Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram Find&Fuck Waifus ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

For Reals - 06 - HD (Patreon)

Published:
2021-10-23 03:01:00
Imported:
2021-12

Content

No, Really, We're Not Sure.

At egscomics 

Commentary

I do not believe this comic NEEDS a punchline. Elliot provided a bit of fun as-is before the third panel.

The reason there isn't one, however, is because I wrote WAY too much for this comic (past me, what were you doing?!), and what would have ended this comic will find its way into the next one.

I do like this without a punchline. It really emphasizes a key point of their discussion, which is whether there's ever a time it's fair to say someone's not a fan.

I also like the "if any" note, because I like that willingness to go into a discussion without already having a conclusion. Like, just in general, I like that. I think discussions are often entered with the mindset of opposing viewpoints, and not "let's figure this stuff out".

Files

Comments

Dan Merget

You're not a REAL fan of El Goonish Shive unless you read the Patreon commentary. :-)

Daniel

I do not think it *is* fair to ever say someone is not a fan of something. At best, you can point out that most people like it because of X, and that they don't seem to like it for the same reason, so if they are a fan, it must be because of something else.

Anonymous
>>70332953

That said, there is such a thing as a "toxic fanbase" where the people involved kill the fun for everyone else, because gatekeeping, entitlement, rudeness, complaints, etc. Assuming it ever is fair to call someone "not a fan" of something, those are probably the people I would target as not "true fans." ....Which is actually an interesting distinction, since probably a lot of those people can recite all kinds of facts about whatever it is they're ostensibly a fan of and thus pass the basic test of "fandom." Hmmm...Interesting question.

Daniel
>>70332953

No, I have to disagree. That's a fallacy -- No True Scotsman, in particular.

Prof Sai
>>70332953

Toxic fanbase quite real. I actually got banned from the El Goonish Shive forum for defending Obama. (It's a bit more complicated than that, but I don't want to dredge it up here if no one cares.)

Paul Rendell
>>70332953

Well if you ask someone their opinion of a show, and they say they've never seen it, I think it's fair to say that they aren't a fan.

Daniel
>>70332953

Prof Sai, I'm not saying toxic fanbases don't exist; I'm saying that claiming a toxic fanbase is "Not a Fan" is No True Scotsman in action. Paul, the context is that of someone saying they are a fan, and whether or not it is fair to disagree. Someone who does not claim to be a fan isn't relevant.

Anonymous

Well, obviously, there ARE people who are objectively "not fans" of things. Some may appreciate something without liking it all that much, or maybe one could argue that you wouldn't be an actual "fan" without engaging in some sort of "fan-atism" (e.g. being at least a bit enthousiast about it). So, I guess it WOULD be fair to point out that someone is technically "not a fan" if you had some objective reason to believe they are really not even though they claim the opposite (they could be lying as a joke or just trying to impress, although I don't think I ever saw anything like that). So, I guess the core of the argument is not to draw a line between "not fan" and "fan" but rather between "real fan" and "fan" (the latter being implied here as being somewhat inferior to the former). As someone pointed out earlier, this is very much the definition of the No True Scotsman argument, which is a well-known fallacy (when in doubt, check the TV Tropes : https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoTrueScotsman). So, no, it doesn't make as much sense as you might believe and can even be rather hurtful. In conclusion, I'd at least consider the matter if someone was trying to objectively and honestly argue that someone else is "not a fan", but I'd be very suspicious of someone trying to undermine someone else's point by claiming some fans are "better" than others.

Anonymous

I find it is rare to find someone who claims to be a fan of something but isn't really. For example, it'd be fair to say I am not a fan of baseball. But I also never claim to be.

Viktor

There's an interesting line, to be sure. I'm a Star Wars fan, which means I like roughly 5/12 movies, maybe a third of the EU novels, 0 of the new continuity novels, most of the video games, one of the several TV series(no, not the one you're thinking of), and some of the meta posts/fanfic/fandom. So roughly a third of the content, depending on media type/era. Am I actually a Star Wars fan, or is Star Wars just a tool for participating in a shared culture/community for me? Once something is a large enough part of the world that there will surely be /something/ for everyone, it's hard to say how much is fans of the work overall vs fans of a specific narrow niche, but it benefits both the fans and the creators of the work to cast the net of "these are our fans" as wide as possible, so there's rarely any significant discussion of this except for asshole gatekeepers.

