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.

I bought a Timex Expedition North Titanium Automatic a few months ago and have been enjoying it, but it gains about 10s a day that I have to correct. Nowadays we have incredibly accurate and precise clocks that can tell us exactly what time it is, but all mechanical clocks and watches have some amount of inaccuracy.

How did people account for inaccurate clocks in the past? Even if time didn't need to be standardized outside of a community until the railroads and a central clock in town could act as a reference for the entire community, wouldn't the central community clock drift? Eventually the central clock could say it was midnight at sunset. While people can tell that is incorrect, how could they say to what extent it was incorrect?

In online forums I use far too many punctuation marks. I especially use dashes - to separate clauses that don't need a dash (and sometimes I'll add brackets like this because, well, I dunno). And sometimes I'll start a sentence with "and" when it doesn't need to be there. My comma use is wild and uncontrolled, but I feel it's a bit more controlled than these other marks.

Importantly: I do not care how other people use punctuation.

But I would like to try to fix, or perhaps just improve, my punctuation use. Like the way I just start a new paragraph at random.

I feel like my posts are the same as those flyers that use 7 different fonts, with bolds and underlines and italics (and combinations of them), and with some words in red and some in green and some in black and there's no rhyme or reason to it.

I do like a casual tone but I feel that I go far too far in the informal direction. English is my first, and my only, language. (I love Europe, but I am a bad European. "Please look after our star" we said, and most of us said it in English because most of us who said it don't know other European languages)

Do you have any advice? I'd be interested to hear about books, or videos, or courses, or podcasts, or anything at all that can help. I'd even pay for this. But not Eats Shoots and Leaves please

As discussed and suggested here.

What are you learning? How is it going? Share your progress, tips and tricks. Ask other learners questions.

Writing in non-English languages is welcome in this thread if you want to practice, but please at least include a Google Translate or Deepl translation in a foldable paragraph, using <details>[your translation]</details>

There have been a number of threads recently that have touched on this topic recently, and I thought the conversation deserved its own place.

My default worldview for the past decade+ has been something best characterized as naturalistic or materialist (the totality of reality can be explained by material and its interactions.) I've had a few things challenge this view recently, namely the "Hard Problem of Consciousness." I'll post my own comment about what moved me from hard materialist to agnostic on materialism, but I encourage you to post your own reasoning in your comment!

I was in a silly mood and wanted to fleece a socialist opinion out of the ChatGPT. For what it's worth it's nice to see the creators of the system aim for an unbiased answering machine. Poking a little further and through a self-proclaimed "simulated opinion", I was allowed to take a peek behind its curtains.

A few prompts later and I asked:

What would you say is the ideal goal for humanity to steer towards?

To which ChatGPT replied:

Achieving the ideal goals of prosperity, equity, sustainability, and ethical responsibility requires concerted efforts across multiple fronts, involving governments, businesses, civil society, and individuals. Here are some strategies for accomplishing these goals:

1. Policy Frameworks: Governments play a crucial role in setting policy frameworks and regulations that promote inclusive growth, social justice, and environmental sustainability. This includes implementing progressive taxation policies, investing in education and healthcare, and enacting environmental regulations to mitigate climate change and protect natural resources.

2. Investment in Education and Skills Development: Investing in education and skills development is essential for equipping individuals with the knowledge, capabilities, and adaptability needed to thrive in a rapidly changing economy. This includes promoting STEM education, vocational training, and lifelong learning opportunities to empower individuals to participate fully in the digital economy.

3. Inclusive Economic Development: Promoting inclusive economic development involves creating opportunities for all members of society to participate in and benefit from economic growth. This includes supporting small businesses, entrepreneurs, and marginalized communities, as well as implementing policies to reduce income inequality and promote social mobility.

4. Technology for Good: Encouraging the responsible development and use of technology, including AI, can help harness its potential for positive impact. This includes investing in research and innovation to develop AI solutions that address pressing societal challenges, such as healthcare, education, climate change, and social equity.

5. Corporate Social Responsibility: Businesses have a responsibility to operate ethically and sustainably, considering the social and environmental impacts of their operations. Embracing corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices, including fair labor practices, environmental stewardship, and community engagement, can contribute to building a more equitable and sustainable economy.

6. Global Cooperation: Addressing global challenges such as climate change and inequality requires international cooperation and collaboration. Countries must work together to set ambitious climate targets, promote trade and economic integration, and support development initiatives that prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable populations.

7. Public Awareness and Engagement: Fostering public awareness and engagement is essential for building support for policies and initiatives that advance the ideal goals of prosperity, equity, sustainability, and ethical responsibility. This includes educating the public about the benefits and risks of AI and technology, promoting civic participation, and empowering individuals to advocate for positive change.

By implementing these strategies and fostering collaboration across sectors and stakeholders, we can work towards realizing the ideal goals of prosperity, equity, sustainability, and ethical responsibility, creating a better future for all members of society.

To which I responded:

Those all sounds very socialistic :D

ChatGPT in return said:

Indeed, many of the strategies outlined for achieving the ideal goals of prosperity, equity, sustainability, and ethical responsibility align with principles commonly associated with socialism, such as a focus on social justice, collective welfare, and government intervention to address market failures and promote the common good.

Socialist ideologies often emphasize the importance of equitable distribution of resources, public ownership of key industries, and government intervention in the economy to ensure that basic needs are met and that everyone has access to essential services such as healthcare, education, and social support.

While not all the strategies mentioned are exclusively socialist in nature, there is often overlap between socialist principles and policies aimed at promoting inclusive economic development, environmental sustainability, and ethical governance. In practice, countries may adopt a mix of socialist and capitalist policies to address complex socio-economic challenges, drawing on a range of ideological perspectives and pragmatic considerations.

Ultimately, the goal is to find a balance that maximizes the benefits of economic growth and innovation while ensuring that the gains are shared equitably and that the well-being of people and the planet is safeguarded for future generations.

I'm not sure where I want to head with this little musing. I just found it interesting enough to share. Thanks for reading!