|
The whole point of “anti” is that the term conflates reasonable concern about fanfiction spaces being totally uncritical of some poo poo that should be closely considered if it’s going to be allowed, with people who don’t like a ship. Those are two different categories of objection; they are routinely conflates to disregard both. I think it’s a terrible rhetorical move and one Leckie is really leaning into Plus, ‘anti’ defines your opponent as purely negative, with no points of their own; I’ve seen it used for ‘anti feminism’ and ‘anti-gamer gate’ in different contexts, and while I think anti feminists should absolutely be disregarded, the term serves to hide their actual positions and conflate them with any other opposition.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
neongrey posted:No, LatwPIAT is absolutely correct, and the definition you're using is one that's generally used to sweep some pretty horrible behaviour under the rug. "Antis just object to sexualization of children" is some ethics in games journalism bullshit. OK. I haven't personally ever seen it used the way you're describing, but I guess I can't say it never happens. I guess I've just been fortunate enough to avoid those particular parts of Tumblr.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
See also the whole “If you draw Rose Quartz in an art style that makes her look even somewhat arguably slimmer than that of the show, you are fatphobic and promoting fatphobia and therefore complicit in the mental health problems suffered by overweight people and are killing them and you should kill yourself” / “If you portray overweight characters positively you are contributing to society’s obesity problem and killing people and you should kill yourself” controversy that rages even now across a variety of fan communities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 02:28
|
|
|
Stephenls posted:See also the whole “If you draw Rose Quartz in an art style that makes her look even somewhat arguably slimmer than that of the show, you are fatphobic and promoting fatphobia and therefore complicit in the mental health problems suffered by overweight people and are killing them and you should kill yourself” / “If you portray overweight characters positively you are contributing to society’s obesity problem and killing people and you should kill yourself” controversy that rages even now across a variety of fan communities. I, rando Internetman, am the arbiter of Ethical(TM) Art! Don't you see!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:The whole point of “anti” is that the term conflates reasonable concern about fanfiction spaces being totally uncritical of some poo poo that should be closely considered if it’s going to be allowed, with people who don’t like a ship. Saying that the whole point of it is to conflate does not mesh with the way the term is being used and has been used.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Saying that the whole point of it is to conflate does not mesh with the way the term is being used and has been used. Shrug! That’s how I’ve seen it used pretty consistently, and that’s the effect of the language literally conflating all elements of possible criticism of the stuff? “Anti-shipper” is specific; “antis” is general and nonspecific. E: but if you say ‘anti-shipper’ you presumably need to specify the ship and why they’re against it, so ‘anti’ is much safer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 03:28
|
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:Shrug! That’s how I’ve seen it used pretty consistently, and that’s the effect of the language literally conflating all elements of possible criticism of the stuff? “Anti-shipper” is specific; “antis” is general and nonspecific. Since Leckie links to an article about the specific anti-shipping phenomenon in her very first use of her term, I find it difficult to believe there was any attempt on her part to conflate or hide that, in fact, the 'antis' she was talking about was the anti-shippers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean, I don’t think it’s a constant conscious effort - but she does explicitly identify ‘people who think AO3 shouldn’t host stuff that everyone would agree is bad, but would disagree on how best to moderate’ with ‘people who are anti-shippers for a particular relationship.’ That’s literally what her blog post does, conflate what I think is a very reasonable concern with ship wars. And I don’t think that’s good, because she is in fact conflating pretty wildly different concerns that are only united by ... being against some fanfiction? Possibly but not always the same fanfiction? Which, like, I’m sure people wouldn’t approve of explicitly Nazi fanfiction on AO3. So we all agree that some fanfiction should be criticized and maybe binned? But people saying “I think we need to be careful about sexualizing underage characters, and X work doesn’t seem to do that” routinely get accused of a hideous moralism and trying to destroy people. “Anti-shipping” and “ever raising concerns about fanfiction” get conflated under “anti.” Joe Slowboat fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Nov 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
I’ve never seen seen “anti” being used for anything other than calling out pedophilia apologia, so considering that this is the internet and everybody will lie to everybody about the general trends to further their own interests, I cannot in good conscience view people trying to conflate the use of “anti” with shipping wars as anything but well-meaning ignorance or pedophilia defense. Edit: Yeah and also I really can’t bring myself to give a poo poo about fan fiction community like Ao3 in anno domini 2019. There are now a million far less toxic and hosed up communities for people to express themselves online. Like the risk of unfairly speaking against a goddam sonic slash fic versus creating a community supporting and normalizing pedophilia is such an obvious choice. Like how are you going to “accidentally cover up REAL abuse” in the fanfic archive. jakodee fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Nov 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
She’s conflating them by behavior, not nature of concern. That’s part of the assertion—that an “anti” who does callouts based on a still-available decade old erotic fanfic that ships e.g. Beetlejuice and Lydia is functionally identical to a “anti” who does callouts based on an anything else, if their methodologies both involve public shaming techniques aimed at creating a snowballing dogpile of accusations that ends with someone being driven out of a fandom and/or having such-and-such-is-a-pedophile permanently high-ranked on Google searches for their name.
