.tasteless.jokes describes it as an onomatopoetic word for a particularly gruesome variation on skullfucking<ref>Contrary to popular belief, it does not involve eyesocket fucking, but does involve trepanning. "Geoff Miller comments: I posted that a year ago, and I *made it up!*" [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.tasteless.jokes/aV6-w4oApNk/NgOkeGEvIpUJ Welcome to alt.tasteless! (Monthly Posting)], posted by James Limmer on 19 April 1993.</ref>. The Foresmutters Project states that, "There are various revolting descriptions of 'what is a squick' floating around the 'net (many propogated from alt.tasteless), but my research indicates that the original usage was, 'someone else's kink.'"<ref name="foresmutters"/> The Wiktionary page for the term cites its origins in alt.sex.bondage, and mentions that it was popularized in alt.tasteless.<ref>[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/squick/ Squick]. Last updated on January 21, 2016. Accessed on August 13, 2018.</ref> |
| | | |
− | According to [[The Foresmutters Project]], the term was coined on the [[Usenet]] group [[alt.sex.bondage]] before 1995."<ref name="foresmutters">[http://foresmutters.org/squick.html Squick] page at [[The Foresmutters Project]] (accessed December 9, 2009)</ref> [[Fail_Fandomanon]] cites alt.tasteless.jokes in 1993 as the source of the term;<ref>[https://fail-fandomanon.dreamwidth.org/251609.html?thread=1409375705#cmt1409375705 2017-04-14 comment] at [[fail_fandomanon]]</ref> alt.tasteless.jokes describes it as an onomatopoetic word for a particularly gruesome variation on skullfucking<ref>Contrary to popular belief, it does not involve eyesocket fucking, but does involve trepanning. "Geoff Miller comments: I posted that a year ago, and I *made it up!*" [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.tasteless.jokes/aV6-w4oApNk/NgOkeGEvIpUJ Welcome to alt.tasteless! (Monthly Posting)], posted by James Limmer on 19 April 1993.</ref>. The Foresmutters Project states that, "There are various revolting descriptions of 'what is a squick' floating around the 'net (many propogated from alt.tasteless), but my research indicates that the original usage was, 'someone else's kink.'"<ref name="foresmutters"/>
| + | One fan recalled the term's non-fannish origins in the [[BDSM]] community: |
| + | |
| + | {{Quotation| [2017]: |
| + | As an additional data point, as far as I know the term “squick” comes from the BDSM community, originally. At least that’s where I first encountered it, on BDSM message boards on [[usenet]] in the mid-90s – yes, I was on BDSM message boards in the mid-90s; long story. As such, the implicit lack of judgment is important to the meaning of the word; you need a word to mean “I really don’t want to do that, and I don’t want to watch you doing that, but I don’t judge YOU for liking that and I don’t mind if YOU do it … somewhere far away from me.”<ref>[http://laylainalaska.tumblr.com/post/160136430339/how-was-squick-used-like-would-you-tag-something laylainalaska.tumblr.com]; [http://www.webcitation.org/6znkLo6jt WebCite] </ref>}} |
| | | |
| It is difficult to know when the term attained enough popular use to be recognized in larger fandom spaces, but a fan in August 1993 used it when she stated: "I also love violence [in fan fiction]. Not all kinds -- some of it squicks me — and not all the time --sometimes I like a [[happy ending]] and romance and all that even if it does violate the series atmosphere..." <ref> from a fan's trib in [[Strange Bedfellows (APA)|Strange Bedfellows]] #2 </ref> | | It is difficult to know when the term attained enough popular use to be recognized in larger fandom spaces, but a fan in August 1993 used it when she stated: "I also love violence [in fan fiction]. Not all kinds -- some of it squicks me — and not all the time --sometimes I like a [[happy ending]] and romance and all that even if it does violate the series atmosphere..." <ref> from a fan's trib in [[Strange Bedfellows (APA)|Strange Bedfellows]] #2 </ref> |
Line 23: |
Line 29: |
