Talk:Stitch/Archive re the controversy section

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search

re: the controversy section

To be frank, the more I read over the controversy section, the more I feel like the primary editor of that section was more interested in debating Stitch's talking points themselves, rather than merely recording and keeping track of discussions and how they related to wider fandom history and culture. I feel that this approach and some of the phrasing, as well as the scattered, disconnected "controversy" moments are kind of outside the scope of what fanlore is meant to archive. Typically, from my experience as a fanlore reader and fandom researcher over several years, controversy sections and other sections that focus on fandom discourse, tend to highlight specific quotes or discuss specific articles in a more unbiased and comprehensive way. For instance, the Slash Controversy page contains direct quotes from a variety of sources including letters, zines, and books. Obviously, a controversy section about one specific fandom blogger isn't going to be as in depth as a one about general fandom history, but I would recommend that those who seek to edit or create controversy sections take a look at other articles on the wiki to gain a deeper understanding of how to present controversy in a nuanced, muldtiple pov way. Because when that structure isn't followed, controversy sections end up feeling more like callout posts written by someone with a specific agenda. I just don't think this is the place to personally litigate and "debate" with the subject being discussed. - User:Queerdo 15:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Would it make more sense for this section to focus specifically on the specific backlash in late May/early June 2021 to Stitch's interview with Kelly Marie Tran and the related efforts to get them fired from Teen Vogue? This seems more like a specific moment of controversy to archive.— Elumination (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I will see if I can expand and elaborate upon the controversy section in a way that helps highlights both sides, something more similar to the way controversies are treated on the Vivziepop page. Clarifying and including more information on Stitch's content may help readers understand both her arguments and the responses from others; I'll also see if I am able to include any positive responses to her arguments amid the negative ones. Hopefully that can make the section more understandable and balanced. Patchlamb (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I've only added context to what the PickMe POC controversy was about, as it didn't really go into what it was. Included more info on her second essay from 2021. There was a cluster of references there, mainly responses to her 2019 essay and her Twitter comments. I only expanded them for now so there's more context for what those references are there for and what they express, but I'd definitively like to find some other positive responses to her 2019 essay as well. Right now they all seem in opposition, but if there were other comments in favor those are well needed. I may not have time tonight to dig much more into the article, but I'll see what else I can do really quick. Otherwise, if anyone finds any good quotes or references before I do you can drop them off here for me. Patchlamb (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Re: the PickMe POC controversy, I searched for uses of the term + "stitch" and unfortunately have only found an overwhelmingly negative response to Stitch's use of the phrase as well as others that Stitch has used to refer to the same or similar concepts, such as "minions of color" in Stitch's essay Rey/Kylo Shippers: A New Look At An Old Face of Fannish Entitlement:
You know what? Let's talk about racism in fandom. Let's talk about how @stichomancery calls Reylos fascist-loving tradwife wannabes and calls POC Reylos "minions of color" who have no autonomy in thought and are at the whim of their white woman masters. src

How DARE you call other BIPOC “minions of color” as if we aren’t being viewed that way period just for existing? You speak against Racism but your posts make no active comments about actual racism. It’s all just “well I don’t like this and this is why I am saying it’s racist.” src

and "Social Justice Pokemon of color" in their article What Fandom Racism Looks Like: Phone A Friend of Color:
Normally I don’t like, do anything more than observe the drama with popcorn... but you do realize that Stitch has called other BIPOC things like “minions of color” (for liking Reylo) and “Social Justice Pokémon” right? Like that’d a thing that they’ve written on their blog? (I actually read the whole post and it’s ... like it’s incredibly inappropriate towards BIPOC who disagree with Stich’s views and, despite acknowledging that BIPOC aren’t a monolith, demands that they don’t disagree with Stich bc it would make them “pick me’s”) src

It seems like this wording in these articles is largely considered inappropriate/offensive and many people seem to believe that it shuts down discussion from other fans of color by accusing them of racism as well. I will continue to search for more positive responses to these essays. Due to the ephemeral nature of Twitter as well as the high volume of posts that are just stuff like "Social Justice Pokemon Of Color (clown emoji)" it is entirely possible that I've missed more positive interpretations of this phrasing. However, I was able to find some positive responses in the comments sections of the articles themselves, like the following:
NGL I clicked on this article expecting to get my back up. (I’m very marginally involved in this fandom, and vaguely into Adam Driver’s weird physicality, and I’ve always thought of Reylo shippers as largely innocent weirdos who are sick of being lectured about how it’s not nice to do space kidnappings).