Stephenls fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Nov 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 03:50
|
|
|
I’m genuinely curious: how do you see that argument differing from “Don’t punch Nazis - political violence is always bad” ? They just look very similar to me, especially since if someone is genuinely, say, an abuser or a cult leader type in fandom, I would want them to be branded with that so they can’t take advantage of people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
Stephenls posted:She’s conflating them by behavior, not nature of concern. That’s part of the assertion—that an “anti” who does callouts based on a still-available decade old erotic fanfic that ships e.g. Beetlejuice and Lydia is functionally identical to a “anti” who does callouts based on an anything else, if their methodologies both involve public shaming techniques aimed at creating a snowballing dogpile of accusations that ends with someone being driven out of a fandom and/or having such-and-such-is-a-pedophile permanently high-ranked on Google searches for their name. Wow it’s becoming increasing impossible to give a poo poo about anything you say. Can you teach me this trick? Edit: No I’m actually going to explain why you’re wrong instead of just telling you to gently caress off. Why should anyone care about the 10 year old pedophilia fanfic writer being driven out of a community? That’s what YOU DO about toxic and lovely people in your online community. Am I supposed to feel sorry for them? Is the implication that they have changed, become a better person and regret writing their rapey fiction? Then they can act like an adult and loving apologize: explain what they did wrong, why it was wrong, and promise to never do it again. Buts that’s so rarely what happens isn’t it? People who write these whining defenses of rape, people who wrote poo poo that portrays it as good, even a long time ago; they almost never apologize because they don’t think they did anything wrong, don’t understand why others think what they did is wrong, and don’t plan to change. You seem so concerned about the social death these people might experience (on loving Twitter, almost never real social consequences), but fail to consider that they only ever get ousted because they don’t actually try to be better people, they just loving moan about it as they try to weather the storm and go back to doing what they already wanted to do. Second edit: gently caress it let’s also talk about works of fiction that condemn pedophilia while being accused of promoting it. These are the possibilities: 1- You are being criticized by members of your community for writing fiction that cannot be discerned from pedophilia apologia by most people, in which case you just wrote pedophilia apologia. Good job. 2- A small number of people in your community are criticizing you because they seriously misinterpreting a work that most people would be able to tell is criticizing pedophilia. Ignore them to the best of your ability and explain to the majority why they are wrong. 3- A significant number of people in your community accuse you of writing pedophilia apologia because the culture of your community prevents them from reasonably interpreting a work of fiction that most people could tell is criticizing pedophilia. Leave that community, it’s poo poo. jakodee fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Nov 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:02
|
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:I’m genuinely curious: how do you see that argument differing from “Don’t punch Nazis - political violence is always bad” ? Punching Nazis and going after RL pedophiles has basically no downside, so those are both great, but on the other hand here’s another twitter thread on the pervasive negative effects of inquisitorial attitudes in fandom. (That and the Lindsay Ellis Twitter thread are the only two I’ve brushed up against during this latest flare up, so, hey, I guess this means I’ve contributed everything I have to say on this subject for now.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
jakodee posted:I’ve never seen seen “anti” being used for anything other than calling out pedophilia apologia, so considering that this is the internet and everybody will lie to everybody about the general trends to further their own interests, I cannot in good conscience view people trying to conflate the use of “anti” with shipping wars as anything but well-meaning ignorance or pedophilia defense. Again, this specific thing you are saying is, in exactly the words you are using, a fig leaf I have repeatedly seen used to justify harrassment of people who have in no way produced, consumed, or advocated for pedophilia or other similar things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
neongrey posted:Again, this specific thing you are saying is, in exactly the words you are using, a fig leaf I have repeatedly seen used to justify harrassment of people who have in no way produced, consumed, or advocated for pedophilia or other similar things. I don’t actually doubt that this has happened, but literally everything has been used in first sentence of a Gmail death threat at some point. Mind you I’m not actually claiming that “anti” ISN’T commonly used as this sort of excuse. I’m not well versed in the term, I’m just recounting my personal experience. As far as I know you might be complete correct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
