#fandom accountability

In this recent post, a new contributor to this blog, accuses another blogger of fetishizing queer people and exploiting queerness for personal gain. This is a serious allegation, yet when one examines the post that the author has taken issue with, there is no indication that such behavior has taken place.

The post in question comments on the absence of a public response from Anna Lundberg regarding some of Michael Sheen’s recent advocacy efforts. It does not suggest malice or assign blame but rather poses a question framed in uncertain, speculative terms. The language is neither sexualized nor romanticized, and there is no discernible attempt to objectify or exoticize queer people. To describe this as fetishization is to disregard the definition of the term in favor of a rhetorical weapon.

While it is true that the writer in question authors a blog that includes ship-related content, and she writes in a stylistically romantic tone, a literary style does not equate to fetishization. Nor does a personal tone automatically signal harm. Moreover, the claim that this blogger is unqualified to speak about allyship is based on a false equivalency intended to delegitimize her views by distorting her intent. The blogger has consistently demonstrated support for the LGBTQ+ community, publicly and without ambiguity. That context should matter when accusations of queer exploitation are made.

To be clear, Anna Lundberg is under no obligation to publicly engage with every cause championed by her partner. That is not in dispute. However, this post does not mock, harass, or demean her. It simply raises a question, one that, while perhaps unwelcome by the circle targeting this blogger, remains within the realm of acceptable discourse. The right to question public silence is not contingent on group approval.

The accusation of fetishization, in this case, appears to be based not on the content of the post in question but on pre-existing bias. When personal disdain becomes the sole basis for attributing harmful intent, the result is a distortion of both language and accountability. What is presented as activism functions instead as a personal attack, lacking the balance and rigor of genuine critique.

Invisible Resistance Blueprint: For the Ones Who Still Want to Fight

Part 1: The Resistance Framework

1. Stay Hidden, Stay Safe

Use anonymous or secondary accounts for all activism.

Never connect activism accounts to your real identity.

Avoid direct engagement with known harassers from your main.

2. Quiet Recruitment

Post subtle signals: “If you want to protect this space but don’t feel safe doing it alone, contact me anonymously.”

Use DMs or anon asks to build a trusted team.

Vet new members by reviewing their past behavior to minimize risk.

3. Equip the Team

Privately share key strategies:

How to fact-check misinformation and racism

How to call out without escalating

How to document harm safely

Rotate roles (research, responders, support, etc.) to avoid burnout.

4. Fight Without Fire

Stay calm, clear, and consistent.

Don’t let aggressors twist your words or tone. Use apps like ChatGPT to control your tone

Make resistance steady, informed, and impossible to ignore.

5. Expand Quietly

Recruit one at a time—go deep, not viral.

Build off-platform havens (e.g., private Discords, shared notes) for strategy and healing.

6. No Credit Needed

Focus on impact, not recognition.

Let the weight of your quiet work make it harder for bigotry to survive.

Part 2: Building Safer Fandom Spaces

1. Create Dual Spaces: Fun & Resistance

Supportive Fandom Hub: Fun, safe, and inclusive for those aligned with anti-racist values.

Resistance Channels: Separate spaces for coordination, call-outs, and education.

Let people choose what they’re ready for. Both are necessary.

2. Use Blocklists and Safety Tools

Share blocklists of known harmful users (privately or opt-in).

Encourage collective protection by removing their visibility.

Keep emotional safety a priority, especially for marginalized fans.

3. Visibility vs. Anonymity

Anonymity protects individuals.

Visibility pressures the system.

Let allies act quietly. Let messages be loud. Bigots don’t get to hide behind neutrality anymore.

4. Let the Fandom Split, If It Must

Don’t fear division.

Some communities only heal by outgrowing harm.

If bigots leave, let them. What’s left can rebuild better.

Part 3: Reforming from the Inside – The “Safe Start” Pathway

A plan for helping harmful individuals grow and stay accountable.

Step 1: Education

Encourage them to take short, trusted anti-racism courses:

Cornell Racial Allyship Training (2 hours)

FutureLearn – Anti-Racism & Human Rights (1 hr/week, 3 weeks)

UBC Anti-Racism Awareness (self-paced)

OpenLearn – Race & Ethnicity Hub (ongoing access)

Step 2: Accountability System

Structure the healing process:

Apologize Publicly -Use clear, respectful language. Provide scripts if needed.

Complete Education -Reflect on the course and apply it to fandom behavior.

Engage with the Community

Assign roles (support others, create content, moderate).

Monitor growth closely with support from POC allies.

Ongoing Support

Regular check-ins and a peer network to prevent relapse.

Keep those overseeing the system supported too.

Part 4: Shifting the Culture

Step 3: Awareness Campaigns

Create shareable graphics/posts: “International viewers face discrimination here every year.”

Normalize anti-racism support as fandom culture.

Step 4: Update Guidelines

Add anti-racism values to community rules.

Clearly state expectations and consequences.

Step 5: Engage Influencers

Reach out to leaders (even Dan & Phil).

Offer them help, resources, and opportunities to support publicly.

Part 5: Sustaining Momentum

1. Recognize Positive Contributors

Shoutouts or digital badges for completed training or helpful roles.

2. Collect Feedback

Ask the community what’s working and what’s not. Adjust accordingly.

3. Centralize Resources

Host a blog, site, or Discord with all your strategies, courses, and safety tools in one place.

Reminder: This isn’t just about the people who’ve caused harm. Don’t let their names be the center of the story.

But if any of my (ex)friends are reading this and genuinely want to support change—here’s what I ask:

Take one of the anti-racism courses (linked in the post), and do it with one of the resistance members as your witness. Then come back and show your support with their guidance and close monitoring. You can do good. And you can do harm. I trust that you’ll choose the right thing.

