fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5208 ]

[ SECRET POST #5208 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5208 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

[Shoot 'Em Up (resized)]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Banana Fish]

__________________________________________________

05. [SPOILERS for Kids Baking Championship]

__________________________________________________

06. [SPOILERS for Big Little Lies S2]
[WARNING for discussion of rape]

__________________________________________________

07. [WARNING for discussion of suicide]

[ID: Invaded]

__________________________________________________

08. [WARNING for discussion of rape]

__________________________________________________

09. [WARNING for discussion of noncon (probably?)]
https://i.imgur.com/qhjWFCS.png
[image linked for above warning]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #745.
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

So two things

One, I think it is true that, to some extent, depictions of things in media influence societal mores and what we see as normal. There is some linkage - not a one-to-one linkage, but some chain of causality - between how things are depicted in the media we consume, and how we understand the world.

And two, I think even if there's not broad societal harm, people still have a right to feel revulsion towards certain topics and depictions of things, and to want not to be associated with them in any way. And in fact most people do feel revulsion towards things like pornographic depictions of fictional children.

People have the right to feel repulsed. Nobody is denying that. People just don't have the right to tell others to kill themselves, threaten them, dox them etc. over FICTIONAL THINGS.

I agree with that statement as far as it goes. But I think it also gets a lot trickier in practice.

For one thing, stuff like that - revolting behavior you see online - is not limited to any one group. I don't think that any of those things is unique to people described as antis. It's wrong in all situations, but I don't think it's limited to the antis.

And for another, I don't think that this is how the conversation in fandom actually goes. I don't think that the argument people make against antis is limited to just denouncing doxing / death threats / suicide encouragement, and nothing more. I think there's also a much broader argument about what content is and is not acceptable, how to define fandom and figure out different spaces that different people can be comfortable in, etc. And anyone who is critical of certain kinds of content can be described as an anti, whether or not they call themselves an anti, and then on the other hand you even have the proshippers who go pretty far the other direction. It feels like a bit of a motte-and-bailey fallacy: people can make broadranging arguments about fandom and content, but then when challenged on those arguments, they retreat to the motte that "well, surely everyone can agree that doxxing is wrong, and that's all we're saying!"

And anyone who is critical of certain kinds of content can be described as an anti, whether or not they call themselves an anti,...

Not in good faith, because what separated antis from the generations of critics were zero tolerance policies, block lists, and aggressive harassment.

Lmao I might be wrong, but if I'm wrong, I'm sincerely wrong. I'm not arguing in bad faith here but it is possible that I'm just mistaken.

But, to be clear, I'm not saying that people invented the category of "antis" out of whole cloth or anything like that; I'm saying that people don't always use the word in the strict, original sense.

Yeah, the whole "You can't criticise ANYTHING about fandom anymore without being labelled an anti" is a huge fucking strawman. The vast majority of proshippers don't actually do that. While antis (those who actually are antis) very often actively seek out things that bother them and try to bully those who don't agree with them into submission. That's what MAKES them antis.

Well, I don't know how I feel about this argument, because it feels like you're basically trying to have it both ways.

Like you're kinda saying, sure, some proshippers go too far, but they're not representative of proshippers in general. And sure, some people who get called antis don't go too far, but they don't really count as antis. It doesn't seem perfectly balanced to me - shouldn't what's good for the goose be good for the gander?

And let me reiterate, there are plenty of people who call themselves antis who are total dumb assholes and those people can go fuck off

DA but I've yet to meet an anti who wasn't pro-doxing or callout culture or ruining lives or death threats who put fictional characters over the health and wellbeing of real humans.

NA - Nice to meet you. I used to have anti opinions, and I wasn't pro-doxxing or any of that stuff. I thought DD:DNE stuff (which wasn't called that yet) was gross and that you were fucked up if you liked it. I supported civilly criticizing of that content (at the time I thought it was important to be visibly critical of it because I believed it was toxic), but I was against personal attacks, sending hate, doxxing, etc.

Eventually I realized I was wrong, and now I'm staunchly on the YKINMKATIOK side.

Oh dear, the whole point of the anti-sphere (one that they openly embraced) was that "civil criticism" was still enabling.

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

(Anonymous) - 2021-04-10 05:53 (UTC) - Expand

DA

There is a 99.9% chance that what you considered "civilly criticizing" is what every reasonable person would consider harassment.

