[ SECRET POST #6548 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6548 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Dungeons and Daddies]



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 24 secrets from Secret Submission Post #936.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - 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

[fscom]

05. https://i.imgur.com/4q8M75B.png

Transcript by OP

[fscom]

Collapsed for length.

[(Anonymous)]

Consider, perhaps, you are waving a red flag in front of a corral full of bulls with mid- to late-2010s tumblr PTSD.

You have internalized "don't like? don't read!" Anti culture at large, however, takes a "See something? Say something!" approach and takes it to a very aggressive extreme.

If you're hanging around proshippers, consider, perhaps, you are also a proshipper. You're pro- people shipping what they want and leaving people alone.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay but "I self identify as an anti" is a hilarious phrase.

[(Anonymous)]

You can identify all you want but you are not an anti. Just not liking a trope/ship/kink, doesn't make you an Anti (big A). I don't like trans!character fics. I'm not anti that fic. I just scroll by it.

[(Anonymous)]

You can be religious in your own private life without pressing your beliefs on others, and when people call "evangelicals" or "fundamentalists" annoying and harmful, the quietly religious person who does NOT try to force everyone else to follow their way of life isn't who they're talking about. Even if both are religious or have very similar personal beliefs.

Likewise, MOST people find at least one or two things problematic or immoral in fiction, especially if those things are portrayed as ideal or good. But most people also realize they can block and move on and let other people have fun on their own. When people call "antis" annoying and harmful, the quiet block-and-move-on people aren't who they're talking about. Even if both have personal objections to very similar things.

You are the quietly religious person walking in and announcing you "self identify as an evangelical fundamentalist" and being confused and upset when people ask if you knock on doors and why you want to legislate women's bodies. I'm not saying you're wrong to do this. You CAN identify however you want to. However, everyone else isn't wrong to assume you're using the standard accepted definitions of those words instead of something else. The cutscene is unskippable for a reason.

I would genuinely suggest going ahead and not bringing it up in the future, for your sake. And, speaking as someone who does not bother with either proshipper or anti labels, and is perfectly capable of blocking and moving on without them, consider why "being an anti" is so important an identity label for you that you refuse to let it go.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I will concede that being morally against anything being portrayed in fiction is troubling and would make you someone is in our 30s and 40s wouldn't want to hang out with, even if your policy is block and move on. Although I would also ask yourself if you block and move on, are you really as morally against it as you think? Or do you just not want to read it? Being morally against something generally indicates that you make some efforts to get rid of it's existence.

[(Anonymous)]

So basically "woe is me, people are giving me shit when I say I'm part of a group that's pro-harrassment, doxxing, bullying and death threats over fiction even though I'm totally different you guys, I just want to label myself as part of that group anyway".

So excuse me if I don't exactly pity you - this is all on you.

[(Anonymous)]

"I self-identify as a TERF. I don't actually hate trans people though I have some issues with them but I don't actually SAY that out loud, I just ignore them. But somehow, people attack me for being a TERF just because I call myself one :( ". Lol.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree-to-disagree with your opinion, but I'm curious what contexts do you even need to mention you're an anti in the first place? I know last week anons on here argued that "antis who block and move on" aren't truly antis (which is an argument I don't care about, "anti" is often a prescriptive term), but as someone who is very mildly proship in the sense I disapprove of a lot of content, but don't think it should be banned except in extreme circumstances, antis like you are the rare breed I'm cool with. If you mostly hang around the 30-40+ crowd who are generally less discourse obsessed and chiller, why do they need to know?

[(Anonymous)]

Am I too old to get this?

Like...why does every element of your existence need to be labeled and be acknowledged in a way that you feel is adequate?

This reminds me of that In Living Color skit where Jim Carrey plays a dude who keeps announcing he's gay.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm in your preferred social age range and laughing at you

[dani_phantasma]

From what I've seen antis are just against certain things being portrayed in fiction at all and seem to believe it's morally wrong to do so and I just..... I don't understand why someone would want to identify with that label so much even when disagreeing with sending harassment. Like why is the label itself so important to announce.

Can't you just say "[topic] in stories is really upsetting to me so I avoid it" without calling yourself an anti?

A lot of people have issues with antis because of their vicious behavior, it's not like they're just some poor uwu group that is picked on unfairly for no reason. They're disliked for acting like the self appointed morality cops. Where as some proship people DO send harassment their stance isn't built on making it their business to stop people from doing something in fic. That's probably why people think harassment is more part of being an anti. Sorry but their behavior made it that seem that way.

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe you're just making this more complicated than it really is.