From my observations there are two way people use the term "antis" (both of these do get used) *Referring to anyone who objects to "problematic" shipping. I.e. any kind of relationship that, in real life, would be considered unhealthy or disturbing (if not explicitly illegal). Sometimes sexual, sometimes not. For example, fanfiction where an evil or abusive character becomes romantically involved with a heroic character (good example: Catra and Adora from the new shera). Basically, the 'anti' argues that because the relationship would be considered unacceptable, then it shouldn't be written about or romanticized at all while the general counterargument is that the author finds these sort of relationships a harmless turn-on and is not using them to justify their real-life equivalent.These 'antis' definitely exist, but are really just a sub-section of fandom's general tendency to get into absolutely vicious fights for no loving reason. See also arguments over whether character X should be redeemed, whether or not batman should kill the joker, etc. *The other way is used to refer to people who object to written or drawn porn featuring stuff like pedophilia, snuff, bestiality or incest. Rape can be included as well, but is often less of a hot button than you would think. The arguments here are a bit more to the point. The problem is that when people use the term 'anti' they can be referring to one, the other or both. Or referring to one but conflating it to the other. So there's a lot of people who draw/write 'problematic' but otherwise harmless fiction who're blasted by people unnecessarily...but there are also people who draw really hosed up stuff who use the same label and functionally the same "it's just fiction" defenses. Frankly, I don't really worry about 'antis' attacking fanfic writers for problematic shipping or what have you...because frankly that is just one of a myriad reasons fandoms will find to get into rage-fueled screaming matches with one another (up to and including death threats). I'm much more concerned about the people creating child porn who're hiding behind the same defenses. The existence of assholes who go too far over too little is not a good reason to stop going after people who draw ten-year-olds loving. oriongates fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Nov 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:40
|
|
|
This is an article explaining the appeal of the abusive depictions in 50 Shades of Gray to Christian women in particular. In particular it goes into how victims of toxic or abusive situations sometimes seek depictions of them in order to rationalize or have some sense of control of the narrative--not necessarily healthy responses, but comprehensible ones. Responses about which they will get extremely defensive if called out on their unhealthiness. This is obviously not unique to 50 Shades fandom. I don't know HGMO/Bliss Stage well enough to suggest it might be similar but on a very surface reading it seems like it might be. I've also seen people get really bent out of shape about fanfic ships. Like completely incapable of simply ignoring alternate interpretations. Sometimes takes the form of attempted erasure of queer not even subtext, but text, such as the end of Korra. Sometimes it's just that they cannot handle Jean dating anyone but Cyclops, and will write about Jean dating Wolverine as abusive or psychotic or whatever other bad words they can think of to try and convince people that they're having fun writing fan-made porn based on funny books wrong. Those accusations get particularly ugly when you shift to writing about, say, Kitty Pryde in any capacity. Or queer ships. Or stories addressing trauma. That's kind of where this 'anti' sentiment comes in, and I've seen it, though more pre-tumblr as my interest in fanfic largely faded. That's not to dismiss the existence of genuinely vile material, it exists, and deserves opposition. But who has the time to wade through vileness to determine the genuinely unworthy? I haven't seen even the smallest whiff of whatever thing is going on with Muir but without any context I am completely unsurprised that something like this is being dug up and paraded--she's an extremely online young woman whose first novel has made a huge splash, and there are going to be sour grapes among others who never managed to escape the fanfic mines and receive "legitimate" praise. I put that in scare quotes because I don't think fanfic is illegitimate, but that's a separate discussion. occamsnailfile fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Nov 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:They just look very similar to me, especially since if someone is genuinely, say, an abuser or a cult leader type in fandom, I would want them to be branded with that so they can’t take advantage of people. Identifying abusers and cult leader types in fandom is important - but a lot of the big abusers and cult leader types