But you’re completely right about the volume and acceleration of brigading, and who it centers/targets. I do think part of the problem is the way fandom language conflates a personal like/dislike of a ship with a shipping subculture. Any group culture can avalanche into something that can really hurt people, in ways that tend to kind of follow the gravity of existing power structures. I do think that the conflation of ship with fucked-up shipping subculture has continued to accelerate this thing, because it’s inspecific. (I don’t mean you – you’ve gone out of your way to be specific here and elsewhere). It kind of allows people who are genuinely behaving badly, and are ginning up groups behaving badly, to disappear in a cloud of “they’re attacking YOU for your PRIVATE DESIRE to read about pasty fascist sexy space kidnapping”.

I mean, I saw a listicle go past me on tumblr that had a sequence of “reasons why you’re the problem” and it put “shipping reylo” next to “not supporting Land Back”. I’m 99% sure that whoever wrote that list was operating in a context where “shipping” meant “participating in twitter brigading”. Participating in twitter brigading in a way that reinscribes racist power dynamics is. Indeed. Very bad. Shipping two white characters inside one’s own head, or even writing fanfiction about those characters, merits examination as a potential part of a troubling trend, but that’s qualitatively different from letting shiplust turn into weird internet bloodlust against other real people who exist. --purps

Writing about the content of these essays themselves could be useful as well, because giving them greater context in the article could help prevent a negative POV. If negative responses to the phrasing are included in the article, I don't think it's necessary to fully quote them. Canard (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I doubt most people would be talking about Stitch or their use of PickMe POC/POC TOO while using both their name and that phrase in the same tweet. Looking through quote-tweets from them announcing the posts or other outlets (like for their Teen Vogue pieces) would probably be a better way to find reactions. Tinyhipsterboy (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, Tinyhipsterboy. I went through Stitch's Twitter to search for links to their articles, and although I did not find much in the way of quote tweets or replies to posts announcing the articles I had been examining responses to, I did find this interesting linkback where someone draws a parallel between Stitch's experiences with toxicity in Reylo fandom and their own experience in the Veronica Mars fandom. I also found a post asserting that the toxic practice of using one's friends of color to make arguments about racially charged subjects in fandom on one's behalf also takes place on other fannish platforms, such as Youtube. There are a few other posts containing links to Stitch's essays that I found, but they are either saying stuff along the lines of "I just read this article" or restating the thesis of the post, or unspecified vitriol against the author, which I don't think contributes to the general discussion around their work. Canard (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Otherwise, I feel like the section needs more grounding around the wider discussions on Race_and_Fandom. For example, I think that the AO3 section can better grounded around the wider AO3, Content and Racism discussions. As a starting point, perhaps:
As part of the wider discussions around AO3, Content and Racism discussions (see AO3_Content_Discussion_(2016) and OTW and AO3 Racism Discussion (2020)), they ...

