I Feel Like The Pro Vs Anti Thing Is Kind Of Reductive? Like It's More Than Just Shipping And Morality

I feel like the pro vs anti thing is kind of reductive? Like it's more than just shipping and morality after a certain point, it kind of just becomes censorship vs anti-censorship? And I feel like if it were talked about like that discussions would be easier/actually result in something?

Like I'm very anti-censorship, but some stuff is gross to me personally, but do I think people shouldn't be able to make stuff? No, it's up to me to not read it.

Like, if we remove the whole morality thing from shipping exclusively we can probably have an actual discussion about if people sharing certain stuff does cater to pedophiles or whatever, and the stuff about "it's only okay if you're traumatized" being kind of icky, and actually come to a productive solution? I don't know if this makes sense.

The issue in trying to boil down the current concept(s) of proshipping and anti-shipping to detached semantics is that proshipping, in becoming nuanced and an umbrella term, has voided itself of the capability to become "just" anything.

Proshipping has also expanded to encompass not just fandom and fictional content, but reality too, largely out of necessity because a core component of the "anti" rhetoric is you are what you create/consume. Thus proshipping now no longer singularly refers to fiction and fandom, but to you as a person, your values, and how you behave in life outside of the internet.

Like I'm very anti-censorship, but some stuff is gross to me personally, but do I think people shouldn't be able to make stuff? No, it's up to me to not read it.

This is being proship at its most basic definition. A common misconception about proshipping is you have to actively support, consume or enjoy the content to which its being applied in that instance, and that is simply false. The amount of times I've seen "antis" make a post saying they're not proship, but... And then what they proceed to state is exactly what proshipping is at its core is laughable. Its simply the broader label and some variable definitions they refuse to be linked with.

In terms of whether content created would "cater to" certain demographics... If you want to start that argument, that would only feed into censorship and a sanitized world where you can't let kids play with nerf guns and everyone has to walk around in head to toe shrouding garments to avoid "catering to" perverts and pedophiles. Its redundant to say; "but this caters to pedophiles!" when literally all a pedophile has to do is look out of their window. Or load up Google. Or turn on the TV. Children and children in various states of undress are everywhere. A mother taking her son into a grocery store could be catering to a pedophile.

I hate to say it, but Law and Order: SVU actually has some very good episodes depicting just how truly varied stimulants are to people with active, dangerous paraphilias. Everyone loves to say that pedophiles are only stimulated by X type of depiction of children, but that is truly, truly not the case. Walking past a child on the street can be enough for that pedophile to fantasise about that child. And what is the solution there? Lock all children up in windowless buildings until they're eighteen? Is it then unethical for parents to take their children outside knowing at any moment a pedophile can look at them and fantasise about them?

Likewise, that would still be a moral argument, because you're intrinsically arguing if that person is "wrong" for creating content with the acknowledgement that a pedophile could/will read it, and seek stimulation from it. You're trying to discern the morality of producing something which has the capability to cause, mimic or lead to active harm.

There's also the concept of "radical" proshipping which even I, myself, disagree with on certain levels and points.

Unfortunately, the proship vs antiship argument will never have an actual solution, because it technically isn't a problem, its just two opposing perspectives on ethics, morality and personal comfort, which you cannot force a change in. Likewise each definition fluctuates and is so heavily nuanced that they overlap in ways you cannot simply tear apart and enforce into two defined boxes. You can argue the merits and validity of as many points as you like, but often when someone is tying the issue to who they are as a person and to a reflection of themselves in the public eye, they're not going to want to change to a stance that would be perceived as "wrong."

I do agree with your overall desire for broader and varied discussions, though. I agree that sometimes each side gets stuck on a pinhead argument that becomes a carousel of the same points over and over until it collapses and turns into arguments and insults and accusations. Its part of why I started this blog, to try and help facilitate open, nuanced discussions about the true near boundless nature of proshipping vs antishipping, and to try and at the least help each side clearly see and understand the opposite's perspective, even if they don't agree with it.

There's less a "solution" to proshipping vs antishipping as there is finding a semi-stable middleground between each side maintaining civility within communication, and understand and accepting that there's nuance and overlap between both perspectives.

Because there's a difference between civil discussion on the factual nature of something and telling someone when their views are blatantly bigoted (i.e; "all gay people should die") vs telling someone to kill themselves because they wrote Stefan x Damon Salvatore fanfiction.

Harassment =/= any and every negative response or neutral correction to something.

I'll admit, perhaps "call out" was aggressive phrasing. How about we try; "point out." "Educate." "Initiate civil corrections and/or discussions." "Respectfully challenge a bigoted or incorrect statement with intent to correct it or explain why it is bigoted/incorrect."

If I say to someone;

"Hey, just so you know, this information in your post in incorrect." "Actually what you're saying is harmful transphobic rhetoric so unless its your intention to be transphobic, you should consider finding alternate statements or take time to recess and evaluate your opinion." "It might be better if you allow people with more knowledge on this subject to speak rather than speaking from a place of limited understanding."

That is not harassment. And that is the intention of my statement. I hope you understand now. My apologies if my phrasing in one paragraph prompted you to misinterpret the entirety of my post.

Anti-censorship simply means the inherent freedom of something to exist. It does not mean that it has the inherent freedom to exist without response.

I also genuinely can't get over you saying misinformation should remain uncorrected as long as the original poster is happy. Like. What a way to ruin any outstanding point you might've had otherwise.

(Also, likewise, I was not solely referring to fanfiction in the matter you seemed to imply. I am referring to all content as a whole, because harassment is not and has never been limited to just fanfiction, although its a frequent victim.)

It might help you, perhaps, to re-evaluate your understanding of harassment and what it entails. Harassment is a specific type of behavior with a specific type of intention, not just literally saying anything that isn't positive.