have been people who used a thin veneer of moral righteousness to engage in abuse, typically against women, people of colour, and LGBT/queer people. The most obvious recent case was Benjanun Sriduangkaew, who would use the face she was fighting a noble fight against racism, sexism, and homophobia as a cover for being verbally abusive - often toward women and minorities. Identifying abusers and cult leaders requires being able to identify patterns of abuse - and the SF/F fandom community has a lot of experience with accusations of morally objectionable content being used as a cover for abuse, precisely because so many are wiling to give abusers a pass when they target 'bad people'. And so people who seem to fall into that pattern - of identifying a particular ship as morally objectionable and using that to justify harassment-like behaviour and public shaming of the everyone who writes it - are labelled "anti-shippers", so they can't take advantage of people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:47
|
|
|
jakodee posted:Wow it’s becoming increasing impossible to give a poo poo about anything you say. Look, man, I’m not confident in my position here at all; I’m just skeptical of people come come off as confident as you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
The focus on abstracting the discussions away from particular cases is dumb and makes it impossible to get anywhere. Presumably, the Gideon the Necromancer Ladys story can be examined for actual merit, same for HGMO and Bliss Stage or whatever. But when you just up and declare that any sort of objection to that work in general is bad, no matter what the context is, that leaves us in a hosed up situation. After all, according to that standard, leaving MythusMage to post is the right thing to do because banning him for his elaborately detailed sexual-initiation-of-10-year-olds would be wrong because it would have created an environment that could be hostile to more well used versions of the story. Likewise, banning Jarcane for telling MythusMage he was disgusting was also justified. It's incredibly dumb that the response to both controversies is to attack the idea of having standards altogether instead of actually defending the good interpretations of the work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
Stephenls posted:Look, man, I’m not confident in my position here at all; I’m just skeptical of people come come off as confident as you. What actual criticism of my positions do you have other than me having taken the time to think about things you haven’t? Are you afraid I’m trying to confuse you with lots of words? That I’m obfuscating some horrible agenda by explaining the concept of an apology?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Identifying abusers and cult leader types in fandom is important - but a lot of the big abusers and cult leader types have been people who used a thin veneer of moral righteousness to engage in abuse, typically against women, people of colour, and LGBT/queer people. The most obvious recent case was Benjanun Sriduangkaew, who would use the face she was fighting a noble fight against racism, sexism, and homophobia as a cover for being verbally abusive - often toward women and minorities. Identifying abusers and cult leaders requires being able to identify patterns of abuse - and the SF/F fandom community has a lot of experience with accusations of morally objectionable content being used as a cover for abuse, precisely because so many are wiling to give abusers a pass when they target 'bad people'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Most of the stuff surrounding Benjamin was just lies though. More often than not what happened is people like Arivia would go ballistic over stuff that never happened. 1. "Benjanun." 2. There's quite a lot of documentation out there of the individual's bad behavior. Like as often as you want to make vague allegations about Paizo you should be wary of making that charge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
In an industry where Zak S, Grimachu, and RPG Pundit were unassailable major figures for decades, the idea that we need to abolish standards is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:The focus on abstracting the discussions away from particular cases is dumb and makes it impossible to get anywhere. People do this when there is no reasonable “good interpretation” you can explain to someone else and not come off as a creep. Just tell them it’s like Lolita, a book you can defend with trivial ease and avoid ever elaborating on the comparison so no one can see it’s absurd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
occamsnailfile posted:1. "Benjanun." 2. There's quite a lot of documentation out there of the individual's bad behavior. Like as often as you want to make vague allegations about Paizo you should be wary of making that charge. She was, no question, a complete dick to a lot of people for a long time, but that report is also filled with accusations of things like her arranging to have people's streetlights taken out and other stuff that is patently ludicrous. There's stuff she did do but there's a lot of stuff that very clearly didn't and they're all tangled up into one giant, ugly mess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
