[ SECRET POST #6051 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6051 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Buffy the Vampire Slayer]



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.
[Smosh Youtube channel]



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.


























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 24 secrets from Secret Submission Post #865.
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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

"Anti" is a catch-all term for people who attack other fans for liking things that they claim should be forbidden or heavily restricted, with the weird claim that if abuse was not ever represented in pictures or stories, it would disappear or at least diminish. They are notorious for dogpiling fan creators and accusing them of being responsible for IRL abuse. Some of them are also notorious for claiming that they'd be fine with fic made by "survivors" of whichever variety of abuse they normally don't want to see anyone write, with the patronizing assumption that only people who've been victimized already can be trusted to understand that abuse is bad. But, of course, aside from the fact that most survivors do not want to out themselves or spell out what happened to them (and antis assume that anyone who doesn't is a degenerate rapist), they can also find any excuse for why this particular justification is not good enough.

In short, these are people who should never be allowed to exercise any power over what others say and do. They've found a way to cloak their unpleasantness in moralizing, but increasingly, I see people pushing back against their bullshit.

Ironically, they've made it much harder to have intelligent, open-ended conversations about ethics in fiction. And that's a shame, because I'd like to be having more of those, too. But if you want to make sure you're not behaving like an anti, the best advice I can give you is: don't hurt real people over your disagreements about fictional people. Don't assume you can judge what kind of person another fan is based on whether the characters they love are nice, or whether the relationships they like to imagine are legal or widely approved-of in your country. Be wary of anyone who acts like being moral involves shaming and harassing other fans, or like the world would be a much better place if there was more stringent censorship. And pay more attention to what you see them do than to what they say they're doing.

[(Anonymous)]

"But if you want to make sure you're not behaving like an anti [...] Don't assume you can judge what kind of person another fan is based on whether the characters they love are nice, or whether the relationships they like to imagine are legal or widely approved-of in your country. Be wary of anyone who acts like [...] the world would be a much better place if there was more stringent censorship."

I mean, that's kind of what I'm talking about. There's a really, really wide range of stances you're including there.

I've always been an edgy-ship enjoyer, and I like fiction that deals with really thorny, even abusive interpersonal conflict. I love a good Dark Themes. But, I'm sorry, I am going to judge people who make, like, CP. I find that really disturbing, and I am human and can't help but make some assumptions about the people who do. I'm not going to go after them, but I'm definitely going to give them a wide berth. I think expecting people not to be disturbed by that is asking a bit much, tbh.

If there are only two opinions to have, then I'd either have to disavow my edgy ships or be okay with all sorts of extreme stuff, and I feel like that's a really weird, almost anti-intellectual thing to ask of people. And frankly I think it's as weird to lump in having a line with content with full on purity censoring as it is to lump in mildly edgy stuff with full on CP. What good does that do us, other than giving us all a great excuse to be very nasty to each other?

[(Anonymous)]

Why the hell are you bringing CP (well, correctly CSEM or CSAM) into a discussion of fiction? Child porn is REAL and that's what makes it evil, the fact that a real child has to be abused to create it. It's photos and videos documenting a real molestation

Text cannot be CP.

[(Anonymous)]

This.

Conflating fiction and CP is very typical anti rhetoric, by the way.