| According to Fail_Fandomanon, another early use was in a [[Harry Potter]] [[incest]] fic posted on LiveJournal in 2003<ref>{{source| url = http://nostrademons.livejournal.com/33411.html | title = *squick* Squickfic | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20170417133108/http://nostrademons.livejournal.com/33411.html | archivedate = 2017-04-17 }}, posted by nostrademons, 7 May 2003. (Don't read it if you are remotely sensitive. It is written deliberately to be disturbing.)</ref> was "the fic that defined squick. The term was around [before fandom got hold of it], but this is '''the''' squick fic that made the usage of the word common and widely understood in fandom."<ref>[https://fail-fandomanon.dreamwidth.org/251609.html?thread=1409382617#cmt1409382617 2017-04-14 comment] in fail_fandomanon</ref> The fic included the sex act described in alt.tasteless.jokes's definition of the word squick, though it cited the [[FictionAlley Park]] forums as its source. | | According to Fail_Fandomanon, another early use was in a [[Harry Potter]] [[incest]] fic posted on LiveJournal in 2003<ref>{{source| url = http://nostrademons.livejournal.com/33411.html | title = *squick* Squickfic | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20170417133108/http://nostrademons.livejournal.com/33411.html | archivedate = 2017-04-17 }}, posted by nostrademons, 7 May 2003. (Don't read it if you are remotely sensitive. It is written deliberately to be disturbing.)</ref> was "the fic that defined squick. The term was around [before fandom got hold of it], but this is '''the''' squick fic that made the usage of the word common and widely understood in fandom."<ref>[https://fail-fandomanon.dreamwidth.org/251609.html?thread=1409382617#cmt1409382617 2017-04-14 comment] in fail_fandomanon</ref> The fic included the sex act described in alt.tasteless.jokes's definition of the word squick, though it cited the [[FictionAlley Park]] forums as its source. |
| | | |
− | ==Some Definitions and Discussions== | + | ==Definitions== |
− | ===[[Tumblr]]===
| + | For the most part, fans seem to generally agree that "squick" is a largely neutral term to describe something - often a trope or pairing - that doesn't appeal to them, while recognizing that it might appeal to other people. The absence of any kind of "value judgment" is often integral to fans' definitions of the term. |
| + | |
| {{Quotation|[2015]: | | {{Quotation|[2015]: |
| Key to the concept of “squick,” as it was first explained to me lo these many years ago, is that it is not a value judgment. If I say “mpreg is gross,” that’s a negative statement about mpreg (and, by extension, about those who enjoy writing or reading about it). If I say “mpreg squicks me,” that’s a value-neutral statement about me and my emotional reactions and how they affect my enjoyment of fiction.<ref>[http://animatedamerican.tumblr.com/post/107220844622/buckyballbearing-no-for-real-in-2k15-can/ Tumblr post] by [[animatedamerican]]. Posted on January 5, 2015. Accessed on August 11, 2018.[https://web.archive.org/web/20170816195842/http://animatedamerican.tumblr.com:80/post/107220844622/buckyballbearing-no-for-real-in-2k15-can/ Archived] on August 16, 2017.</ref> | | Key to the concept of “squick,” as it was first explained to me lo these many years ago, is that it is not a value judgment. If I say “mpreg is gross,” that’s a negative statement about mpreg (and, by extension, about those who enjoy writing or reading about it). If I say “mpreg squicks me,” that’s a value-neutral statement about me and my emotional reactions and how they affect my enjoyment of fiction.<ref>[http://animatedamerican.tumblr.com/post/107220844622/buckyballbearing-no-for-real-in-2k15-can/ Tumblr post] by [[animatedamerican]]. Posted on January 5, 2015. Accessed on August 11, 2018.[https://web.archive.org/web/20170816195842/http://animatedamerican.tumblr.com:80/post/107220844622/buckyballbearing-no-for-real-in-2k15-can/ Archived] on August 16, 2017.</ref> |
| }} | | }} |
| | | |
− | {{Quotation2|[2015]: | + | {{Quotation2| [2016]: |
− | The most important thing about ‘squick’ is that it puts the responsibility for my reaction to something where it belongs: on me. “I have a squick” or “that squicks me” says “this is my thing to deal with, not the content creator’s”.<ref>[http://tumblr.selkie.net/post/113649704473/devbasaa-chargetransfer-jmathieson-fic/ Tumblr post] by [[roane72]]. Posted on March 14, 2015. Accessed on August 11, 2018. [https://web.archive.org/web/20160314095233/http://tumblr.selkie.net/post/113649704473/devbasaa-chargetransfer-jmathieson-fic/ Archived] on March 14, 2016.</ref>
| |
− | }}
| |
− | | |
− | {{Quotation| [2016]:
| |
| So what, you ask, is a squick? | | So what, you ask, is a squick? |
| | | |
Line 42: |
Line 45: |