Occamsnailfile: I agree that fanfic communities are toxic places that will always have horrible slanderous fights about shipping as long as they continue to exist in their current form. The entire bit about the traumatized trying to justify their abuse by writing it as justified is probably something that actually happens and also an indistinguishable claim from “it’s a therapy pedophilia game”. I think that you are just throwing up excuses to the effect of “but what if you hurt the abused by attacking propaganda for abuse, huh? What about that?!?”, because that’s simply more likely. People have already used that defense on this page of the thread. LatwPIAT: You keep insisting that we shouldn’t criticize world that defend pedophilia because, uh, bad people can use morals to pretend not to be bad? You’ve done this multiple times to, so I assume you’re just feeling guilty about wanking over a cartoon kid sometime recently. You can critique defense of abuse and also have protocols for detecting low flying abusers who pretend to do the same, because you can care about more than one thing at a time you disingenuous botfly. jakodee fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Nov 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:In an industry where Zak S, Grimachu, and RPG Pundit were unassailable major figures for decades, the idea that we need to abolish standards is absurd. Zak S would literally take completely innocent things people had written about Star Wars or whatever, label it as bad, and point his own hate-mob towards it under the thin veneer of fighting for free speech and women's liberation. I think he's a good example of how we have to be really careful about making sure the criticism we condone in our community doesn't turn into to abuse. He was thankfully pretty transparent, but a lot of people still bought it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 05:09
|
|
|
Oh, hey. Speaking of Zak. https://twitter.com/GMDecay/status/1200236055741501443
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Zak S would literally take completely innocent things people had written about Star Wars or whatever, label it as bad, and point his own hate-mob towards it under the thin veneer of fighting for free speech and women's liberation. I think he's a good example of how we have to be really careful about making sure the criticism we condone in our community doesn't turn into to abuse. He was thankfully pretty transparent, but a lot of people still bought it. Not a single person who spent a modicum of effort determining wether or not Zak S was a shitheel game away without the correct answer. Only people who were distant enough form it to not realize they should check were fooled. The OSR is just enough of a cesspool that pretty much all of more famous members pretended they didn’t know. Edit: No really almost every post-Zak apology blogpost spent most of the word count explaining why it is impossible for anyone to be held accountable for falling for the evil mind control tricks of a genius sociopath (And by the way there is nothing we could possibly do to stop it from happening again. You can’t hold us accountable when we pretend to be surprised the next time this happens.) He’s a terribly example because everyone knew, nobody cared. jakodee fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Nov 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
Yeah, you had to want to buy that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Zak S would literally take completely innocent things people had written about Star Wars or whatever, label it as bad, and point his own hate-mob towards it under the thin veneer of fighting for free speech and women's liberation. I think he's a good example of how we have to be really careful about making sure the criticism we condone in our community doesn't turn into to abuse. He was thankfully pretty transparent, but a lot of people still bought it. I guess the solution was to not criticize him for that, since criticism is bad, instead of actually pointing out that he was full of poo poo. edit: To be clear, I'm not with Jakodee at all, I am just still flabbergasted that the response to all this stuff has been "Actually, leave people like MythusMage alone because it might make people uncomfortable doing things that aren't bad" instead of just "Yo, this work is actually good, here's why." We don't need to kneecap our ability to keep out harmful and toxic people in order to defend a book or game or movie we like!! Mormon Star Wars fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Nov 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