[(Anonymous)]

well isn't it JUST like an anti to think they can take a word, redefine it then try to gaslight everyone else into believing that this is what it's ALWAYS meant ALL ALONG.

I mean that's what they did with 'proship'

[(Anonymous)]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

As in, I'm a 30-40 year old fandom lurker who remembers what "pro" and "anti" actually meant. It was never a moral stance. It was always "pro" as in "I think people should be able to do whatever they want in fiction" and "anti" as in "I'm vehemently against [insert ship or fictional concept here]". Historically, an anti wasn't someone who was "anti-problematic" or whatever the new definition is supposed to be, it was anti-Specific-Ship-Or-Thing. Your type of anti decided to make it a moral stance and try to turn "proship" into "problematic ship", so as far as I'm concerned, you're going to keep being lumped in with the nasties.

[(Anonymous)]

"I believe fiction affects reality".

So do you believe people gets shoot for real in movies?

[scissorsevered]

"I believe fiction affects reality" so do most proshippers; however proshippers believe that fiction does not have as strong of an influence on reality as you think. For example, society as a whole already understands that having sex with children is bad, therefore if someone sees such content in a fictional setting, they're already going into it with the belief that having sex with children is bad. It's not like people are fucking aliens unaware of any morality and that their entire worldview is spoonfed to them by media.

Unfortunately for you, the comments are proving your point, because you seem to have fallen into the rabbit-hole of thinking adults have the mentalities of toddlers and thus will immediately re-enact everything they see in fiction.

There's nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with certain ships, but outright believing people shouldn't be allowed to write about certain topics makes you sound incredibly immature.

[(Anonymous)]

The anon with the Christianity analogy covered what I wanted to say about this better than I could, but I also have to know - as a survivor of CSA, I am so curious how I am affecting reality with my underage and incest fics, I really really am.

[(Anonymous)]

"I'm an asshole and I side with bullies!"

"Wait, no, don't treat me like an asshole! I don't bully people!"

- You, apparently.

You've learned to shut the fuck up about how other people have fun with fic, how 'bout you shut the fuck up about *you* have fun with fic?

[(Anonymous)]

OP actively calling themself an anti is stupid imo, but people insisting that they're "actually proship" for simply not being pro-harassment is stupider, and not even just on the "stop trying to make people take on labels they don't want to take on" level.

OP's "moral objection" to "problematic" ships is contrary to what being proship is supposed to be about, and the fact that they think online harassment is not a useful response doesn't make them proship.

[(Anonymous)]

I feel there's a lot of things going on here. From the way you say it, it seems you are what we might call ideologically an anti (you believe depicting certain fictional content -- incest and pedophilia -- is beyond the pale and actively *causes harm* in the world) but you are behaviorally proship (your reaction to coming across people who create incest or pedophilic content, and possibly people who support the creation of such works, is to simply block and ignore). Ideology here is referring to your thoughts, feelings, personal beliefs, ideas, mental model of the world, etc. and behavior here is referring to concrete actions you take in the world.

You may not agree with this framing because, to you, both your ideology and behavior are consistent with being an anti. At the same time, however, it is clear that other people disagree and think that, if you are behaviorally proship and believe that blocking and moving on is the proper response to coming across people who write incest/underage, then you ARE a proshipper (this is why whenever you claim to be an anti, people ask about your behavior and on the basis of your behavior proclaim you proship). For the sake of clarity in this discussion, though, I would suggest just temporarily adopting this "ideologically anti" and "behaviorally proship" terminology so that we can distinguish these two things, even if you disagree with the framing.

I actually know a lot of people who are in your camp. However, most of them tend to identify as "neither anti nor proship" nowadays. I don't really think it makes a difference whether you identify as "anti" or "neither anti nor proship", though, because those people have the exact same problem you do -- conversations tend to go like this: "'Neither anti nor proship' -- what does that even mean??" "It means I morally judge people who write incest and pedophilic content but I don't go after them." "So you don't harass people. So... you're proship." "No. I am NOT proship. I do not agree with the proshipper position at all." "If you don't think it's okay to harass people over their ships, then you DO agree with the proship position! You are proship!" etc. etc. So it doesn't really matter how you identify, you're still going to get into the same problem.

To make a bit of progress on this circular debate, I think you may want to think a bit about WHY you don't harass people. Is it that you think writing/drawing incest and pedophilia is bad but it's just not THAT bad in the scheme of things? It's a mild bad, and so you're happy just letting people do it over there if they want, as long as you don't have to see it or interact with them? Is is that you think fiction can cause harms but overall, free speech is more important to protect than protecting people from the harms of fiction?

