fandomsecrets | [ 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

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.

So you're saying that despite the fact I have openly expressed my former status as a semi-anti, I...wasn't anti enough to qualify? I mean, current me, who is very much not an anti even of the semi variety, would like to think that's true, but I don't think it is.

And I'm certainly not the only one of my kind I've ever seen. I think there are way more semi-antis out there than frothing at the mouth antis. It's just the latter kind is a lot more vocal and a lot more visible, by their very nature.

DA

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

That's a nice statistic you made up. Did you know 98% of made up statistics are actually completely inaccurate?

What I considered "civil criticism" at the time when I was a semi-anti was in fact civil criticism. No ill-wishing or threats. No casting aspersions or speculating on a person's character. No ad hominem of any kind. No swearing at people. No viciousness.

*shrugs* Believe me or don't. It changes nothing. But if it bothers you that someone can occupy any sort of gray area in this whole thing—can be wrong without being viciously and blindly dogmatic about it—that need to square everything away to black and white is all you.

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.

[ 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