daywalker's recent activity
-
Comment on Postmodernism, conservatism, reactionarism: A brief attempt at deconstructing the purist fans in ~humanities
-
Comment on Postmodernism, conservatism, reactionarism: A brief attempt at deconstructing the purist fans in ~humanities
daywalker Link ParentIn this context I don't mean postmodern as a philosophical movement but an era. Postmodernism is also used as an era where the modernist ideas, boundaries, identities, etc. break down. The...In this context I don't mean postmodern as a philosophical movement but an era. Postmodernism is also used as an era where the modernist ideas, boundaries, identities, etc. break down. The replacing phenomena have a rather different quality to them.
For example, in the traditional sense, nationalism is a modernist idea, and national identity arose in the modern era. But the fan as an identity and fandom as tribe fit the postmodern era better, because they are qualitatively different from the preceding modernist concepts.
The weakening of modern era boundaries and "being jumbled up" also are often attributed to postmodern era. Weakening of national identity is an example. Another is the rise of more composite art forms, like video games, that bring together various forms together.
Postmodern is hard to define, and has different meanings in different contexts. This is the meaning I followed in this post.
-
Postmodernism, conservatism, reactionarism: A brief attempt at deconstructing the purist fans
The recent reaction to the Rings of Power trailer and a thought-provoking video about ragebait from the Youtuber Arbitor Ian made me think about this topic. Fan as Identity and Fandom as Tribe We...
The recent reaction to the Rings of Power trailer and a thought-provoking video about ragebait from the Youtuber Arbitor Ian made me think about this topic.
Fan as Identity and Fandom as Tribe
We all know that guy who is an extreme purist about a beloved franchise. As they love to talk about it, they love the source material, or they love the originals. Any adaptation of or addition to these is seen as deviating from these "sacred texts". Especially if the more recent material produced significantly differs from these sacred texts, it has to be bad. So, you should watch or create hours-long videos nitpicking them.
This type of person accepts as a given that the original material they are talking about is sacred. Therefore, any change to it is bad. They are often known as a purist, however, I think the better term for it is conservative.
There is research that posits that fandom is basically a postmodern tribe and fan a postmodern identity (1, 2). The idea is not entirely new. Sports fandoms and fans have been noted for these qualities before (3, 4).
I think this makes intuitive sense to people who read both humanities and participate in a fandom. Fans take their fictional worlds to heart, and they strongly identify with the characters, the universe, the stories, the games, etc. Combined with the weakening of more traditional identities, and the rise of internet that has created the conditions to connect with people worldwide, it's not surprising that such postmodern identities and tribes would be born.
The Conservative Fan
I talk about conservatism here in the broad sense, meaning being biased toward conserving what traditionally exists, a standpoint that values tradition. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry about this is well-researched.
"Conservatism in a broad sense, as a social attitude, has always existed. It expresses the instinctive human fear of sudden change, and tendency to habitual action."
I think the "purist fan" fits this definition perfectly. Combining this with the idea that a fan is a type postmodern identity, we can assert that this type of fan is a type of postmodern conservative. Therefore, fandom purism is a type of postmodern conservatism.
The Reactionary Fan and Outrage Culture
There are a lot of descriptions of what a reactionary is, and there is no agreed upon definition. I'm going to use a definition that makes sense to me as a broader definition.
For me, a reactionary, in its broadest sense, is someone who doesn't analyze things much and instead opts to act on impulsive emotion, which is very often anger, resentment, hatred. They approach topics from a very bad faith position. They make short, quippy, and wrong statements.
Reactionaries often, but not necessarily, defend conservative or conservative-adjacent views, because conservatism is biased toward reacting to changes and seeing them as negative. This aligns with the reactionary mindset that is built upon heavily reacting to things. Since change is inevitable and will always create reactions, conservatism -which is about resisting change- is a perfect fit for reactionarism.
A relevant extension of this reactionarism is the outrage culture. A production can't be just bad or mediocre, it has to be awful. You can't just dislike it and move on, you have to feel outrage. You have to belittle it at every chance you get. It's because your identity as a true nerd, and a fan of [insert fictional world], is threatened. You have to act now! They are trying to take it away!