| I love the term squick. It perfectly describes the concept without assigning any negativity to the thing you dislike, or to people who do like the thing you dislike. It is something you personally do not care for and wish to avoid, simple as that.<ref name="desertneon1">{{source| url = http://desert-neon.tumblr.com/post/138955387188/whats-a-squick | title = What's a squick? | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/6floMtZKd | archivedate = 2016-03-05 }} ask answered by desert-neon, 8 February 2016. (Accessed 14 June 2016.)</ref>}} | | I love the term squick. It perfectly describes the concept without assigning any negativity to the thing you dislike, or to people who do like the thing you dislike. It is something you personally do not care for and wish to avoid, simple as that.<ref name="desertneon1">{{source| url = http://desert-neon.tumblr.com/post/138955387188/whats-a-squick | title = What's a squick? | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/6floMtZKd | archivedate = 2016-03-05 }} ask answered by desert-neon, 8 February 2016. (Accessed 14 June 2016.)</ref>}} |
| | | |
− | {{Quotation2| [2017]: | + | {{Quotation| [2017]: |
− | | |
− | As an additional data point, as far as I know the term “squick” comes from the [[BDSM]] community, originally. At least that’s where I first encountered it, on BDSM message boards on [[usenet]] in the mid-90s – yes, I was on BDSM message boards in the mid-90s; long story. As such, the implicit lack of judgment is important to the meaning of the word; you need a word to mean “I really don’t want to do that, and I don’t want to watch you doing that, but I don’t judge YOU for liking that and I don’t mind if YOU do it … somewhere far away from me.”
| |
− | | |
| 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. | | 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. |
| | | |
Line 54: |
Line 54: |
| 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! <ref>[http://laylainalaska.tumblr.com/post/160136430339/how-was-squick-used-like-would-you-tag-something laylainalaska.tumblr.com]; [http://www.webcitation.org/6znkLo6jt WebCite] </ref>}} | | 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! <ref>[http://laylainalaska.tumblr.com/post/160136430339/how-was-squick-used-like-would-you-tag-something laylainalaska.tumblr.com]; [http://www.webcitation.org/6znkLo6jt WebCite] </ref>}} |
| | | |
− | {{Quotation| [2018]: | + | One fan described "squick" as a kind of shorthand that works primarily communities where there's a degree of implicit trust or civility, as well as a need to easily communicate preferences and boundaries: |
| + | |
| + | {{Quotation2| [2018]: |
| The idea of using squick as a trump card against further arguments is strange, because it implies an ''incredibly'' hostile environment, which doesn’t really fit with the concept. At least for me, squick comes with the implication that the people involved in the conversation are, if not friends, then at least civil with each other. | | The idea of using squick as a trump card against further arguments is strange, because it implies an ''incredibly'' hostile environment, which doesn’t really fit with the concept. At least for me, squick comes with the implication that the people involved in the conversation are, if not friends, then at least civil with each other. |
| | | |
Line 67: |
Line 69: |
| (Also, if someone keeps waving squicks (or triggers) around like convenient bludgeons intended to silence you whenever they feel like it, you probably don’t have a terminology problem. You have an asshole problem. I recommend blocking.) <Ref> [http://stand-up-and-fight-daleks.tumblr.com/post/174387691836/how-was-squick-used-like-would-you-tag-something stand-up-and-fight-daleks.tumblr]; [http://www.webcitation.org/6znkfF7Ag WebCite] </ref>}} | | (Also, if someone keeps waving squicks (or triggers) around like convenient bludgeons intended to silence you whenever they feel like it, you probably don’t have a terminology problem. You have an asshole problem. I recommend blocking.) <Ref> [http://stand-up-and-fight-daleks.tumblr.com/post/174387691836/how-was-squick-used-like-would-you-tag-something stand-up-and-fight-daleks.tumblr]; [http://www.webcitation.org/6znkfF7Ag WebCite] </ref>}} |
| | | |
− | ===[[LiveJournal]]===
| + | While most fans seem to consider "squick" as a successfully neutral term, some feel that there may still be an implicit judgment in the way it's used: |
| + | |
| {{Quotation|[2012]: | | {{Quotation|[2012]: |
