The Problem with Toxic Fans We ve all heard about toxic fans.
We ve all seen bad-faith takes, bullying, harassment, and, just, silly levels of media
illiteracy on pretty much every online platform. It s even a topic which has made it into a fair
few of my videos previously. It s a problem. But in some ways? The discourse around fan
toxicity may be exacerbating this problem. And that s what we re talking about today.
This video isn t really about the problem with toxic fandom as a phenomenon. If it was,
it d be 10 times longer. No, this video s about that label itself toxic fans and why we might need
to rethink our usage of it. This is also the 8th Pillar of Garbage Patreon Community video. That
means the topic was generated by and selected by my Patreon supporters. This time, the video
idea s from Adam Myers. Adam s opinion is that we should stop using this term, toxic fans , because
it legitimises anger and toxicity as a form of fan love by maintaining those being toxic are still
genuine fans. Over the next, like, 12 ish minutes, then, we re going to think dig into this position,
into the toxic fan label, into fanhood and fandom conceptually, and into the power of our
linguistic practices. To begin with, then what is commonly meant by the phrase toxic fans ?
As suggested above I ve talked a few times before on this channel about toxic fandom culture,
directly and indirectly, but let s see how other sources define it. Per verywellmind.com,
Toxic fandom is a buzzword that has been used in recent years by journalists, news outlets,
and others to identify popular culture fans who engage in behaviours that are considered
negative and unacceptable. Naomi Starlight, writing for Reel Rundown characterises the
phenomenon in more colloquial terms: Toxic fans are essentially the abusive party in an abusive
relationship with the content they're a fan of. That is, they aren't just there to celebrate it,
but to control it and neg it . This toxicity is a stain upon the landscape of pop culture
but in these articles, and in formal discussions of the issue more widely, the term toxic fan is
still used. On some level, then, there seems to be an understanding that toxicity doesn t
necessarily preclude fanhood. That you can be toxic, and still be a fan. So does that mean
there isn t an issue with the label, toxic fans ? Initially, it might seem so. If we look at the
way fandom has been defined, there doesn t necessarily seem to be a contradiction here,
on a conceptual level. Starlight, for instance, in her article on Toxic Fans writes Fandom is
simply when a community forms around a shared liking of something . Her definition is wide
enough to include toxic fans after all, you could very well conceptualise a lot of this toxicity as
simply people liking too much, and in unhealthy ways. Let s take a more authoritative definition,
though. For Fandom scholar Cornel Sanvoss, the essential core of the fan experience is
the regular, emotionally involved consumption of a given popular narrative or text . Again this seems
to include those exhibiting toxic behaviours. But while this definition is more specific,
perhaps more helpful, it s also more abstract. So for another viewpoint, a more direct look
at what makes a fan I asked some fans. I got a few different answers, a couple humorous, some
similar to the above, but also other ideas. For instance, the idea that knowledge is required.
Others boiled it down immensely, stressing that to be a fan is simply to like something.
A couple of people agreed that there was an element of self-designation here. That is,
you re a fan of something if you decide to be, if you consider yourself a fan. That s interesting,
because that s an angle which wasn t super present in any of the previous definitions.
And, hey, I didn t get a bunch of answers, this is a very small
sample size but that isn t the first time I ve heard that last idea. To be honest,
it s kind of the definition I d had in my head before I started work on this video.
But I m not quite sure this definition coexists with, say, Sandvoss s in a totally stable way.
I m going to speak personally for a minute, so bear with me, because I promise it s relevant.
I like watching pro-level Counter-Strike. It s a tactical shooter, one of biggest names in eSports,
and my favourite team is called Ninjas in Pyjamas, or NiP. I try to watch all their games,
I ve got some merch, I think the players seem like cool dudes, etcetera, etcetera. I d consider
myself a fan of NiP, and I m emotionally invested in the narratives and storylines around the team.
But they re not the only team whose narratives I m emotionally invested in. When FaZe Clan won
the Antwerp Major a few months ago, and veteran player Karrigan finally lifted the trophy he d
narrowly missed out on a few years back? I got goosebumps. That meant something to me, too.
When the new Cloud9 squad, largely comprised of young, outspoken Russian dudes who d rarely
been crowd favourites got adopted by the American home-crowd and won IEM Dallas?
That was awesome. I was emotionally invested as heck. But I wouldn t label myself a fan of either
of these teams. And there s plenty more examples I could give, of situations where I d meet
Sandvoss definition that is, regularly consuming narratives with some level of emotional investment
but where I wouldn t self-designate as a fan . Maybe that s because I feel I m backing another
team against them. Maybe exclusivity factors into fandom somehow, and maybe this is an
aspect of sports fandom in some ways, the original fandom that I shouldn t be bringing
into a discussion on media fandom, because there aren t different teams in media fandom . Except,
there kind of are. We ve all seen fans and stans on Twitter wishing, praying, for the
failure or downfall of a movie or franchise they see as a rival to their favourite one, right? And
looking further back, you ve got the whole Marvel vs. DC, Star Trek vs. Star Wars fandom squabbles.
