TexanTitan

From karandeep singh, about 10 comments down: Is it only me who is pissed at Ton for literally for forcing Chon to hv sex with a hooker. I hate his toxic masculinity. It was so uncomfortable to watch. I think its more to do with his upbringing.

It seems like the root of our disagreement is the term "constructive criticism". I disagree that constructive criticism is "logical and objective." If I say to someone at my job, "when you spoke to me in that way, it made me feel this negative way, please don't speak to me in that way again." That is constructive criticism. Or, on a larger scale, if my boss said to me, "When you are talking in meetings, your coworkers have told me that they feel talked down to or belittled, please change the way your are talking to them," that also is constructive criticism. If someone in a comment section says, "this trope or character type makes me feel this negative way, I wish that shows wouldn't include these tropes in their shows anymore because it makes me feel bad, " that is constructive criticism. I have provided lots of examples of people having their feelings shut down by Toxic Positivity. I didn't find an article that was specifically about Toxic Positivity in the comment sections of websites devoted to Asian drams and BL Dramas, but that is a little specific and I doubt it has been an area of study yet (although maybe it should be). That is why I spent so much time explaining my argument, so that it would be clear that I am equating criticism and feelings, as I mentioned previously. If you are holding out for a peer-reviewed research study about BL drama message boards, I don't think it's going to happen.

You said in your previous post "if you said how you felt about the show, and someone told you not to be so negative, then yes, that can be considered toxic positivity. You're just stating how you feel, and that shouldn't be invalidated by others. But that's not what you were talking about in your original comment. You mentioned 'legitimate criticism' and 'constructive criticism.'

Now I feel like we have been talking about two completely different things this entire time. I have been talking about the criticism that people in these comments have been making about the way that these tropes make them feel (specifically, the "have sex with a woman sex worker to prove you are straight). Since I have mentioned this specific example multiple times, I thought it would be understand that when I am talking about constructive criticism, I am specifically talking about this example: Commenters have said they didn't like the show because this scene reminded them of times in their own lives when people tried to do this to them (encourage or outright force them to sleep with a woman to prove their heterosexuality). I'm definitely not talking about the lighting. I agree that saying that technical aspects of the show are not good and having others tell you not to focus on it is probably not toxic positivity, but that is not what I have been talking about for the last day.

Credentials don't matter on the internet because anyone can claim anything and there is no way to prove it (at least not in a comment section). I think the issue is that you are arguing for a completely literalist interpretation of the term "Toxic Positivity." You know one specific definition and no other definition or interpretation that is not *exactly the same* is valid.

I have been listening to you and will continue to listen to you, I just disagree with you. And you still haven't addressed the merits of my argument, you just keep repeating that what I have said is not exactly the same as your understanding.

If I said, "I feel bad when I watch this series because it reminds me of when someone told me to go have sex with a woman to prove to everyone I am a manly, straight man even though I am a gay man" and then someone responded, "Oh, just look on the bright side! The show has some funny comedic scenes! No need to be so negative about it." By the way, I didn't make this up. Read down through the comments and you will see very similar comments.

Again, I am talking about similarities and comparisons. Not things that are exactly, 100% the same in every way. You seem to be arguing that this *criticism* is somehow fundamentally different from a *feeling*. And I think that is where we disagree. If my criticism of the show is based in how I feel when I watch the show, and you tell me to just be positive and ignore my feelings, I feel that this almost perfectly matches the definition of Toxic Positivity that we have both been discussing.

If you disagree, please explain why. What is the fundamental difference between a criticism of a show that is based in the feelings of the viewer and just a regular old feeling?

If you tell me to ignore my negative feelings about the show and only talk about the positive aspects of the show, how is that not Toxic Positivity.

I have explained my argument multiple times, and you have refused to engage with it at all, other than repeating the same definition multiple times. I argue there is no fundamental difference between a criticism of the show that is based in how it makes the viewer feel and, as you have continuously repeated, a "feeling". These criticisms *are* feelings.

I hear what you are saying, but the problem is that you are not offering constructive criticism. You are simply saying my definition of the term is wrong, because you know a different definition. I *have* looked up the term, I have *also* studied psychology and sociology, and I agreed with you about 3 comments ago that the definition you gave is a correct definition. So I don't think there is anything left to say on that topic.