Actually LatwPIAT? Your use of Zak S as an example of why we should be less critical has pushed me fully into the “You’re a dishonest weasel trying to defend your favorite CP artists” camp. Kindly go think about and research why your behavior is wrong and come back with an explanation and an apology. Or keep bullshiting. Or disappear for a day. Or ignore this. Most people don’t try to be better after all, although I always hope for them to. Edit: Mormon Star Wars posted:I guess the solution was to not criticize him for that, since criticism is bad, instead of actually pointing out that he was full of poo poo. People are currently recommending Lamentations of the Flame Princess products in the OSR thread, despite the author being a stalker and a Nazi. I like OSR games but the community is filled with terrible people and a culture encouraging people to ignore them. Also hot drat yes. Just explain why your work is good and not bad! Stop attacking the concept of criticism! If it’s not terrible just explain why! jakodee fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Nov 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
I think the part of the whole discussion that really grates on me is the idea that authors are somehow completely void of agency over their work and should thus be held immune to criticism of the choices they made when deciding what themes and elements to include. The idea that you cannot judge the actions of someone who chooses to publish objectionable content, or that doing so does not reflect on their character, is just wild.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 05:39
|
|
|
jakodee posted:Actually LatwPIAT? Your use of Zak S as an example of why we should be less critical has pushed me fully into the “You’re a dishonest weasel trying to defend your favorite CP artists” camp. I think you can argue against someone without LITERALLY CALLING THEM A loving PEDOPHILE OUT OF NOWHERE HOLY poo poo. Like, LatwPIAT's wording wasn't the best, but you have to be a loving idiot to read it as a defense of Zak S or pedophilia. Really, you're just proving their point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 05:50
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:I guess the solution was to not criticize him for that, since criticism is bad, instead of actually pointing out that he was full of poo poo. Yeah, something I've noticed in all of this is that there don't seem to be a lot of people coming forth with examples of what Hot Guys Making Out actually does well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 05:54
|
|
|
There is a definite problem of people going from 0 to MURDER on twitter and social media when an influential person points them at a target. There are also edge cases where people are made vulnerable being targetted because society still hasn't caught up with the nature of the internet (for example, a 15-year old with a crush on an age-appropriate character drawing or writing something sexual about that character being lumped in with an adult artist drawing or writing porn about preteens for an audience of adults) But none of that should shield the people who very much exist to feed a desire for genuinely loving evil stuff on the internet. The solution to "people might get caught in the crossfire" is not to stop attacking pedophiles, it's just to make sure and aim carefully.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:I think you can argue against someone without LITERALLY CALLING THEM A loving PEDOPHILE OUT OF NOWHERE HOLY poo poo. I don’t think they are a pedophile. I think they are defensive about the pedophiles or pedophilia defenders they personally like. No you do not in fact “have to be a loving idiot” to read their posts as a defense of Zak S or pedophilia. I think you’d have to be pretty naive to not see LatwPIAT’s posts as defenses of abusers and pedophilia defenders in online communities. They have repeatedly put up unconnected arguments trying to discourage criticism of works defending pedophilia, and used Zak goddam S as an example of why we shouldn’t listen to criticism of things online. I don’t believe they are so stupid as to think Zak S actually fooled anyone. What if I’m secretly a another Zak S? Better not shame people for defending CP, they might be some sort of mind reading vampire. I see absolutely no reasonable interpretation of LatwPIAT’s posts other than them being a bad actor out to try to protect their own feelings for supporting abuse defenders or blunt the consequences of people finding out they have defended such people. Also: You accused me of calling someone else a pedophile for defending pedophilia. I have clearly not done so if you read my post. I acknowledge that you might just be overreacting to what you thought was an accusation of rape, but you’ll have to understand that from where I’m sitting you might also be throwing out accusations of thought policing to protect your own conscience/past. Edit: Basically: LatwPIAT, I think your behavior is you attempting to defend fiction supporting child abuse by using multiple arguments against its criticism that you don’t intend to serve any purpose other than to discourage the calling out of and criticism of such works. I also think your use of Zak S as an example of why we need to be less aggressive with our criticism of lovely things online is something you yourself either know is ridiculous or will didn’t ridiculous if you think about it again for a bit. I don’t know if this behavior is conscious or not, and in my behavior it often isn’t, but I challenge you to think hard about why you felt the need to make a series of posts that don’t serve any purpose other than discourage people from talking about the rampant pedophilia defense that exists in our culture, especially in certain online communities. I don’t judge you as permanently evil or anything for this sort of behavior, but I think you will find it’s wrong if you step back and consider your reasons for it. jakodee fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Nov 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 06:07