- jane 04:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
would recommend the "Teen Vogue" section be renamed and actually not just cover harassment that was directly related to efforts to contact Teen Vogue about Stitch's behavior, but perhaps include larger harassment campaigns against Stitch. Many of them are well-documented in this post on their blog. Fiercynn (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


Note: I live with Patchlamb,we might appear to have the same IP. I had some concerns regarding the page and she encouraged me to bring them up. There is some concern in the potential impact the extensiveness of controversy sections on pages for individuals could have. And if it is fair to these individuals whom may face disproportionate backlash and/or bad publicity, especially when many are already in a vulnerable situation. Things that are recorded in the spirit of posterity could, though unintentionally,cause undeserved harm. The mere size of such a section feels inappropriate as it is more akin to a callout post than a wiki page. For example, even Wikipedia will often only briefly mention controversial events on celebrity pages. Jesteresque (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

MPH has proposed including a brief summary of controversies on this page and breaking the longer sections onto their own pages. This will allow for hopefully more space to examine the context of these discussions and how they relate to discussions of race and harassment in fandom, as well as fannish reactions to these discussions/controversies. This page is currently a Work in Progress, which is why the controversy sections are very long at the moment. I'd recommend reviewing MPH's proposal below, and adding your opinion on the proposal there. --Auntags (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

