Talk:Rainbow Direction

Is there a reason these facts were deleted, along with the links?. While they may no longer be true or some fans feel they were/are incorrect, these were historical statements that were made. MeeDee (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer: The first part of this paragraph are all statements that were not made in reference to rainbow direction but in reference to Larries - which is why I cut the paragraph but I did indeed cut out to much. I have below separated out & edited the last bit which is about Rainbow Direction and should probably go in again, together with what Rainbow Direction itself has said about these criticisms as they did respond to most of them at some point.

___________________

SHOULD GO:

Larries have long claimed that they are supporting LGBT rights through their devotion to Larry. Other fans have argued that forcing people out of the closet is in no way supportive and that much of the Larries' behavior is incredibly homophobic, from relying on gay stereotypes to "prove" that Harry and Louis are gay to harassing an out gay man whose existence they believe disrupts their ship. Larries also claim that arguing against Larry being real is homophobic.

SHOULD STAY:

One Rainbow Direction participant argued that fans who had a problem with rainbows were homophobic.

Accusations of bullying by supporters of Rainbow Direction

Other fans have reported bullying by people who display the safe spaces rainbow badge on their accounts.

Rainbow Direction responded to the criticism that no visible action was being taken with the following statement on enforcement of their policies:

"when we see a violation, we will consider contacting the person in question to ask to remove our tag/retract their participation. We also do not have the all-seeing eye. And we believe in a basic rule of human interaction: praise is to be handed out publicly, criticism mainly privately. That is why, if we see policy violations that are clearly not understood by the people who break the policy, we will contact them privately to explain and ask for a correction. The lack of a public statement on any particular violation of the policy is therefore NOT to be taken as condoning the action." [1]

And more recently: "Some people think it means we have full control over what our participants do and “allow” them to transgress - that’s also not the case, we are not in a position to allow or disallow anything because we simply do not have that sort of power of control. (...) If you feel you’ve been unfairly treated by any participant in particular, you can remind them that the whole point of showing rainbows is tolerance towards others. You can point them to our shipping policy, or contact us and we will investigate whether it’s possible and necessary to take it up with them privately." [2]

_________________

Rainbow Direction was criticized by many people because they saw it as a project by Larries, so what people attributed to Larries is relevant to the criticism of rainbow direction. Maybe there's a clearer way to say it, but people's issues with Rainbow Direction are complicated to explain because the criticism is based on information/analysis that Rainbow Direction itself denies or obfuscates. People have pointed to early stuff that was deleted or revised that shows a clearer connection between Rainbow Direction and larries/larrie analysis of H/L. Maybe Rainbow Direction distanced itself from that in an honest effort to be more inclusive/not be mistaken for a larrie project, but anti-larries just took that as RD hiding its tracks. So it's still worth explaining the reasoning for why people criticized RD even if their reasoning was incorrect--otherwise, it looks like people are just being homophobic for criticizing an LGBT project. And that's not why people were criticizing it.--aethel (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree - the "Should Go" section should be restored. It's on the page because the controversy is whether or not Rainbow Direction is a Larry thing and (if it is) what that means. It makes sense to talk about Larries' homophobia in relation to a project about lgbtq+ allyship/support in the 1d fandom and to document fan's perceptions and reactions - even if they are felt to be incorrect. What we do is document the discussion instead of deleting the discussion. So "Expand don't delete" is the way to go. PS. Don't forget to 'sign' your comments using the squiggle/tilde symbol. 4x ~ MeeDee (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

_________________

I plan to add the text back after "That said, in 2013 takemehomefromnarnia did an IDAHOT action encouraging people to speak up against online homophobia in the fandom and their masterpost of reactions revealed that at the time, there was quite a bit of (casual) homophobia doing the rounds long before the terms Larries or Rainbow Direction even existed""

So it will now read:

The perception of homophobia and the role it plays in the fandom and its related projects remains hotly disputed. One position argues that