Ragebait being amplified by social media algorithms also strengthens this. However, pointing to it as the sole reason would be a mistake.
The Synthesis and Some More Considerations
The purist fan is a postmodern conservative. They attach their identity very strongly to some sacred texts (book, comics, movie, etc.), and they don't want them to change. Therefore, there is a heavy bias involved in discussing developments around these texts.
The conservative fan can also be a reactionary fan, but doesn't have to be. They don't have to go out there and yell at people, or condescendingly talk to their social circle, like a reactionary fan does. However, they often do.
It shouldn't be hard to see why conservatism and reactionarism, in the context of fandom, would be related to their corresponding ideologies in the classical sense of the words. While decompartmentalization exists, and people don't necessarily act the same way in different areas of their lives, it makes sense that a general attitude about change would affect one's approach to both fandom and regular politics.
I think this is a major reason why we see so many loud "purists" about fandom topics follow reactionary politics in regular politics. It also explains why the regular reactionaries can so easily convince fandom reactionaries to adapt their arguments. They come from the same attitude toward change and same attachment to conservative identity politics.
So, this is my analysis of this topic. Before closing, I want to raise a question that's been on my mind. The quote I shared at the start of the post, the fear of change, I suspect this might be one of the key underlying characteristics of these people, both in regular and fandom politics. People who get attached to certain periods of time in the past so strongly that they dislike any change, or even react violently—they are at the heart of this.
There is a related, very famous meta-analysis studying 22,818 cases (88 samples) across 12 countries. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. According to the study, conservatism is negatively correlated with openness to experience (-.32) and positively correlated with dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (.34).
Returning to fandom context, what I'm trying to get at is that maybe holding so dearly to experiences we've had as kids or teenagers is maybe not that good. Sure, there is nothing wrong with nostalgia, and there is nothing wrong with enjoying things we did as kids or teens. But I suspect this overemphasis on being forever teens is turning people into dogmatic, reactionary people. Maybe it's time to grow up and accept change, even find ways to cherish it.
Very Important Note
This is not an endorsement of any change to stories and franchises. Obviously, some can be bad. In fact, many adaptations of source material lose some things, partially because of differences in medium and partially because of financial interests involved in movie and show production. RoP is a good example of mediocritization due to financial concerns.
As you can guess, I did not even like Rings of Power. But even though I've been a Legendarium fan since I was a kid, it wasn't because they changed the source material. It's because I think RoP was, to use a more modern term, mid. However, this did not cause me to go on a rant about how they are ruining the Legendarium. This is a key difference, in my opinion, between simply disliking and being a reactionary.
15 votes -
Comment on The Lord of The Rings: The Rings of Power | Season 2 official teaser trailer in ~tv
daywalker Link ParentI appreciate your effort, but I don't think they are in any way looking for a good faith conversation or argument. I don't know the optimal way to deal with these comments, but I generally ignore...- Exemplary
I appreciate your effort, but I don't think they are in any way looking for a good faith conversation or argument. I don't know the optimal way to deal with these comments, but I generally ignore them. Seeking a reaction (especially a hot one) and starting a fight are important parts of the outrage culture. However, I also think people have to sometime break the outrageous claims down. It's why I'm not sure about the optimal way.
"A production can't be just bad or mediocre, it has to be awful. You can't just dislike it and move on, you have to feel outrage. You have to belittle it at every chance you get. It's because your identity as a true nerd, and a fan of [insert fictional world], is threatened. You have to act now! They are trying to take it away!"
I think that's how it goes with these things. It's an extension of (in the broad sense of the word) reactionary identity politics that is about a particular post-modern identity, a.k.a. fans.
-
Comment on What are some global projects I can contribute to from my home? in ~talk
daywalker Link ParentThanks for the suggestion. I know my main language other than English. I will take take this into account.Thanks for the suggestion. I know my main language other than English. I will take take this into account.