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

(Anonymous) - 2021-04-10 05:36 (UTC) - Expand

i have literally seen people accuse those of not liking their favourite character of being 'antis', when disliking a character is a fucking normal thing. you might not want to believe that the word has been twisted away from it's original meaning, but it doesn't change that fact that it HAS. like to the point where i literally can't tell if someone popping off at someone for being an 'anti' is actually one, or just a person who doesn't like some fictional thing the accuser does. and 9/10 it's the latter these days.

it's gone the exact same way as every other word butchered by fandom: abuse, toxic, problematic, pedo. i no longer pay attention to those words used bc most of the time it's someone getting pissy at an individual having PREFERENCES.

Just because you've seen a few people use a word wrong doesn't mean its meaning has changed, especially when its original meaning is still widely in use and extremely relevant.

This

Especially when I've seen actual, looks-like-an-adult characters called "child-coded" because they aren't hypermasculine or busty as a porn model. If a female character is remotely not busty, because HEAVEN FUCKING FORBID women be FLAT, then she's ~*~*~*~*~child coded~*~*~*~*~ and same with scrawny boys sometimes!!!

It's especially egregious if the character is remotely disabled, and especially bad if there's even a WHIFF of autism.

yeah, this is why anything -coded is becoming as useless a term as pedophilia itself. people are relying hard on shitty stereotypes to justify calling anything coded and it ends up in absolutely awful places. I don't even know wtf you're supposed to do with an adult character who is said to be child-coded. what does that mean? what are we supposed to do with that?

I'm still not over the claim of Tony Stark being "female-coded"

.......what?

seconding the WHAT?

I wanna know what examples they used because.....he's V E R Y male tech genius coded.

AYRT

I don't disagree with the first part, actually! There are definitely things normalized by media that are harmful (colorism, euro-centric beauty standards, etc.), but where I start to have a problem is that I believe that the impact of personal likes and dislikes isn't as broad or serious as antis would have you believe. I don't think that a person being into, say, a ship with a large age gap, has any sort of influence beyond their own immediate sphere with that like. And an anti would crucify them for some "greater good", when all they've actually done is hurt someone that's done literally nothing wrong.

people still have a right to feel revulsion towards certain topics and depictions of things, and to want not to be associated with them in any way

I absolutely agree with this as well! There are topics that revolt me, upset me, trigger me-- and topics that are popular within fandom, at that. However, I do not have the right to tell others that they're not allowed to enjoy them because of my own revulsion. It's on me to mute and block those topics. Hell, I'm not even saying you can't personally judge-- god knows I do. But the line must be drawn at attacking others.

Most people already know that relationships between adults and minors is risky business at best and actively traumatic at worst — including the people who make content of that. Japan, the US, and the UK will all prosecute adults for having sexual relationships with minors. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, but I believe even romantic relationships are grounds for a case in one or more of the countries I listed.

As one example, underage prostitution in Japan is a marked issue... but if you go looking for it, the practice is often condemned even in hentai. In such works, the men pursuing such girls are portrayed as 1) ugly and bestial, with the girls are mindbroken beyond recognition, or 2) lonely and isolated, with no one else to turn to. Now granted, underage prostitution is a kink for a lot of people in Japan... but Japan is an extremely repressed country that has to wear a business suit and overwork itself into exhaustion day in and day out, so the temptation to throw all your responsibilities away for a taste of freedom is a strong one. Its sexual content is weird and taboo because it's an outlet, particularly for people who live vicariously through it instead of actually going out and seeking underage prostitutes. The people who are encouraged by fiction to go out and do abhorrent things are individuals who already couldn't differentiate between fiction and reality, which... is a community that overlaps significantly with antis.

Anyway, this tangent has gone on long enough already, but I'm fed up with people getting their knickers in a knot over cartoon — no, anime — characters while they remain blind to the exploitation of real children across the world, including in their own country.

where I start to have a problem is that I believe that the impact of personal likes and dislikes isn't as broad or serious as antis would have you believe.

Agreed. The analogy I use is accusing someone of destroying the environment because they use aerosolized hairspray. Like...really? That's where you're drawing your moral line? My dude, you wear blue jeans. Do you know how bad for the environment the production of blue jeans is? But that's mostly moot, too, I don't care that you wear blue jeans. It's the big shit we ought to be looking at if we want to preserve the planet.

"You posted a Dead Dove fanfic on the internet, with the appropriate tags attached; your gross kinks are poisoning society," feels similarly ridiculous to, "You use aerosolized hairspray; you're poisoning the planet, how dare you."

This is a great analogy and I might steal it.

Awesome, please do. :)

And you know what, it's entirely possible to be critical of media and dislike media and not be an "anti."

(Which to remind the audience, the point of distinction between antis and critics is that antis explicitly took a zero-tolerance approach to being fans of something.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #5208 ]

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

no subject

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

+1

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa

Re: tw: pedophilia, csa