|
|
|
Okay, it occurs to me that I'm coming across as sketchy as gently caress because I'm doing the thing where I'm not laying out my position explicitly, but am instead explaining the positions of others who aren't active participants in the conversation, and it makes it look like maybe I have extremely gross views and am smart enough to know how gross they'll come off as, so instead I'm doing the devil's advocate plausible deniability dance. This is why I get called a creepy robot. So here's my position. I think Lindsay Ellis generally knows what she's talking about, and that second twitter thread I linked to by Jennifer Giesbrecht rings extremely true to me, especially the following tweets: https://twitter.com/cephiedvariable/status/1199416255557574659 (This specifically rings true to me because I have experience in other contexts of people who are made to defend themselves against accusations of moral impurity by disclosing personal information they ought to be able to keep to themselves, which is then used against them, although my experience mostly involves friends who are semi-closeted trans folk trapped between having their statements judged as the statements of a cis person or outing themselves, and who instead choose to just bow out of communities.) https://twitter.com/cephiedvariable/status/1199428829967724545 (No particular reason why that rings true to me; I just look at it and go "Yeah that seems about right.") I think if you write erotic Lydia x Beetlejuice fanfic because you entered the fandom when you were twelve via the cartoon, in which Beetlejuice was coded as a magical ghost-fairy, Lydia was coded as an ambiguously-aged highschool student (during a time when RL culture's approach to highschoolers in media was "Let's do lots of highschool sex comedies"), and the two of them were coded as a couple, you don't actually have anything to apologize for (even if there was a trading card released with a cereal box promotion or something that said Lydia was 15), just so long as you post your fanfic somewhere with a tagging system so that people who don't want to see it don't have to. I think if the founders of Ao3 went through decades and two dozen or so iterations of "Fanfic community is set up with mechanism for removing fics, ostensibly for good reason, and then this is turned to the purpose of removing LGBT fics because the wrong person got themselves promoted to admin or turned to the purpose of removing all 'adult' fics because the company paying for the hosting got complaints from advertisers" and finally decided "gently caress it! Let's make a fanfic site without a mechanism for that, with a robust funding source so that advertisers can't get input on what gets pulled down, and with a the world's most robust tagging system to ensure that nobody has to see content they don't want to see," then regardless of how I personally feel about underage dubcon crush/vore making GBS threads dicknipples fics (I don't like 'em), I am going to bow to those founders' years of experience rather than siding with jakodee, who in one post admits he's not familiar with the situation and in the next post insists he has all the answers. (That tagging system is why Ao3 won a Hugo.) But, the other thing is... yeah, I don't know if I'm right. Not knowing if I'm right is why I'm siding with the Ao3 people and not the people who hear Ao3 allows dubcon child erotica and dismissing it and everyone associated with it as trash. Also, see this poo poo here? jakodee posted:Actually LatwPIAT? Your use of Zak S as an example of why we should be less critical has pushed me fully into the “You’re a dishonest weasel trying to defend your favorite CP artists” camp. Notice how quickly we've moved from discussing antis to accusing one of the discussion participants of having "favorite CP artists" i.e. being a pedo themselves? That's a great example of why there's such a pushback against antis, even in the context of antis who are mostly calling out acceptable targets. It always leads to this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 06:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
I’m pretty sure ‘we are capable of critically analyzing and criticizing works, and insisting authors can never be criticized for what they write is weirdly broad’ still stands even when one thinks the tagging system is good. Like, would we be arguing this if the fanfic were white nationalist propaganda? (Also, the fact that people can be overzealous about questions they have intense moral investment in doesn’t mean that they’re wrong to be invested in it. Jakodee, I’m broadly on your side, but chill - people here are defending an abstract ‘more harm will be done’ argument not works they personally think would be purged if CP were eliminated.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 06:21
|
|