for fiction especially a lot of people seem dead set on the idea that whatever's being depicted must be something the work and the author supports. every protagonist must be a role model and every setting must be an ideal world, and if you like any aspect of a world, you must support everything that appears in it
in this world, the only possible responses to a work are complete identification or complete repudiation, and the only permitted mode of criticism is endless legalistic litigation of its 'lore' and the existence or non-existence of 'plot holes'
i think of gamers pissing themselves over the suggestion their video game might have politics in it, but also how in online leftist spaces politics, identity, and media consumption collapse together
whatever you and the people who post in the good group chats like is good, and whatever the people who post in the good group chats like is bad. any kind of an engagement with a work deemed bad is problematic, and any critique of a work deemed good is a personal attack & discriminatory against w/e marginalised groups you can claim membership of
@esvrld thinking about david graeber's remark that claims for "art for art's sake" are themselves political demands, because they express the desire for a world free of art's instrumentalisation. similarly, art's well-documented interest in moral ambiguity is flattened in the service of its commodification. this hypermoralising approach to art reduces it to the expression of a virtuous consumer identity, within a carceral-capitalistic logic
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!