Is it that you WOULD harass people if it were more convenient and less time-consuming (i.e. the reason you don't harass people is because it's a lot of work and you don't have time)? For example, if an industrious fan in your fandom created a blocklist of everyone in the fandom who posted "p*do content" -- including accounts that only post that on a side account (i.e. it's not about having a quick way to avoid content you don't want to see show up unexpectedly on your dash; it's about never having to interact positively with someone you think is a "bad person") -- would you reblog it? Use it yourself? Quietly share it with others in your fandom? Call that fan out for harassing other fans?

Is it that you would harass people if it were cost-free to you personally? For example, if you and 80% of the fandom could successfully push out that one creepy writer who writes incest ships and everyone celebrated and considered it a job well done, would you participate in that campaign? Would you be happy it succeeded without a hitch?

The reason why I ask all these things is because for me, even someone who is a behavioral proship ("block and move on") type but also an ideological anti makes me very wary. They are loose cannons who I don't particularly want in my social spaces. I have no idea if they are people who 5-10 years ago WOULD have been the harassing anti, but the only reason they're not doing so NOW is because fandom wouldn't tolerate their shitty behavior. I have no idea if they're going to casually drop an opinion in front of me that if you've written an underage fic, you're a pedophile, which are fighting words (yes, I have written underage fic as an adult). I don't even know if the "behavioral proship" person actually IS a "blocks and moves on" type, or if they're the type who furtively tries to protect people from "pedophiles" and "abusers" by DMing people to warn them off artists who have drawn adult/child smut (VERY broadly construed; for example, drawing Sonic/Shadow smut is an example that I've seen people warn people off for) or incest ships, or who privately tries to get mods to ban such people from fandom exchanges, or will quietly try to get participants to boycott events run by mods who haven't banned those people from their events. I have no idea if the person who says they "block and move on" *really* only does that, or if they also take private actions that have the effect of ostracizing other fans -- I have no idea because I am just not privy to all of someone's actions, only their public behavior. So I have to be very careful and judge someone based on their ideological positions and their disposition.

Also, ultimately, my disagreement with "ideologically anti but behaviorally proship" people IS an ideological disagreement. The reason why I don't go after people who write incest or pedophilia is not because I am anti-harassment but because I don't think they have done anything wrong, and that matters. If I thought there were LITERAL pedophiles operating OUT IN THE OPEN in my fandom then heck yeah, I would push them out and work with other people to do so and warn people about them whenever I could. That's how *I* respond to actual pedophiles who show up in my spaces. Where antis and I disagree, though is whether "adults writing underage" is the same thing as "literal pedophiles operating out in the open in fandom." And it is very high-cost to level these accusations inaccurately.

To me, the anti ideology is not unrelated to the anti harassment behavior. In fact, they are EXTREMELY closely related. I would even say the anti ideology logically entails the necessity of the harassing behavior, depending on how literal the person is about their "incest = abuse; writing incest = abuse apologism" "writing children in sexual situations = sexualizing children = pedophilia" line of thinking. So I get very nervous when people say they think writing incest and underage is bad but that they just mind their own business and ignore people doing that. ...Why? Do you just not think pedophilia is a big deal? Or do you think people who do this aren't actually promoting pedophilia but doing some much more minor harm adjacent to that? Do you think writing incest and pedophilia IS a big deal but you also recognize that other people disagree so you're fine with just shutting up about it in mixed-company spaces? Do you think it is very bad and would gladly bully people out of fandom if you could find a contingent of people who agreed with you and helped you do that? These are all very different things, and I honestly can't tell from your secret which of these applies to you.

As people above also said, I would recommend thinking about why you feel compelled to publicly voice your moral stance on shipping incest and pedophilic ships if your main way of dealing with people with incest and pedophilic ships is just to ignore them. What is the purpose this is serving for you? Why feel the need to voice an opinion at all rather than just, well, block and move on? If you lived in the 2016 version of Tumblr, would you do more than just voice your opinion on these issues? There isn't really any "right" answer here -- I just think you need to be bluntly honest with yourself here about your motivations and what concretely your moral view is (both on the issue of fictional content/ships and also on harassment) and what are the consequences of that moral view, and whether that's being influenced by other social factors.

[(Anonymous)]

*Bluescreens at the idea of wincest fic making people go out and kill demons then have angsty sex with their hunky brothers*

[(Anonymous)]

Don't do fandom. You're not welcome, you're annoying and no-one likes you.

[(Anonymous)]

A thirty to forty year old person openly identifying as 'anti' is fucking hilariously cringe

bitch you too old for this shit