Dichotomies like these were often overblown, sure, many fans enjoyed both but I think it s
indisputable that this team -based dynamic can be seen in media fandom spaces as well, not
purely sports ones. And as a result, I think the above point is relevant here. Definitions clash.
I can t see that there s a wholly consistent and accepted definition for what a fan is,
and what a fan isn t. And it isn t just me. In the introduction to the second edition of
Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, we see that the question of what a fan is,
and how we should define the term, has perplexed academics over the years, and in a later piece
of scholarship, Sandvoss even recognises the limitations of his earlier definition that being
a fan is determined by the regular, emotionally involved consumption of a given popular narrative
or text . The only conclusion I feel confident drawing at this stage, then, is that this term is
an extremely broad and slippery one. Its meaning isn t specific or fixed. To some degree, it only
means what we use it to mean. All linguistic meaning is socially constructed, after all
and this goes double for words which themselves describe socially constructed phenomena, because
what is a fan , other than what is signified by the generally-accepted concept of the fan?
And here s the kicker that means it can change. But you don t have to take my word
for it. Chen Bo writes that language and meaning change rapidly or slowly as the communicative
practice of a linguistic community does . As a community, then, we all play some small,
unconscious role in defining fandom. On some level, the answer to the question are toxic
fans still fans is only if we consider them to be. As fans, we ourselves are responsible for
determining the ongoing meaning of this label. And we are a community. No matter who you ask,
scholars, less academic writers, or fans themselves the communal aspect of fandom is
essential. Even in early fandom studies fandom was understood as more than the mere act of
being a fan of something: it was seen as a collective strategy to form interpretive
communities . Stepping away from scholarship, remember Starlight s definition fandom isn t just
the liking, it s when a community forms around the liking. Or look at the answers my followers gave
these too included the idea of joining a community or sharing your experiences. Check out Francesca
Coppa s A Brief History of Media Fandom for more on this, but in a nutshell, the birth of modern
media fandom was a community of people taking something seriously that was seen as disposable.
They thought it was good, maybe they thought it was bad, but they thought it was worth discussing,
and essentially, worth discussing together. The introduction to the second edition of Fandom:
Identities and Communities in a Mediated World concludes with the following:
In an era in which traditional markers of identity in high modernity such as employment,
class, marriage, and (national) belonging, but also age, religion, sexuality,
and gender are increasingly instable, fluid, and on occasion ephemeral, the imagined but voluntary
communities we join through fan attachments are as important as the self-identity that is
constructed and narrated by fans individually . Fandom, at its core, is community. And I think
that s the strongest argument for why we maybe shouldn t consider those responsible for spreading
toxicity real fans even if they claim to be, even if they regularly consume these products
in an emotionally involved way. Because toxicity, bullying, bad faith, intolerance
these are qualities antithetical to community. And if they re working against the very foundations
of fandom are they really a part of it? Now there are dangers to this sort of didactic
labelling. If someone with a big enough platform decides your own, valid critiques are toxic,
should they hold the power to strip you of your fan identity? For instance,
Lori Hitchcock Morimoto and Bertha Chin note the way dissent voiced by marginalised fans has been
labelled toxic in some fan spaces calling out toxicity is itself subjective, and the dismissive
power of the label may well be a double-edged sword. There are undoubtedly questions to be
answered here but I think as fans, as a community, we can work toward those answers together. Because
our language is important. The ways we verbalise our thoughts and feelings, the words we use
and the way we use them have the power to maintain or radically alter the concepts we discuss.
If toxic fans are fans, then fan space will continue to permit them. Harmful modes of media
consumption will keep on growing. Historically, media fandom has had a hard enough time
getting society and academia to take them even remotely seriously, as creatives, intellectuals,
or, just people whose viewpoints are worthwhile. The growth of toxicity, and the unconscious,
tacit acceptance of toxicity as a valid form of fan love only stands to set us back.
And perhaps more importantly, it stands to hurt people, and to damage the communities
at the very centre of fandom. If someone barges into your Discord server or Twitter community,
talking shit about this property or that, approaching it in bad faith, complaining about
non white-male led projects because something something woke agenda, or bullying and excluding
others for valid opinions? Call them toxic. But maybe don t call them a fan. Because from
a certain point of view? They kind of aren t. Or, do whatever. I m not the bloody language
police. And if you take a different perspective on what constitutes the
position of fan , one closer to Sandvoss or Starlight s, then call them what you will.
But! Just remember to bear in mind the power your language choice has. Because while fan spaces and
fan culture may shape and direct your language use . Your language use also shapes and directs
fan culture. Collectively, we hold great power here. And you know what they say about that.
Again this video has been made thanks to the support and ideas of my Patreon supporters.
This one was a bit different, but with these community videos, I do as the Patrons command.
If you want to have a say in what the next community video s about, if you want access to
a growing library of exclusive videos, and other benefits besides, click the link onscreen now and
give my Patreon a look. Now s the best time to jump on, because going into September I m doing
a bit of a restructure. Tiers are changing, and generally prices are lowering. So have a gander!
Thanks for watching, though as always, likes, shares, and comments are very much appreciated,
and special shoutout to all my Patrons onscreen now, in particular Kevin Douglas and Ian Fyfield.