Stephen Gilberg

Sometimes I'm surprised at how much I enjoy something without really liking much about it. The book "The Man Who Spoke Snakish," for example, struck me as sinister, stupid, sick, and sad...yet satisfying.

Anonymous

The point is where the conversation goes from being about the thing being talked about to the where it is about the person making the comment. 'You're not a real fan' is a value judgement about another person, a way of shifting the ground of an argument from the thing being discussed to personal attack.

Anonymous

No True Scots man is over deployed. It's not just about saying things aren't in categories. Consider Giovanni who is not really a Scotsman. He's never been to Scotland. His grandparents were born in Rome. He speaks Italian. What ever your Definition of Scotsman, if it includes Giovanni it's a strange definition. No True Scotsman Is a fallacy of Gerrymandering Definitions to reach a specific conclusion. The solution is to skip past the word under dispute, and deal with the under laying facts What is a Fan? Most of the english speaking world has seen Star Trek. Even if they haven't watched much. Do they count if they watched and liked a random scattering of episodes, but never engaged with a series? What if they just like DS9? Can you be a fan if you just like 90's trek, but the new stuff is annoying and TOS is boring? Are you a real Star trek fan if you just like the Tech-centric episodes, but ignore the moral quandaries? What if you like the drama of the court room episodes but think the Prime Directive is f-ing stupid? What if you are 15 and never saw the old stuff, but this Discovery show your dad is mad about is saying things that you can't say out loud? The bigger and more popular an franchise is the harder it is the define who is a deep fan, and who is merely a casual watcher. The way out is to not talk about 'fans' and discuss what you mean more specifically. I will agree that the anyone complaining about Neo-Trek being too Woke didn't watch older trek with deeper media comprehension. That's a different question then if they enjoyed it. It's also possible to enjoy some entries in a franchise without enjoying others. The real debate is about who has the credibility and moral right to criticize a franchise.

John Trauger
>>70332953

I'd say it's fair to say someone is not a fan of something they've never consumed but that's mostly, if not entirely irrelevant. They have still formed a viewpoint. Knowing that they don't consume the thing in question is a measure of how much time you want to put into discussing it with them.

Prof Sai

Anime is a special case. Someone who likes two series out of the dozens that are produced each year will be generally accepted as an "anime fan". I guess the defining criteria is that you don't reject anything due to it's being anime, but it just doesn't interest you for other reasons. All fandom has some leeway. Even the biggest trekkie can dislike "Spock's Brain".

Prof Sai
>>70332953

RE Daniel: They were saying "You aren't a true EGS fan" unless you think Obama is too conservative.

Daniel
>>70332953

Okay. I wouldn't say that. (But I *do* think Obama is basically an 1980s' Republican.)

Prof Sai
>>70332953

In some ways I can see that, but definitely not in all. Maybe I'm being "triggered" - if that is what this means. It hurts, but I don't know if it is reasonable to expect anyone to help me out about it?

Prof Sai
>>70357503

Re CarName: "who has the credibility and moral right to criticize a franchise." Well it's me. That isn't up for debate at all.

Anonymous
>>70365067

I like Spock's Brain. It's goofy, but it's a fun sort of goofy. I dislike DS9:"Profit and Lace". It was clearly *trying* to do a feminist thing, but it's aged so very poorly. Watching it now, in an era where Trans Right are a hot political football, it is so intensely uncomfortable to watch.

Some Ed
>>70332953

@Prof Sai: I think helping you out here would be further discussion of politics, but this isn't a political forum. It's probably not very debatable to say that Regan and Obama both had a very broad base of support from people who were in the nominally opposing party. But any discussion of how they're different would probably be much more controversial, as would details of exactly how they managed to gain support from the opposition's core.