#26 — Vanek! with a Jurco

[dekedangle_rpf_mod]

This is the twenty-sixth post of Deke Dangle RPF Anon, a community for all your ice hockey anon meme needs.

THE RULES

1. Mods retain the right to delete, freeze, and/or screen threads and comments.
2. Meme rules do not require warnings.
3. Respect flock. Do not repost or share information from private tumblrs, locked twitter accounts, flocked LJ posts, etc.
4. No linking fans to their real life identities.
5. No looks bashing or body shaming. This applies to players and people associated with those players and their clubs, as well as fellow fans.
6. No embedded music.
7. No embedded images.
8. No spamming the meme, whether through repeated comments or other means. 
9. No discussing trolling, individual trolls, or their efforts.





Meme rules do not require spoiler cuts. However, this layout does allow for them. Any of the following tags will create a spoiler cut when closed: <div cut>, <span cut>, <font cut>, <font color="white">

If you have any questions or concerns, please direct them to The Mod Post. 

Threaded View
Flat View
Top-Level Comment View

Next post opens at 5,000 comments.

Comments

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

No, pointing out that how fans perceive and act and talk about their faves can be flawed is NOT the same as saying that "your fave is problematic" -- not least because how one fangirls can be "problematic" even if one's fave isn't, so saying that criticism needs to instead be talking directly to Scrivens or affecting NHL culture is a false equivalence. We're all free to like whomever we want for whatever reason we want. All I've said about others is that maybe we could not take a white male hockey player's good but flawed activism and politics and act like they are more than what they are. If you like Scrivens but aren't doing that, then this isn't about you! If you are doing that... why shouldn't it be pointed out?

I also don't see how pointing out someone's defending of blackface and explaining that it's whitesplaining (and probably part of a bigger trend of -splaining) isn't a criticism of them, even if the point of the comment itself wasn't to go after Scrivens (if anything, people on twitter have already pointed this all out to him, with no results).

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

All I've said about others is that maybe we could not take a white male hockey player's good but flawed activism and politics and act like they are more than what they are.

Act like more than what they are how, though? It seems to me you want people to include a disclaimer every time they say (or think) they like someone. Calling someone one of the good guys whose trying his best is a bland statement of opinion, and should not require laying out every time the guy wasn't good in some way.

I also don't see how pointing out someone's defending of blackface and explaining that it's whitesplaining (and probably part of a bigger trend of -splaining) isn't a criticism of them, even if the point of the comment itself wasn't to go after Scrivens (if anything, people on twitter have already pointed this all out to him, with no results).

Because you brought it up to criticize the AYRT for saying that he's trying. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but that's how it came across to me.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

I'm not sure how criticizing another anon means NOT being critical of Scrivens when the issue is you think they're downplaying something Scrivens did that shouldn't be downplayed (and was already addressed in a previous comment). But someone saying that "we are all always learning" and "he's trying," in order to minimize mistakes he made where he never showed any evidence of learning or trying whatsoever, is precisely one example of what I mean by acting like Scrivens' politics are more than they are, especially, re: the blackface, Scrivens has never been actively or vocally anti-racist. A disclaimer isn't necessary, but just not saying things like that in response to fuck ups would be a good start. Like, just say something like, "ok, he fucked up, I still value him being vocal about issues important to me when no other NHLers are." "He's trying his best" isn't a bland statement of opinion, it suggests that someone can't be better than they are when in fact they have room for improvement (as do we all), it invalidates criticism without addressing it. Just because someone's politics are better or closer to ours doesn't mean that they are trying any harder. Reading a wikipedia article and using that as a basis to talk authoritatively about blackface is not what I would call trying hard. If he were really trying that hard, wouldn't he listen to people who say he is talking over them, and even if he still disagrees, at least acknowledge they're bringing an important viewpoint that he doesn't have?

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

And even if he is really "trying his best"... that's not an appropriate response to defend your fave when someone points out something they did that wasn't great. Aren't most of us just trying our best? That doesn't exempt anyone from having their mistakes pointed out, even well-intentioned ones.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly, I'd be more sympathetic of the "liking people doesn't require disclaimers" argument if people who gush endlessly about their perfect fav weren't so resistant when their fav does inevitably fuck up tbh.