-
Comment on The Lord of The Rings: The Rings of Power | Season 2 official teaser trailer in ~tv
daywalker Link ParentThat's exaggerating by quite a lot. I found the first season unengaging and lost my interest after a while, leaving it unfinished. I also don't look forward to S2. But it's by no means one of the...That's exaggerating by quite a lot. I found the first season unengaging and lost my interest after a while, leaving it unfinished. I also don't look forward to S2. But it's by no means one of the worst. The first season has a lot of mediocrity problem, but mediocrity is very widespread.
Also, S1's cost reaches to 700 million only when "obtention of the rights from the J.R.R. Tolkien estate is factored in." As far as I know, they expected each season individually to cost around 100-150 million.
-
Comment on What are some global projects I can contribute to from my home? in ~talk
daywalker Link ParentThis is actually pretty cool. It's true that it's not what I had in mind, but it's something I can do. BOINC gained another member :)This is actually pretty cool. It's true that it's not what I had in mind, but it's something I can do. BOINC gained another member :)
-
What are some global projects I can contribute to from my home?
I'll try to keep it short. I'm not satisfied with the way I'm trying to contribute to the betterment of humanity and the planet. I want to contribute to my local community, but because of...
I'll try to keep it short. I'm not satisfied with the way I'm trying to contribute to the betterment of humanity and the planet. I want to contribute to my local community, but because of political and health reasons, I can't do that.
My relevant strong points are that I can analyze, synthesize, and write well (have been praised for them in professional academic settings). But the suggestions don't have to be about this.
I've been writing things here and there for years, but I feel like they lack direction. It's just one person putting it out there with very limited reach. I feel like being part of a bigger project could help me effect change better. At the very least, it could help me feel like I'm doing something more tangible.
21 votes -
Comment on Inside the surreal world of $20,000 pet portraits (gifted link) in ~life.pets
daywalker Link ParentI feel your want to immortalize your recently passed companion, and I think it's very reasonable to want to spend some money on it. But I also get where the person you've replied to is coming...I feel your want to immortalize your recently passed companion, and I think it's very reasonable to want to spend some money on it. But I also get where the person you've replied to is coming from, and agree to a degree. However, I think it's not about stupidity. It's about having so much money that you don't care about optimizing your expenditure like a regular person would. The emotional satisfaction they get from that painting is more important to them than using that money for good.
I think if this was like an extremely rare one-off purchase in a lifetime, the person you're replying to, and the people who upvoted them, wouldn't have thought like this. But most often people who commission that much are extremely rich, and they use that money for selfish and nonsense reasons. That's why it creates a negative reaction.
I think there's something rotten about having so much money to spend nonchalantly, and that's why it creates so much negative reaction. Most people in the world don't make that kind of money in a year.
But I also don't think it's fair, healthy, or productive to look down on and deride anyone who chooses to and can afford to spend that much on a custom piece of art to memorialize their pet.
So this is where I disagree. If it was like a one-off thing, I could understand. But everything I've seen about things like this points to the contrary. One could help a lot of people with that kind of money, and if they choose to spend it on a luxury item like this, it's very much extremely selfish.
-
What is a value or belief you have that is extremely outside the norm?
There are a lot of unorthodox or minor values and beliefs in societies. For example, in Western countries, veganism is relatively rare. But still, it's not unheard of and it's gaining traction. In...
There are a lot of unorthodox or minor values and beliefs in societies. For example, in Western countries, veganism is relatively rare. But still, it's not unheard of and it's gaining traction. In the same way, radically egalitarian values are in no way popular, but they are definitely heard of. Think of ideologies that based themselves on them, like anarchism or utopian socialism.
We all have values and beliefs we hold dear, but even the ones that are very unorthodox most often fall into a tradition in some sort of philosophy, and have some significant following and historical grounding.
Obviously, no matter how unorthodox a belief is, there's going to be some historical grounding and tradition. But think of the beliefs and values you have, and consider whether you have any that is found in even less than 1% of the population. Do you have such values or beliefs, and why?
...