Larries have long claimed that they are supporting LGBT rights through their devotion to Larry. Other fans have argued that forcing people out of the closet is in no way supportive and that much of the Larries' behavior is incredibly homophobic, from relying on gay stereotypes to "prove" that Harry and Louis are gay to harassing an out gay man whose existence they believe disrupts their ship. Larries also claim that arguing against Larry being real is homophobic. By some strange coincidence, Rainbow Directioners likewise accuse people who argue against the project of homophobic bullying. Meanwhile, fans have reported bullying by people who display the safe spaces rainbow badge on their accounts. MeeDee (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. MeeDee (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

rainbow direction blog as run by a larrie in 2019

I noticed this claim: Nothing on the takemehomefromnarnia blog itself supports the theory that Louis and Harry are in an actual relationship. and it is misleading. As recently as a few weeks ago, the official rainbow direction tumblr made a veiled reference to a homophobic tweet by Louis Tomlinson that is actually a Larry theory. I checked with my twitter followers to confirm: This is the same tweet from several years ago that Larry theorizing spun as homophobia. He wore a vintage Apple t-shirt (which has a rainbow-colored logo), and a newspaper turned it into a story about him supporting Tim Cook coming out. So he complained about it on twitter. He knows about the conspiracy theory and has been repeatedly harassed about it, but whenever he pushes back, larries claim it is homophobia. So takemehomefromnarnia taking the same position means that whoever is behind takemehomefromnarnia is a larrie. Obviously takemehomefromnarnia doesn't come right out and say they're a larrie and I guess they're trying to have broader appeal for the project. But their views on Larry keep showing up. [3]--aethel (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be a anti-biased view of the events in November 2014. These are the facts in order:

Tim cook comes out as gay

Apple reissues shirts with their old apple logo in support of Tim Cook coming out as gay - so these shirts have a connotation of LGBTQ+ support

Harry Styles says 'not that important' in response to Liam's 'female' answer to the question "what's important to you in a girl"

Rainbow Direction issues the rainbow heart logos for everyone who wants to show their support for Harry's comments on gender, 22000 people download them

Louis Tomlinson shows up at X factor with the reissued shirts with the old apple logo that happens to have rainbow colours, but that was reissued in support of Tim Cook coming out as gay

Jen Selby writes an article in the Independent about Harry's comments and mentions what she reasonably assumes is Louis' way of showing support to Harry and Tim Cook in a positive way, with no mention of Louis' relationship to Eleanor (or Harry for that matter, other than as his bandmate), and no allusions to the Larry Stylinson rumours/theories.

Liam mentions the article to Louis in a livestream, saying "it is good"

Louis goes on twitter to call out the journalist and distances himself from the article that commends him for being LGBTQ+ supportive, basically saying "you got it wrong, I wasn't being LGBTQ+ supportive, and I am angry at you for suggesting that I was."

That is homophobic. Not because Larries say so, but because LGBTQ+ people and the definition of social homophobia (distancing oneself from anything LGBTQ+ related to make sure one is not perceived as gay for fear of social reactions to one being perceived as gay) say so. And thats why Rainbow Direction called it out. I agree with you that Larries saying so doens't necessarily make anything homophobic, but that tweet definitely was.

And so saying that Rainbow Direction calling out that tweet as homophobic suggests that they think Louis and Harry are in a relationship doesn't make sense at all .

hermowninny

I assume this is the larrie argument about why the tweet was homophobic. (I just realized that this is the Bullshit 2.0 tweet we're talking about.) The people invested in arguing that the tweet was homophobic are larries. Rainbow Direction was alluding to these larrie arguments because the blog is run by a larrie. I won't say Louis Tomlinson is never homophobic, but the missing context is that larries have been harassing him and his family and his girlfriends on social media for years demanding that he come out and admit he's really dating Harry and calling his girlfriends absolutely horrible things and sending death threats. So mainstream articles getting in on the "speculation" about his sexuality was probably a sore spot for him. Not that he wasn't also a dick about it. But he was reacting to something. Here's a few links: [4][5] [6].--aethel (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I am not impressed by the claim of an anti-biased view. I'd like to point out that an anti in the context of one direction fandom is a blog that debunks larrie claims. these are often dedicated sideblogs with no link to the main blog because so many people were getting harassed by larries. And any non-larrie could potentially be labeled an anti at the point they make a rebuttal. And then dismissed because they're a biased anti. Meanwhile everyone else is trying to avoid larries and larry arguments and talk about something else, but make no mistake, they are not supporting larries.--aethel (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Malicious Editing

