Writer-director Paul Jenkins explains why he’s taking on the failed fan film AXANAR in his new documentary.
I should have walked away, but I didn’t. If I had any sense, I would have. I could have just said, “To hell with it,” signed his bullshit separation agreement, and washed my hands of the whole stupid thing.
Shoulda. Woulda. Coulda.
I couldn’t.
Because I have always had a terrible affliction, a stupid compulsion, maybe, to stand up to bullies. It’s just been my thing, I suppose, and it has sometimes been helpful and at other times painful. My own style has been to engage bullies in a fair and relatable manner; to be articulate and try to remain kind (hopefully) and calm (if possible). I’ve taken this stance throughout my entire life: face the bully and stop them from hurting other people. That is what brings us to the Into the Wormhole documentary series, for better or for worse.
Rather than walk away, I made the decision to shine a light on this awful phenomenon of toxic fandom and the damage it has done to our society. Instead of complaining about what’s happening all around us, I thought, perhaps we should join together to prevent it. That’s why our documentary is your documentary – this is your chance to make a difference by supporting this important work.
What makes a toxic fan?
As we go, I’m going to examine the various attributes of the toxic fan and the fan leader. We are going to study the psychology behind all of this, and we’ll learn just how closely connected these behaviors and techniques are to the behaviors of the cult leader and the demagogue. We’ll look at the straight line that can be drawn between the tragic events of Jonestown, the awful events of the Capitol invasion, and the emergence of internet’s influence over the way we think.
We’re going to look at the totality of it, and we’re going to break down the techniques used against us – piece by piece – to fully understand how and why bad actors in the fan community have gained so much dangerous traction.
But first, let’s take just a small snapshot in the life of our first fascinating case study, Alec Peters.
He – like our other case studies – will get his own special section as we break down the psychology of these behaviors. I want you to meet the man behind Axanar, the fan film that raised almost $2 million dollars but was never delivered. I am frequently going to let our subject’s own words and actions speak for him because thanks to his ubiquitous live streams, Facebook posts and other forms of public self-expression I can pretty much present our first subject without comment.
The “Mecharandom” incident
Let’s take a look at an interaction he had with a young female blogger named “Mecharandom.” Take particular note of Peters’ facial expressions as he discusses his utter domination of a 20-year-old young woman. Especially note his demeanor as he discusses the possibility of his own girlfriend causing physical harm to this young woman.
You see, some truths are self-evident: we can see a person’s poor behavior with our own eyes and ears, and for these toxic fans with such with poor impulse control this is a huge problem: they cannot allow their behaviors to be highlighted. This is especially important for the narcissist, who is compelled to present an air of “normalcy” even as their own impulses betray them.
For the narcissist, there’s nothing quite as good as a false equivalency
One method a narcissist will use to maintain the illusion is by the creation of false equivalencies. And they accomplish this by always having a hated enemy or two on deck.
How does it work?
Well, we’re taught that there are two sides to every story, right? I mean who’s to know who’s right or wrong when two people disagree with each other? The bad actor creates conflict with chosen targets in order to set the stage for a “fair fight.” He or she relies on our sense of fair play, knowing that many of us will reserve judgement until we are given enough information to go on. And if the bad actor can beat everyone to the punch with disinformation – persuade enough of us that they themselves are faultless, or a victim – then they gain an air of normalcy.
But what if I reminded you there are not always two sides to a story?
What about a drive-by shooting? In that case there is a victim and a shooter. The problem is, how do we actually know, especially when both sides claim the moral high ground? In that case, it’s up to us to work a little harder and frankly, most of us just don’t have the time nor the inclination to work that hard.
But we must.
Truth should matter, and if we abandon that concept, we only have ourselves to blame as lies and disinformation hurt us. Perhaps there are two problems with a drive-by shooting: the first is the act itself and the second is the witnesses who pretend they have seen nothing.
Take a closer look … you’ll be surprised at what you see
I’m going to give you a little test that should provide you with a self-evident truth: pick a date any time in the last two or three years and go back. Take a look at your own Facebook, Instagram or Twitter feed. Now, take a look at mine, and take a look at the feeds of the subject of our documentary. Look around for a bit. You’ll see it.
Because it has always been there, right in front of our eyes.