fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4477 ]

[ SECRET POST #4477 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4477 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

[American Gods, season two]

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

[James Gunn]

__________________________________________________

07.

(Riverdale)

__________________________________________________

08.

[Gotham, Penguin/Riddler]

__________________________________________________

09.

[one direction]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 30 secrets from Secret Submission Post #641.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

lol I notice how you won't answer anyone else's questions because you know they're right and this guy is doing literally nothing wrong

In general, I stand by what I said.

I don't know who the specific guy is or what ship it is, so I can't answer those questions. I know we have people on Flightrising who will probably fill us in with the details. I'm also kind of operating under the assumption that OP - who is apparently on the guy's side in the whole argument - probably would have mentioned it if it was a 17 year old and a 19 year old since it would clearly be a relevant detail, instead of describing them as "kids". But who knows, maybe not.

Holy fuckin shit, dude, you came in here snapping about how this guy is "literally attracted to children" and you don't even know the situation in the slightest?

You need to take about four hundred seats. That is some serious shit to be bandying around with no information, and it is grotesque of you do it. I'm not kidding. You're just throwing gasoline on a fire because like-- what, you can? It makes you feel better? What the fuck, I'm reeling.

I am responding to a secret that describes him that way. Go yell at OP if you want to yell at someone for "throwing fuel on the fire".

Nope, I'm yelling at you because you completely forewent any sort of critical thinking or question-asking and instead doubled down like you knew exactly what was being said about whom. It's disingenuous behavior at best, and genuinely damaging at worst.

Don't ever do this to anyone else again.

What did I do to anyone? The secret doesn't even name whoever the person is, and they've already been publicly accused of, and banned for, pedophilia. OP described them as "liking fictional ships with underage characters." If that person likes those ships because they are attracted to those characters, they're a pedophile. I stand by that. Many people, here and elsewhere, seem to disagree with that idea in principle, and agree with OP, who thinks that the reason that it's not pedophilia is because the characters are fictional. I think that's totally wrong and I reject it entirely.

If OP misrepresented the situation, and neglected to mention some other reason that it's not pedophilia, that's entirely on them, go yell at them for it. Based on the facts of OP's post, the behavior described is pedophilic.

Except the secret doesn't say anything at all about attraction.

No, but it does OP address the point of why they think the point isn't a pedophile. OP specifically mentions that the reason they think the guy isn't a pedophile is "fiction is fiction". OP does not mention that "Oh, also, the guy isn't attracted to the characters involved at all, he just ships them in a cute child-like ship sort of way". I think it's unlikely that you would raise the point in the first place, and then not mention the much stronger reason that the guy isn't a pedophile, and just skip over the much bigger reason that the people you're complaining about are being unreasonable. If you think that's "grotesque" and "a complete absence of critical thinking", OK.

Liking fictional ships with underage characters =/= liking fictional underage characters. You should do something about your poor reading comprehension skills.

"What did I do to anyone?"

You jumped to conclusions without knowing additional information about the person in question, just like many people do when it comes to anime shipping. Your responses are a part of a larger problem - casually accusing people that enjoy fictional relationships of one of the worst crimes in society.

What I said was correct based on the facts presented in the OP.

And you REALLY shouldn't base your opinion on someone solely by a handful of sentences in a little picture, buddy. Especially not when it comes to a topic as dire as this. You're not the first person who has spouted bullshit like this - and a lot of people are annoyed with this all too familiar game.

What you did is like hearing someone say “I hate dogs” and yelling “It’s WRONG to say that all dogs should be put to death, fuck you animal abuser!”

Nah, it's more like hearing someone say “I like dogs” and yelling "That animal abouser wants to fuck his dog!"

I'm genuinely too angry to get my thoughts properly in line, so this will be the last I respond to you, but this entire comment just sidestepped everything I said. You're taking half-formed snippets of information from a third party, filling in spaces on your own, and using it as 100% unassailable truth that no one could ever disagree with unless they're one of them. This kind of thinking (and, more importantly, reacting) is dangerous. The OP could very well have misrepresented the situation, and that is why we use critical thinking to wonder whether things are being portrayed fairly or what other viewpoints might be applicable, instead of just... black-and-white hammering down on one possible avenue.

I highly, desperately advise you to seek out voices of people who have been damaged by this kind of "discourse" (you'll find plenty on Twitter), and listen to their sides of their story. Because as-is, you're contributing to a very, very real problem.

I'm sorry that you're angry!