However, you telling me that my definition is wrong "because I heard it in a TV show" is extremely elitist and, to use your word from a few comments ago, dismissive. As I mentioned before, the definitions of things changes over time (a phenomenon known as semantic change) and it happens especially quickly on the internet. If you would like more information on this topic, feel free to reach out and I will be happy to send you an article or two. As for me 'knowing' better, I typed several comments with a detailed explanation of my argument for why the term Toxic Positivity applies here. You have not addressed the merits of those arguments at all in your comments, instead you have simply chosen to apply several different terms in place of toxic positivity: Dismissive and narcissistic being two of those terms. Narcissistic also has a specific meaning in psychology (see narcissistic personality disorder) so I think it's interesting that you have chosen to use the casual definition (a person who thinks only of themselves to a high degree) rather than the clinical definition, which you are trying to force me to use for Toxic Positivity. You used the word hypocritical before, so I will use it here. Don't you think it's hypocritical to attempt to reject my colloquial use of the term Toxic Positivity and then do exactly the same thing with the term "narcissistic"?

Anyway, I always know when people are feeling pressed in arguments on the internet. It's when they rely on an appeal to expertise. "I have studied this, so I know." I don't know you. Maybe you have a PhD in psychology or maybe you learned everything on YouTube. Who cares? If your argument is strong, it's strong, and if your argument is weak, it's weak. Your credentials don't mean anything here. I have credentials too, but I'm not going to share them, because ultimately, they don't matter. Also, people lie on the internet all the time. I am not saying you are lying, but you are a faceless bubble on kisskh. I don't know you, so I am definitely not going to take your word for it.

Finally, here is a source that defines Toxic Positivity in this way: ' "We can see toxic positivity on social media when people share content about life's challenges and the only replies are overly positive and ignore that that person might be feeling upset, tired, worried and so on," she says.

It might also be a post that is dismissive of hard times in our current climate, for example.'

You will notice that the author uses the term "dismissive" as a synonym for Toxic Positivity.

https://www.abc.net.au/life/toxic-positivity-on-social-media-and-how-to-avoid-it/12432790

This is not a rigorous academic source, but it doesn't need to be. It is evidence that people are using the term, both as you defined it, but also as I defined it.

I see it used in exactly the way you described in the internet all the time but I also see it used in the way I described. The meaning of words changes over time, of course. It seems that maybe the definition of Toxic Positivity has changed from the definition you are used to. I believe, based on the examples that I gave, that Toxic Positivity is the best term to describe what is happening here. Your argument is not really an argument. You are just saying my usage of the term is wrong because it means something else to you. Words can mean more than one thing at once. Telling other people that they are not allowed to be critical ("negative") about a show meets the definition of Toxic Positivity. Also, I'm not sure why you are so invested in arguing against this usage of the term. I mean, it seems straightforward to me. "No hate, only love", "no criticism, just praise", these are clear examples of a focus on the positive at the expense of the justified negative, also known as Toxic Positivity.

I agree that what you described sounds bad, but Toxic Positivity as the term is used today on the internet is when *someone else* tells you to "look on the bright side" even though that means ignoring a real issue that is causing problems. For example, telling someone with a mental illness to "just look at the positive, go outside and get some sun, you will feel better, there is so much beauty in the world, no reason to be depressed!"

So, using that definition, I definitely think telling someone, "this series is meant to be fun, don't take it so seriously, only love, no hate or negativity" counts as Toxic Positivity.

I liked it, it was pretty middle-of-the-road as far as Thai BLs go. The plot lagged a lot in the middle, I think they could have done this just fine in about 8 episodes instead of 12. Itt was super cute, I agree with other commenters that Pai was kind of personality-less for much of the series. I get that sometimes people put up a wall and are guarded, but if he is the main character, it would have been nice if the directors had let the audience more into his head, instead of him just walking around with a tortured expression on his face all the time.

Pure was the winner of this series for me. I loved his character (so cute!). I liked that his character arc was that he was heartbroken and so he followed his mom's example of sleeping around, but then he got over it and moved on and started a healthier relationship with Folk. Not that casual sex is unhealthy, but it definitely seemed like Pure made some bad decisions. I also love that he got tested for STIs 2x in the show! A good example for the viewers! Get tested!

Overall, I gave it a very a generous 8.5, because it was still much better than a lot of other Thai BLs (for example, it was better than Oxygen by a huge amount). But still, nowhere near the level of I Told Sunset About You.

Ooh, I just wrote a whole comment about this. See below. <3

Is anyone watching Pearl Next Door, the spin-off from Gameboys? Because Pearl introduced a term that I think a lot of people in this comment section need to learn: Toxic Positivity. It's when people use "positivity" as a weapon to shut down other people's legitimate criticism. "Wow, it's really sad that you just can't take the show for a fun series. You are so negative with all your hate! It's just meant to be lighthearted! You are reading too much into it! If you don't love it, that's your opinion, but do you have to share your negative hate here? That's sad. You should just move on!"