In my case, it's the fact that I despise nature. By nature, I don't mean being exposed to beautiful parts of it in a safe environment. I mean the hunger, the thirst, the violence, the diseases, the cold, the hot, and similar hardships. I mean nature in its glorious violence and random acts of suffering. I cherish life, and I do my best to contribute to its conservation, and that's why I despise the violence inherent in nature. Metaphorically speaking, Mother Nature is the most abusive parent in history. As an extension of this, in the grand scheme of things, I see the violence of nature as a much bigger problem than violence of humankind.
41 votes -
Comment on Some observations about some of the conversations here in ~tildes
daywalker LinkIt would be nice if you were to give more details about your observations, and maybe potential reasons. A slightly more detailed analysis, basically. Because, as it is, this thread is more about...It would be nice if you were to give more details about your observations, and maybe potential reasons. A slightly more detailed analysis, basically. Because, as it is, this thread is more about declaring rather than discussing.
-
Comment on How to tell if a conspiracy theory is probably false in ~science
daywalker Link ParentYou say that you don't give much weight to probability and statistics, but Occam's razor is a statistical rule-of-thumb about probability. I think I can explain it with a simple example. Suppose...You say that you don't give much weight to probability and statistics, but Occam's razor is a statistical rule-of-thumb about probability. I think I can explain it with a simple example.
Suppose you have a problem with two seemingly equally probable explanations, but one requires one variable to explain with the variable having a 50% chance of being true. Suppose the second has two variables to explain the problem, each with a 50% chance of being true. While intuitively the two explanations seem equally likely, you actually have to multiply the two variables in the second case. Since 0.5 x 0.5 is 0.25, the second explanation actually has a 25% chance of being true. For this reason, the first explanation is more likely to be true, but it's definitely a probability assessment and not a golden rule.
This is why Occam's razor works but also is a rule-of-thumb. Among the seemingly equally likely explanations, the one with the fewer variables required for explanations is more likely to be true. You can say it requires the least amount of assumptions.
-
Comment on Who do I contact to apply to "A Layperson's Introduction to" series in ~sci? in ~tildes
-
Who do I contact to apply to "A Layperson's Introduction to" series in ~sci?
Hello, I wrote an introductory post titled Introduction to the physical basis of global warming. I think it would be a good fit for A Layperson's Introduction to... series, but I don't see any...
Hello, I wrote an introductory post titled Introduction to the physical basis of global warming. I think it would be a good fit for A Layperson's Introduction to... series, but I don't see any contact info on that page, and the person who started the series doesn't seem to have been active in the last 5 years.
So, how do I apply? Also, I think it would be better if the page was updated with info on how to apply.
11 votes -
Comment on I'm curious how people on here stay politically engaged and aware while maintaining mental health? in ~life
daywalker LinkI have a lot of stress in my life, so I don't add to it anymore by doomscrolling or regularly checking the news. Instead of checking the news myself, I developed a simple system that has worked so...I have a lot of stress in my life, so I don't add to it anymore by doomscrolling or regularly checking the news. Instead of checking the news myself, I developed a simple system that has worked so far.
- My friends share political news on our group chats. They are more curated than straight up browsing a news site. They are also less frequent, so less overwhelming. Also discussing these news with friends is much better for me emotionally.
- I browse Tildes and some scientific sites (e.g. Nature and its sub-journal sites; all of them have news section). These are, again, less frequently updated, and therefore less likely to overwhelm me. The language used in them is also less emotionally charged. I also have unsubscribed from ~tech and ~misc, because they are filled with anxiety-inducing and pessimistic threads. ~enviro also has its fair share of worrying news, but it's a topic I care about more, and for that reason I choose to follow it. It's also less frequently updated than the other subforums, and feels like it doesn't have the constant barrage of pessimism.
- If anything big happens, I eventually hear about it anyway.
These are enough for me as it is. I don't think human mind evolved to handle this much bad news this frequently. This is especially true for people who are living a stressed out life. I don't see the point in further stressing myself out by following emotionally exhausting news or social media sites. The news cycle focuses so much on the anxiety, because it garners more attention, and this reflects on the social media discussions too. I think even without those most brains can't handle so much news every day, but adding that emotional baggage makes it so much worse.