just want to note a few places where the sources for the current information (even aside from the failfandom_anon sources) are dubious. Particularly in the "Criticism of Archive of Our Own" - reference #26, the source for the idea that Stitch advocates racist works should be removed from AO3, goes merely to the "Non-fiction Posts" page on Stitch's blog, not to any particularly post where they have espoused that view. Also, unclear why the paragraph about their suggestions for actions AO3 can take begins with the accusation that Stitch has never provided concrete suggestions - the rest of that paragraph clearly belies that, so there is little reason why it should begin with a false accusation. And the entire conversation around the tweet where Stitch talks about how harassment is currently the only way to get a work off AO3 is clearly a bad-faith reading - again, starting with the misreading before actually representing Stitch's words seems spurious. That out-of-context tweet is also the main grounding for the accusation that Stitch is a "well-known abuser" by twitter user @doctorbaixue (in reference #15). Fiercynn (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Particularly in the "Criticism of Archive of Our Own" - reference #26, the source for the idea that Stitch advocates racist works should be removed from AO3, goes merely to the "Non-fiction Posts" page on Stitch's blog, not to any particularly post where they have espoused that view.
I think you may be looking at the wrong reference - Reference #26 definitely points to an archived Twitter thread by Stitch. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Fanlore, Fiercynn! I think you may have been viewing an old version of the article, as source #26 goes to a Twitter post by Stitch, and source #15 goes to another Tweet by Stitch discussing why she blocks people. The page also has not stated that "They are also of the opinion that Archive of Our Own should be filtered for racist fanworks, although they are unclear about how this should be done," since an edit made on Feb 8th. It currently says "While many claim that Stitch has not provided concrete suggestions for how Archive of Our Own should deal with racism on its site, they have discussed the issue at length on their blog and on social media," and has said this since Feb 8th. You are new, so you would not be used to the navigation yet (it can be a learning curve!), but you can view all edits, including past revisions, via the "View history" tab on the top right. From there, you can compare any two revisions, as well as keep up with the latest one, which displays on the main page. If possible, it's best to review the most recent edits on the page in order to make the best suggestions for how else it can move forward. If you have any questions about navigation or editing/creating other pages, don't be afraid to ask! New editors are always welcome! (quick note: Oops! enchantedsleeper commented right before I was about to hit save page! ^_^' I'll send this anyhow) Patchlamb (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thank you for the welcome, and apologies for my ignorance - you're right, I was looking at an old version! Definitely very new to this and finding the learning curve a little steep but hopefully I will get there :D Appreciate enchantedsleeper's updates to the AO3 section. I also like what enchantedsleeper has drafted below as a rewrite to the AO3 discussion overall. One more reference I wanted to point out in the current section (it's a little unclear to me whether enchantedsleeper's draft below would overwrite the entire AO3 section or whether some of it would still be kept so I wanted to point this out) - what I currently see as reference #20 links to this this tweet thread with the claim that Stitch says AO3 should take action on racist fanworks by removing them. The tweet thread does not say that - Stitch juxtaposes an example of a user's account being suspended because they called an anon a maggot by demonstrating that AO3 will take action on that but not on racist fanworks. Perhaps something more neutral like "Stitch has criticized AO3's existing content moderation policies by saying that AO3 will suspend user accounts for other reasons but not for racism"? Fiercynn (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Just to note, the draft below is not mine; it's unsigned so I don't know who has proposed it. But I've actually moved most of the section under discussion to a dedicated racism section on the AO3 page as I think it makes more sense to situate Stitch's comments in the wider discussion around racism on AO3 (alongside the many similar comments, and also counterpoints, made by others) rather than quoting them in isolation on their page. For now, part of that section is still on the page, but I think the "Controversy" section as a whole is going to be framed/situated differently once more changes are made to the structure of the page. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The racism section looks good and reading it, I think the AO3 Content Discussion (2016) in the "See Also" section can be removed on this page. If a linkage is needed, AO3 & Censorship is more relevant. I didn't realized it had it own page. - jane 02:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
AO3 & Censorship is actually a specific meta essay published in 2018, not a more general page about AO3 and censorship despite what the page title might seem. So the two are distinct. But I do think that having a "See Also" section on a fan's page is a bit odd unless it's pointing to pages/resources that relate specifically to that fan, such as on Aja's page where the "See Also" consists of links to articles/tags about Aja on other sites. So I think for now I would remove that section. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I agreed. Can we re-write the section to the following? Thank you! - jane 16:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
As earliest as 2016, many fans have questioned Archive of Our Own's Policy of Maximum Inclusivity of Content in allowing racist harrassment to stand [1] [2] and their inactions in addressing anti-Blackness and racism in the archive. Stitch have joined in this call for actions [3] [4] [5] [6]:
As I said to a friend a few months ago in my portion of private correspondence, what I want (but do not actually expect the Archive of Our Own and OTW to be able or willing to provide) is:
* A regularly updated harassment policy that accounts for different types of on-site harassment but also off-site evidence of harassment (i.e., not just rules against people harassing others in the comments of a story (for whatever reason), but an author creating a racist story and tagging it in a way to harass someone else (like if someone tagged a story with a creator’s government name or wrote racist RPF of them) OR people off-site aiming harassment at someone on the site like if they literally say “I’m doing X to harass people” or “Go harass Y for writing [PROBLEMATIC SHIP]” over on Twitter/Tumblr)
* An offensive content policy that accounts for things like purposefully written bigoted content like it’s hateful and hurtful because that is the author’s kink. (Things where marginalized characters are brutalized/subject to extreme violence because the author hates them – like what happens to a lot of Black characters across fandoms.) This I get can be hard, but often it can be connected to the harassment policy because a lot of people do publicly say they are trolling on their main accounts.
* An overhaul of the abuse team’s protocols because the responses I’ve seen directly in response to things like Black fans reporting racist slurs used at them, fans of color being targeted in harassment campaigns via tagging or storynotes, and a few other things… Those are not good responses. The responses I’ve seen are often… very bad. (Condescending, dismissive, speaking to a person publicly off/on-site harassing someone and taking their side rather than acknowledging that that was happening, ghosting people who’ve reported actual awful racist things – not controversial or complex issues like what I’m working through with stuff like certain kinds of darkfic or just plain bad writing.)
As of right now it looks like the "Criticism of AO3's content policy" section isn't actually about Stitch's criticism of the AO3's content policy--it's about criticism of that one specific tweet of theirs. The section should probably either be edited to reflect Stitch's criticism of AO3's content policy (see: above language or something similar) or renamed so it reflects that it's about the criticism surrounding that tweet. Right now it reads like their only commentary on the AO3 policy is that tweet. --Elumination (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Elumination - that section is a work in progress. Some of the section has been moved to another page but the overall Controversy section needs a wider restructuring. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The other sections can also do with similar edits and grounding to the greater fandom & racism conversations, e.g. "Many fans have observed patterns of fans of colors who speak over other fans of colors' when these fans talked of racism. Stitch documented this pattern in a meta essay titled "What Fandom Racism Looks Like: PickMe POC"..." I can dig up specific links if needed - jane 16:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stitch/Archive_re_the_controversy_section&oldid=2569288"