I have read that about 10 times in these comments so far. Here's what I understand it to mean: A person likes the show for whatever reason (hot guys, a particular actor, whatever) and then someone criticizes the show for good reason (a bro pushing his younger bro to have sex with a woman to prove he's a "real man", for example. That's gross). The person who likes the show will say something like, "yeah, I guess that is not great, but why do you have to take it so seriously! It's just meant to be fun. Love only, no hate!" And then the person who criticized the show will respond with another explanation of the critique (pushing queer people to have sex with someone to prove their heterosexuality is a form of corrective rape and has been used to control queer people for a long time, for example), and the person who likes the show will respond, "It's sad that you can't just enjoy it, why are you even here? It's just my opinion, I like it. Some people just can't enjoy things."

And this pattern will continue.

Honestly, Toxic Positivity is bs. It's a derailing technique. It's used to shut down criticism. If you think someone's criticism is invalid, give reasons and support. Basically what Toxic Positivity comes down to is that people know that the show is problematic, and they know the critiques of the show are valid, and they don't care, but they don't want to admit it because then they would have to feel bad for liking something problematic.

If the best response you can come up with is, "only love, no hate, it's just meant to be fun, why do you have to ruin things for others? It's sad that some people can't just enjoy things", then you know the other person's critique is valid and you should own it. Otherwise, you are spreading Toxic Positivity and I hope that people will call you out on it. I will. Critiques are important because they change consciousness and lead to positive (really positive, not Toxically Positive) change, like better representation for queer people.

I think I am just going to copy this comment and paste it under every comment where I see "Toxic Positivity." Feel free to copy it as well.

When people spend time and do emotional labor to explain why things are problematic, listen to them, thank them for their work, and consider that they might be right. That's how we are going to get shows that are "meant to be fun and not serious" but that also don't perpetuate gross and outdated stereotypes.

Feel free to come argue with me if you want. It's sad that some people just can't take constructive criticism. /s ;-)

"too bad it was a dead gay character saying it to a mom that couldn't hear it." we need to move this line to the synopsis of the show so that people can read it before they watch. perfect critique.

Yep! Me, too!

I agree. How about instead of a "homophobia will kill your kids" series, we get a "homophobia will lead your kids to never speak to you again but go on to live wonderful, successful, love-filled lives and you will regret for the rest of your life that you drove away your child who is completely happy without you" series. And then Ken and Shake say fuck you to Mom and Sandee, move in together, finish college, get decent-paying jobs in this economy, and then when they get married (I know it's not legal, but they can still have a ceremony), they can NOT invite mom because she doesn't deserve it.

I feel like that would be a much better story.

Nah.

People are complaining about the ending, but I'm kind of confused as to why? It seemed perfectly clear to me. Karl isn't ready, Vlad won't settle, time passed, they have moved on but are still open to being friends and maybe re-kindling their relationship in the future. What's confusing about that? It's not a happily ever after but it's real. (like, really real, not like someone dies in a car crash like some other shows I could name cough* MODC*cough).

I loved it. I would enjoy a season 2 but if not, we already saw what their life could be like. I like it when things end in their time and this feels like an ending.

It thought the whole show was beautiful. I see some folks disagree, and your opinion is worthwhile, too. But for me, this is exactly the kind of show I want, with real characters, real relationships, a little silliness because I am silly, great music, love, tears, and something meaningful in the end. For me, the message that love isn't always enough, but that love endures is powerful. They will always love each other and maybe someday the stars will align and they will build a life together. Or maybe they will stay friends and find other loves and always look back on the time they spent together and feel those feelings again for a moment and smile and cry a little. They have good friends, family who love them, skills, goals, careers to look forward to.

I want to see queer people like this, who can love, and fail, and move on, and be whole. That means so much more to me than shows where all that matters is that one guy kisses you in the end.

Yeah, I agree. Like, My Day was not a good show, but it wasn't boring. This show was just a big meh.

I hope Plan isn't that bad of a kisser in real life. It looked like Mean was actually trying in this last episode but Plan still reminds me of a baby bird begging for some half-digested food vomit from his mama bird. I have been kissed like that before and it's not cute.

Ahh! This was so cute! I had a good feeling about this one and the first ep was great! Can't wait for more!

Wow. That was really intense. I loved the furious communication via Insta stories. This series is really amazing. <3 <3 <3

Dumped by P'Pha!!! So sad! haha, I'm living for it. I like Wayu much better than Wayo. Bas is a much better actor now than he was a couple of years ago and this show is much better produced than 2Moons.

I agree about Mark. He reminds me of this guy I used to hook up with in college, who just started showing up at my place, expecting to hook up (no call, no text). Super irritating. Just cause you like someone, stalking is not okay. Mark is lucky he doesn't get punched. He's cute but not that cute. Like, back off, dude.