| Humans are social creatures. We look for affirmation from our peers. So, if somebody confesses to you, "This turns me on," and your first reaction is, "EW!" that's going to hurt the person you're talking to.<ref>[https://pilgrimkitty.livejournal.com/7720.html/ The fine line between squick and kink shaming.] by [[pilgrimkitty]]. Posted on January 3, 2012. Accessed on August 11, 2018. [https://web.archive.org/web/20170518145822/http://pilgrimkitty.livejournal.com:80/7720.html/ Archived] on May 18, 2017.</ref> | | Humans are social creatures. We look for affirmation from our peers. So, if somebody confesses to you, "This turns me on," and your first reaction is, "EW!" that's going to hurt the person you're talking to.<ref>[https://pilgrimkitty.livejournal.com/7720.html/ The fine line between squick and kink shaming.] by [[pilgrimkitty]]. Posted on January 3, 2012. Accessed on August 11, 2018. [https://web.archive.org/web/20170518145822/http://pilgrimkitty.livejournal.com:80/7720.html/ Archived] on May 18, 2017.</ref> |
| }} | | }} |
| + | |
| + | Some fans also emphasize that the onus is on the reader with a particular squick to self-select out of engaging with fanworks that explore or feature that squick: |
| + | |
| + | {{Quotation2|[2015]: |
| + | The most important thing about ‘squick’ is that it puts the responsibility for my reaction to something where it belongs: on me. “I have a squick” or “that squicks me” says “this is my thing to deal with, not the content creator’s”.<ref>[http://tumblr.selkie.net/post/113649704473/devbasaa-chargetransfer-jmathieson-fic/ Tumblr post] by [[roane72]]. Posted on March 14, 2015. Accessed on August 11, 2018. [https://web.archive.org/web/20160314095233/http://tumblr.selkie.net/post/113649704473/devbasaa-chargetransfer-jmathieson-fic/ Archived] on March 14, 2016.</ref> |
| + | }} |
| + | |
| + | ===Alternate Definitions=== |
| + | While most fans use "squick" as seen above, alternate definitions have been proposed, suggesting that there may not have always been general consensus about the term's meaning. In particular, this 2006 definition posted to the [[Fanthropology]] community seems to describe "squick" as an intentional style or genre of fic that's meant to "gross" a reader out: |
| + | |
| + | {{Quotation|[2006]: |
| + | Squick: In the past called "gross-out" fics, where reader is supposed to be made sick by what they are reading, or disturbed. Think seeing Grandma naked in shower masturbating. Usually associated with comedic stories. Everything that happens to Jim in the American Pie movies is squick.<ref>[https://fanthropology.livejournal.com/260826.html/ Livejournal post] by [[yenesi]]. Posted on August 15, 2006. Accessed on August 13, 2018. [https://web.archive.org/web/20151106123009/http://fanthropology.livejournal.com/260826.html/ Archived] on November 6, 2015.</ref> |
| | | |
| ==The Differences Between [[Triggers]] and Squicks== | | ==The Differences Between [[Triggers]] and Squicks== |
| + | Particularly in the context of ongoing conversations about the responsibility to tag potentially sensitive or triggering content in fannish spaces (and whether such content should even have a place in fan communities and archives), "squick" is often lifted up as a necessary piece of fannish vocabulary by fans seeking to draw a distinction between a squick and a trigger. |
| + | |
| {{Quotation|[2015]: | | {{Quotation|[2015]: |
| <b>squick:</b> Something that makes you go “ewwww” and wish you had never seen/read it. Something that makes you deeply uncomfortable. Something you’re not interested in reading/seeing/thinking about, ever. | | <b>squick:</b> Something that makes you go “ewwww” and wish you had never seen/read it. Something that makes you deeply uncomfortable. Something you’re not interested in reading/seeing/thinking about, ever. |
Line 79: |
Line 96: |
| }} | | }} |
| | | |
− | {{Quotation|[2016]: | + | {{Quotation2|[2016]: |
| 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. | | 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. |
| | | |
Line 85: |
Line 102: |
| | | |
| ==Meta/Further Reading== | | ==Meta/Further Reading== |
− |
| |
| * [http://stele3.insanejournal.com/247227.html Meta: birth of a squick] by stele3 | | * [http://stele3.insanejournal.com/247227.html Meta: birth of a squick] by stele3 |
| * [http://cruiscin-lan.livejournal.com/114440.html What makes YOU squick?] by cruiscin_lan | | * [http://cruiscin-lan.livejournal.com/114440.html What makes YOU squick?] by cruiscin_lan |
Line 93: |
Line 109: |
| | | |
| ==External Links== | | ==External Links== |
− | *[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Squick Squick] on the tvtropes.com wiki | + | *[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Squick Squick] on the [[TV Tropes]] wiki |
| + | |
| ==References== | | ==References== |
| <References/> | | <References/> |