It’s not difficult to avoid content you don’t enjoy. Tumblr has tools for that. The block button exists. So do tag filters. If a blogger consistently uses tags that signal their own interpretation or interests, and those posts bother you, the mature option is to filter or block, not to wage a campaign of harassment and name calling. Choosing to target someone repeatedly instead of simply opting out reflects a need to control what others are allowed to express.

Although the author of this screenshot claims to be calling out inappropriate behavior, their post casts queer fandom expression as inherently suspect. Certain tropes are dismissed as “creepy and gross,” but no explanation is offered beyond personal discomfort. Instead of explaining why something is wrong, the author just assumes their reaction speaks for itself. The problem is, this argument is not even consistent. They don’t care about the behavior. They care about who gets to do it without consequences. I’ll be expanding on this pattern in a future entry.

The author calls their own post petty, but that isn’t self-awareness. It’s a way to sidestep responsibility without having to defend their choices. Rather than making space for dialogue or correction, they frame the post as deliberately mean-spirited and carry on as though that honesty makes it acceptable.

The objective of this blog is not to compel others to take a position within the reductive framework of “tinhatters” versus “antis.” That binary is, in many ways, a distraction from the underlying problem. What matters is not which group someone is categorized into, but how they behave, and the consequences of that behavior for the community at large. It is evident that while one group engages primarily in private speculation and independent content creation, the other has made it their mission to ridicule, discredit, and drive out those whose interpretations or interests do not align with their own. The latter behavior, irrespective of what it claims to be defending, runs counter to the core themes of kindness, nuance, and acceptance in the very media these individuals claim to revere.

This conduct does not represent principled critique or meaningful accountability. It reflects a pattern of sustained hostility presented as moral responsibility, and a reliance on mockery that is framed as activism. The result is not a healthier fandom environment but an exclusionary one, defined less by its values than by its capacity to marginalize and punish.

This blog will offer detailed rebuttals to posts from several of the most prominent contributors to this pattern, selected not in any particular order. However, particular emphasis will be placed on entries from one blog in particular, which has repeatedly demonstrated the most persistent and aggressive engagement in this behavior.

These responses will be conducted from a position of analytical detachment. Personal feelings or emotional investment will not inform the content of these entries. Each post will be assessed on the basis of its logic, consistency, rhetorical framing, and broader implications for community conduct.

While the primary aim of this blog is to address the harmful culture propagated by certain individuals, this is not a unilateral defense of any other group. If problematic behavior is observed elsewhere, it will be acknowledged. No perspective is exempt from scrutiny, and no set of actions is above examination.

We also welcome submissions. If there is a specific post or trend you believe merits analysis, we encourage you to bring it to our attention. However, we will not engage with taunts, provocation, or attempts to derail the purpose of this project through personal attacks. Many of the blogs discussed here have relied heavily on such tactics to avoid accountability. That dynamic will not be replicated in this space. Our focus is exclusively on the culture of bullying, reputational targeting, and toxic behavior. We will not be offering commentary on benign differences of opinion or interpretive disagreements between different areas of fandom interest.

This post attempts to draw a direct connection between speculative fan interpretation and real-world violence, invoking the deaths of public figures as a cautionary example. While it is reasonable to advocate for respectful boundaries around public figures and their families, equating interpretive fandom behavior with acts of physical harm is not a reasonable argument. It is an attempt to discredit a segment of fandom through fear, moral panic, and misdirection.

No evidence is provided to support the suggestion that those who believe Michael Sheen and David Tennant might be romantically involved, or who express criticism of their partners, have incited or are likely to incite violence. The behaviors referenced, discussing subtext, analyzing public appearances, or voicing disapproval, fall within the broad category of parasocial engagement that defines much of contemporary fan culture. To suggest that these acts contribute to physical danger is to conflate interpretation with malice in a way that misrepresents both.

The tragic incidents cited, deaths of celebrities at the hands of stalkers, bear no demonstrable relation to the behaviors described in the post. These were instances of targeted obsession and criminal action, not of fandom speculation. Invoking these tragedies in this context does not clarify the issue; it distorts it through fearmongering and undermines any serious conversation about actual safety or harm.

The suggestion that those who engage in such speculation may need psychological help is not presented as a genuine expression of concern. Its function is not protective but strategic, used to delegitimize dissent without addressing its content.

A recurring tactic on this blog involves framing neutral or personal disclosures as proof of misconduct. In this case, a benign explanation about a blog URL becomes a pretext for attacking the writer’s character. The original answer contains no inflammatory content. It simply explains a pun based on the blogger’s surname and a family anecdote. Rather than engage with that answer directly, the post responds by asserting that the writer “can’t stop lying,” without providing any examples or context.

This method serves a reputational function. The point is not to argue with facts but to introduce suspicion. The blogger is marked as dishonest based on identity rather than action. Her name, her family background, and her decision to share a lighthearted story are all treated as though they carry hidden malice, simply because they belong to someone this group has chosen to condemn.

This entry offers a useful place to begin, as it illustrates how little this blog’s activity depends on actual engagement with the fandom. The author of the anonymous ask openly states that they have never seen Good Omens. The owner of the blog encourages them to watch it, not to develop an interest in the material or participate in the fandom, but so they can return and take part in mocking the individuals her blog routinely targets. The invitation hinges not on insight or connection to the story, the only requirement for inclusion is a shared disdain for shippers.

This kind of exchange is part of a broader effort to control reputations in the fandom while framing it as responsible moderation. This blogger and her collaborators often claim to be protecting the Tennant and Sheen-Lundberg families, but the accusations they level are typically built on inference rather than evidence. Fandom members are not assessed by what they contribute, but by whether they conform. Those deemed misaligned are treated as threats, not because of what they have said or done, but because of who they are perceived to support or question.