I think part of using critical thinking is trying to understand the motivations and biases of the people involved. If OP had been coming in here complaining about this user and calling them a pedophile, it would be one thing. But they didn't! OP is specifically defending the user, does not think the user is a pedophile, and is criticizing the people who do think the user is a pedophile. That makes it much less likely - to me - that they're going to misrepresent the situation in a way that makes the user look worse than they are. It makes it unlikely that they're going to neglect to mention an obvious, significant point that makes the users they're criticizing look more unreasonable. And, really, someone in anime fandom being sexually attracted to underaged characters is not at all a rare or unheard of thing in fandom.

And then, at the same time, OP does cite a specific reason that they think the user is not a pedophile - because "fiction is fiction" and liking underage characters doesn't make you a pedophile. It's true that "liking" underage characters in a non-sexual sense doesn't make you a pedophile. But I believe that liking underage characters is a sexual sense does make you a pedophile, and a lot of people seem to radically disagree with that. And that's where I don't think that there's a lot of grey area, and where things really are pretty black and white. The grey area is "you're not attracted to them" or "they're not underage characters". And if OP is writing about someone being accused of pedophilia for "liking" "kid" characters, and what OP really means is that the person is non-sexually interested in 17 yo characters, that's not a reasonable interpretation of what they said.

NAYRT but holy shit you are making a whole lot of assumptions about a situation you know jack shit about.

Yeah go fuck yourself and get off your high horse. What someone likes IN FICTION means absolutely jack shit about them in real life. My friend loves shoot-em-up games and can happily play them for hours on end. He also won't even kill bugs that get into his apartment, he'd rather catch them and take them outside instead.

And I certainly hope you don't think that women who enjoy noncon in fiction actually want to be raped, do you?

You do realize accusing someone of being a pedophile isn't like talking about the weather right?

I don't completely agree with you on this, but I also think a lot of what you're saying here is somewhat valid, and is, at the very least, worthy of discussion.

I'm sorry people ITT have such a hair-trigger on this issue that they are unable to perceive what you are saying clearly, and without going ape shit on you.

People are discussing it. And many disagree with what was said - the post was hurtful and harmful in a myriad of ways.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-04-10 13:22 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-04-10 13:28 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-04-10 19:00 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-04-10 19:38 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-04-10 13:30 (UTC) - Expand

Note that saying "I'm sorry that you..." is not actually an apology.

Not to add to the dogpile, but here are some other parts of critical thinking you might be missing:

As mentioned, in your original comment you seemed to assume that shipping fictional child characters means being attracted to those characters, a connection that doesn't make sense. You later backpedaled this above by adding "If that person likes those ships because they are attracted to those characters", which is a big "if" that you basically just assumed was true in your original comment.

Second, even if you were right in making that assumption, there are STILL serious issues with your argument. Another assumption you made is that being attracted to fictional child characters is exactly the same as being attracted to real children. This is how you defined pedophilia -- as the attraction to children real or fictional. This is highly debatable because (1) child characters are often not realistic or child-like, and often people are attracted to them BECAUSE they have traits that aren't child-like, and would find real-life children deeply unattractive. To extrapolate from someone's fictional crushes to their real-life tastes is highly questionable in all situations, including this one. You're jumping to conclusions. (2) A lot of people develop crushes on child characters when they're children. As they age, this crush becomes less appropriate (and most people are aware of that!), but it's not like crushes 100% always go away. By your argument, any person who was attracted to a child character and can still remember what that attraction feels like is a pedophile. This is a ridiculous way to define pedophilia. (3) Child characters are fictional and incapable of being hurt by attraction. Conflating people who are attracted to fictional characters with people who are attracted to real children is associating people who don't harm people with a group of people who society views to be one of the most harmful. You were irresponsible in making this connection, as people have pointed out. (4) Child characters are fictional and don't age normally. They can be aged up in imagination or stay frozen in time forever. Due to the nature of their fictionality, even the age of a fictional character isn't a real thing with real physical significance. It is a fictional part of a fictional being. For all of the reasons above treating child characters exactly the same as real children is (IMO) a truly stupid position with very weak justification, and I strongly think you should rethink your position of "things really are pretty black and white". Give me a reason why that makes sense to do.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-04-10 20:41 (UTC) - Expand

you must have realized before you hit send that "i'm sorry that you're angry" is incredibly passive aggressive, right?

There's a difference between liking a fictional underage ship and feeling attracted to the characters. The latter is perhaps pedo, but liking two characters together and wanting them to love each other and whatnot doesn't make anyone a pedo even with underage characters or else everyone on this goddamn planet is a pedo. I still ship a pair when they were thirteen, twenty and forty and so on. I don't care about their age or gender and I'm not attracted to them but their relationship. There needs to be a separation of these.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only