I think what is happening to this page is a deliberate POV shift to engage in revisionist history. This is a violation of Plural Point of View. It appears that Rainbow Direction supporters are doing on Fanlore exactly what Rainbow Direction itself has been trying to do for years--dismiss criticisms against it while burying the evidence. Sections that used to be about criticisms of RD are now about dismissing the criticisms against it and critical quotes were moved into the footnotes. And those quotes were meant as examples; there are many more people critical of RD and dismissing them as a *few* is misleading. I see the reference to an early project called Real Eyes Realize Real Lies was removed from the page, presumably because it is an obvious larry project. I think all the changes made changing the POV since August need to be rolled back and only the parts that add new information left in.[7]--aethel (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2019

Rainbow Direction supporters are 1D fans, and their views are valid too. The original article mentioned NOT ONE of the hundreds of supportive messages LGBTQ+ fans have posted about Rainbow Direction. That was definitely a violation of PPOV. Some (but not all) critical quotes are now in the footnotes, as are the supportive quotes. They are treated equally. -- -hermowninny (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2019

They are not treated equally. You have undermined and downplayed all the counterarguments, especially the counterarguments by LGBTQ+ fans. The page reads like rainbow direction's FAQ now. I especially like how you added more to the 2013 quote and reframed it as a positive thing when the whole point of the quote was that it has been pointed to many times by antis as evidence of rainbow direction having obvious Larry origins.--aethel (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Temporary Block

I recommend to temporarily lock this page to editing so that fans can come up with a plan that honors all points of view and the many different ways fans experience this subject. Fanlore is a place to explain and document, not a place to promote one view over another. We have the tools to accomplish this task. MPH (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the Article page should be locked and editors can discuss their proposed edits here on the Talk page. Can you send this up to the Gardeners as well?MeeDee (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Plan to fix?

User Hermowninny started editing this page in April 2018, and all their edits indicate that they are a larrie who wants to promote the Rainbow Direction party line on this page. Here is what has changed since then. I think that consolidating the criticisms in the controversy section was not necessarily a bad move, but Hermowninny has been systematically undermining and diminishing those criticisms. Some other edits just seem weird. What's wrong with mentioning in the first paragraph who started the project?

This claim doesn't make any sense:

Controversy over Rainbow Direction is part of the larger controversy of Larry Stylinson & The Fourth Wall.

The controversy is not over the fourth wall. The controversy is over whether or not Rainbow Direction is a stealth Larry project or is too compromised by tinhat thinking to be effective LGBTQ+ activism. An earlier version of the page explained in detail why being associated with a tinhat theory made Rainbow Direction's activism suspect. I don't see what that has to do with the fourth wall. There is a side issue of larries being a public embarrassment to the rest of the fandom, but that is not why people don't support Rainbow Direction. Larries also consistently make misleading claims about why the rest of the fandom doesn't like them.

My understanding that a very large percentage of One Direction fandom does not see Rainbow Direction favorably, not just anti-larries. anti-larries are just a convenient source of quotes.

I am not actually certain how to fix the page other than by reverting to April 2018, or at least the controversy section, and then adding back in the parts added by Hermowninny that make sense.--aethel (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The Larry & The Fourth Wall line was from me, sorry. I got confused by the Larry & The Fourth Wall page not distinguishing very well between the band's awareness of regular shipping vs. tinhats deliberately breaching the fourth wall. Would it work for the line to be amended to "Controversy over Rainbow Direction is related to the larger controversy over fans who believe Larry Is Real"? —caes (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

OK no problem. Yes, it would be accurate to say that the controversy is related to the controversy over Larry Is Real. Part of what has me so frustrated about all these larrie edits is that the topics are so confusing and obscure it's hard for anyone who hasn't spent Way Too Much time on it to follow. And even though I feel like I've spent Way Way Too Much Time on this, I still can't claim to know everything. Some of the larrie edits contained brand new information to me, so it's hard to evaluate whether it's slanted.--aethel (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

add links?

Here's a link to Rainbow Direction's founder thisiskatsblog reblogging and agreeing with a larrie discussing Rainbow Direction as a positive non-harassing way to support Harry/Louis coming out of the closet and/or channel their anger at One Direction's management keeping H/L in the closet into general LGBT activism: July 16, 2014.--aethel (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Attention Gardeners

Hi all, I removed the attention gardeners flag that has been on this page since 2019. If there are any malicious edits in future or conerns about the content of this page, please add it back in. --Auntags (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)