On a related topic, I don't think for most people following the news in the traditional anxiety-inducing way does much good for the world. Of course, one should be informed to a degree. But torturing yourself does not do anyone good, and in fact does the opposite. I think a better way of engaging politics is being active in some way, helping people out or contributing to a cause in your own way. It doesn't have to be something big, and it doesn't require doomscrolling.
-
Comment on Warner Bros. to release new ‘Lord of the Rings’ movie ‘The Hunt for Gollum’ in 2026, Peter Jackson to produce and Andy Serkis to direct in ~movies
daywalker Link ParentNo, we have to fight until tears! . . . I'm already crying, you win.No, we have to fight until tears!
.
.
.
I'm already crying, you win. -
Comment on Warner Bros. to release new ‘Lord of the Rings’ movie ‘The Hunt for Gollum’ in 2026, Peter Jackson to produce and Andy Serkis to direct in ~movies
daywalker Link ParentI don't think acting like an ignorant teenager with anger issues, and despite being thousands of years old, is what I'd call girlpower. She's a strong fighter, yes, but a weak character.I don't think acting like an ignorant teenager with anger issues, and despite being thousands of years old, is what I'd call girlpower. She's a strong fighter, yes, but a weak character.
-
Comment on Are most political talks performative? in ~talk
daywalker Link ParentThis is exactly the thing I was thinking of. Thank you for the suggestion!This is exactly the thing I was thinking of. Thank you for the suggestion!
-
Are most political talks performative?
This is a thought I had, and I'm not saying it's necessarily true, or at least cynically true. But I think it brings to the fore an interesting point, and I want to emphasize how it feels like. I...
This is a thought I had, and I'm not saying it's necessarily true, or at least cynically true. But I think it brings to the fore an interesting point, and I want to emphasize how it feels like.
I feel like people are mostly interested in politics from a distant and uninvolved point of view. For example, in more progressive spaces, there's all this talk about fear of climate change, deteriorating international politics, rise of right wing authoritarianism, populism, nationalism, etc. However, I feel like people expect others to do something about it. There's this passivity and inaction, and no real effort to combat such changes. I feel like debates, talking, ruminating and such perform a theatrical function that makes you feel as if you've contributed to "doing good", but you actually don't do anything. This is what I mean by performative.
This is not to say talking is unimportant. It's a major component of politics, and it's a core value and function of democratic and egalitarian approaches. However, it feels to me like doomscrolling and dreading or being angry about political things is seen as being politically conscious and active, while political consciousness can't exist without action.
What are your thoughts about this? Have you had similar thoughts, or do you think differently? How do you emotionally handle this?
24 votes -
Comment on Nintendo pre-announces a Switch 2 announcement is coming… eventually in ~games
daywalker LinkIsn't announcement about an announcement just an announcement?Isn't announcement about an announcement just an announcement?
Thank you for this thoughtful response.
I'm a fan of TES universe, and I do like MK's ideas about canonicity. I think universes like TES definitely provide more resistance against fandom conservatism. Meanwhile Tolkien Legendarium is definitely more tolerant of purists.
I hadn't thought of this in axes, however, it would be interesting to see data using it. Especially if the said data is compared against traditional political spectrum for the same axes.
I should make it clear that I don't think conserving is necessarily a bad or good thing. A person may not want a work they love to be turned into something that runs contrary to its core philosophies, and they wouldn't be wrong in this. This doesn't necessarily mean they are generally a fandom conservative or political conservative. I think a general attitude, or in other words bias, is the defining quality for this. I also think being biased toward conservation or change affects a person outlook about many things, including both fandom and politics. I laid out my thoughts about their interaction.
I think the harder thing to achieve is conserving without turning into a conservative (it reduces openness to experience, among other things) and appreciating change without affirming corporate blandness. This requires a greater deal of flexibility in thinking. But I do think it's very achievable. One just has to walk without rhythm.