ApocalypticRomantic666

Trigger warning for graphic descriptions of injured and dead wildlife.

When a fireworks display occurs near a wild bird roost, the birds simultaneously explode into the night skies in utter panic, which can lead to huge numbers of deaths, usually because these birds either smash their skulls or break their necks as the result of flying into trees, fences, billboards, houses and other solid objects that they cannot see in the gloom and ensuing chaos.

Many of the startled birds who take flight fly at much higher altitudes and for much longer durations than they’re used to to escape the noise, which is energetically costly and physiologically stressful.

Small birds and bats can be knocked from the air and killed by the sonic shock. In 2010, 40 dead sparrows were discovered dead under a roost in a nature reserve after a local fireworks display. The manager of the reserve witnessed a tawny owl fluttering and convulsing on the ground after a particularly loud explosion. It died shortly after.

In Arkansas in 2010, some 5,000 red-winged blackbirds, European starlings, common grackles and brown-headed cowbirds suffered blunt-force trauma after colliding with cars, trees and buildings, an ornithologist from the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission would tell National Geographic.

In 2008, federal officials showed that seabirds in the northern California town of Gualala abandoned their nests after a fireworks show, leaving their eggs vulnerable to predators.

Each year in Austin, Texas, the Congress Bridge bats can be seen fleeing the fireworks display en masse on weather radar, and emergences from their roost diminish noticeably in the days following the Fourth.

In 2018, the Galapagos banned the sale and use of pyrotechnics. According to the BBC, conservationists said that fireworks caused elevated heart rates, trembling and anxiety in many animals. 

The threat to wildlife doesn’t stop at startling lights and sounds; fireworks also have the potential of starting wildfires, directly affecting wildlife and destroying essential habitat. Litter from firecrackers, bottle rockets and other explosives can be choking hazards for wildlife and may be toxic if ingested.

So what do you do if you want to watch fireworks responsibly? Experts say municipalities are more likely to be aware of these dangers than private consumers. Their best advice is to stick to the shows put on by professionals and local governments, which tend to follow guidelines put forth by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, among others, about animal safety.

The National Audubon Society offers similar guidelines: “Commercial fireworks are concentrated in one location, rather than in several locations at once, which is what often happens in neighborhoods. This allows birds to take off and land again in a ‘safer’ location rather than continuing to flee noises coming at them from all directions.”

Has anyone else noticed that stories written by antis tend to be very... bland? The conflict of their plots are... Well, to be perfectly honest, in many cases, nonexistent. And if they exist, they are rarely engaging and anemic at best. 

Now, while this could be because most antis are young and inexperienced when it comes to writing, I believe there is a deeper and much more concerning reason for this.

Antis vehemently police themselves and their peers on every little thing- and creativity is no exception. But I suppose when their default argument to defend their alt-right, puritanical stance is "Fiction affects reality!", that makes some sort of twisted sense.

Because of this, imaginary conflict itself falls under their microscope of moral panic, and they refuse to frame anything that could be construed by their peers as problematic in any way, shape or form. More often than not, they think merely writing about a 'problematic' subject means the subject in question is somehow being ‘romanticized’ (even if it clearly isn’t).

Does a story have to contain 'problematic' elements to be engaging? No. Of course not!

But antis have labeled so many things 'problematic', that they likely do not feel safe writing anything containing any sort of conflict at all, lest their peers turn on them as swiftly and cruelly as they turn on others and use them as a performative punching bag.

As a writer, I cannot imagine forcing yourself to cross-examine your story from all perceivable angles before you feel safe sharing it with anyone at all. But perhaps that is because I am older and understand that this beast of performative judgment and denouncement is what causes fandoms to shrivel and die.

If history’s greatest storytellers were compelled to follow this BITE model of thought control, the world would be drained of much of its color.

What if the writer of To Kill a Mockingbird scrutinized her work in anti-fashion, and was afraid to portray the rampant racism of the time period? 

Harper Lee posed the fundamental question of “how do I get along with people who are different from me?" In To Kill A Mockingbird, Scout and Jem learn to empathize with Tom Robinson, the accused black man on trial, and to understand the misunderstood recluse Boo Radley.

Lee wrote her story in response to the bus boycott in Montgomery during 1956, which helped launch the civil rights movement. Fifty five years later, her novel has helped spread and reinforce the messages of racial and social justice that Atticus teaches his daughter.

Yes, while this book did indeed cover ‘problematic’ material, such as racism, racial slurs and rape accusations, Harper Lee’s creation also taught many valuable lessons, such as to fight with your head, not your fists, don’t judge a book by its cover, and actions speak louder than words.

It was so much more than the sum of it's 'problematic' elements.

Harper Lee did not police herself. She thought critically, but she did not sugar-coat the darker elements of her creation, nor water down racism out of fear of upsetting pearl-clutchers. Because she knew taking the fangs out of racism is an insult to those who have suffered as a direct result of it.

I believe if Harper Lee wrote fearfully, her book would not have made the impact that it did on the world. 

Write critically, not fearfully. Fictional creations are art. Entertainment. Mental exercises, even. They are not morals to live by, and should not be scrutinized as such.

If you believe Breaking Bad is a guidebook to securing your family’s financial future after being diagnosed with cancer, rather than a television show designed for entertainment, that is your problem, not Vince Gilligan’s. To try hold art to moral standards boasts not only a lack of critical thinking, but a willful ignorance to nuance. 

Creators should not have to live in fear of being bullied or doxxed for writing about controversial subjects.

Hannibal (2013-2015)