Actually there's nothing wrong with blocking or reporting people, deleting comments and refusing to respond/engage with hate and baiting on any level whatsoever. They are not owed your time or explanations. They are not owed your energy. You are not immature or incapable for choosing to refuse to engage instead of choosing to argue and expend energy.

Obviously if you're making uneducated, incorrect or bigoted content then yeah, be prepared for people to call you out and challenge your statements and views, but I'm talking in general.

Hate comment on your fic? That's cool, baby. Just delete it.

Someone's trying to bait you into arguing about your stance on something? Whatever. Its all groovy. Block 'em.

You got a clear visual that someone's just gonna keep coming back at you? Have a report button. Its free. I'll give you as many as you need.

You don't need to facilitate that. You don't need to see it. You don't need to spend your time trying to challenge someone who's obviously either in a bad mentality or is just a shitty person as a whole. You simply Do Not. You don't need to allow that person to have a space and a voice within yours. You don't need to allow them to be able to spew their bullshit for you and everyone else to see outside of their own little bubble.

Next time you get a hate comment on AO3? Wham, bam, its gone, ma'am. No thank you. Anon hate mail? Not in this household.

You have no obligation to facilitate any of it, and anyone who tries to force you into thinking otherwise is simply incorrect. Their action does not inherently demand your reaction. Plus, its objectively more hilarious to know that the sole outcome of their spitefulness and negativity is them getting even angrier because you're refusing to engage and refusing to feed their need for a response.

Disliking characters who aren't straight, white, cis men isn't inherently/always racism, internal prejudice, misogyny, homophobia, ect and every time I see valid criticism of a character being met with a siren wail of "bigotry!!" I want to physically transform myself into that Benfleck smoking meme.

Here's the thing. Derek Hale dying would objectively suck no matter how or why, but character death can have significant meaning and can actually be impactful to the storytelling, the character's development, ect.

As a poorly done but logical example; Billy Hargrove. An abused, terrified boy who, ultimately, chose to be good and chose to willingly sacrifice himself to save people who objectively were just going to happily let him die. Billy went down fighting. Billy, for once, made his own choice out of a lifetime of being controlled by others. Billy, who had no idea about the supernatural, used his last moments to stand up to a terrifying interdimensional creature who'd used him like a meat-puppet in a fight he knew was going to be his last.

Meaningful. Impactful. Relevant to Billy's characterisation and backstory, regardless of if you liked him or not.

But Derek Hale's death means quite literally scant fuck all. It was death for the sake of death. It was solely for shock value and it was two-dimensional and it was nothing short of boring, lazy writing, and one final fuck you to the fans that Jeff Davis seems hellbent on shitting all over.

Jeff Davis effectively ensured that by the end of the show Derek Hale was not a significant character. He wrote him off as basically another pack-adjacent character in the movie too; just a single dad minding his business, trying to raise his son, occasionally helping out his old buddy Mr. Sheriff. He was objectively in the movie solely to die and once again uplift Scott McCall by providing him with a son for his happy ever after and to kick all the Derek Hale fans right up the patoot.

Remove Derek from the movie, and nothing changes. Eli could've just as easily been Isaac's son, or Jackson's. There was no solid basis for Derek's presence in the movie, or his death, other than shock value and the effective culling of the character because Jeff Davis is a tiny little man who physically can't stand when his fans don't fall into rank. And, of course, the pull of having Tyler Hoechlin back and having Derek Hale back. What's a Teen Wolf movie without the DILF factor, right?

He physically only created the movie because he couldn't stand the fact that the potential for one was there, and that someone else could produce it. He couldn't even think up an actual plot for the movie outside of a grossly predictable, flat recycling of previous villains and a frankly embarrassing reincarnation of the original pack.

The villain is recycled and completely voids the logic and lore set out by the show, and when you think about it is actually also just a boring recycling of the Kate Argent Werecreature plot, too. Main villain is killed, somehow comes back X amount of time later as a werecreature hellbent on revenge.

If you want another example of a poorly done, 'just because they can' death, look at Dean Winchester. Look at Eddie Munson. Look at Charlie Bradbury. Narratively redundant, shock value, stick-it-to-the-fans deaths that make me want to chew live wires.

The onus of responsibility is on you, the reader, to ensure you're prepared to encounter - or avoid - content in whatever capacity. And here's a fun little fact for you:

You can filter by kudos and other criteria in order to find works that likely fit your "quality demands."

You can look at rec lists. Collections. Bookmarks. You can ask for recommendations from other users who share similar standards and interests to yours. And, yes. That means every. Single. Time. Because again; if you have specifics you want, its not up to the author to jump through hoops to bestow their works at your heels like a peasant to a 14th century King. Its up to you to go looking for it.

If you're so bothered by other writers and their "mediocre" content, here's a suggestion.

Write it yourself and stop complaining.

"Then just…. don't skim the unfiltered character tag? Filtering out a NOTP, a rating, and a few major squick tags takes literal seconds and is how the site is meant to be used."

Do you fucking hear yourself? Do you have any idea how many ships there are, especially in a big fandom? Am I supposed to astral-project to imagine every single combination of characters I'd find disturbing to read about? Every possible setting? And if I miss something, it's on me? Are you for real?

And hell, that's not even a solution. It's not that I would never read an incest fic, I would. It's not that I would never read that particular incest ship or that particular rating, I would. So why the hell would I filter for it? But shit like that is something you need to ease into, and that means not dumping it in the summary or tags that you read specifically to decide if the actual fic is worth it.

What's squicky can be so heavily context and situation-dependent that it is ridiculous to the max to act like authors are free to be as gauche as they like in tags and summaries, and it's readers' fault if they get majorly squicked by something they wasn't quick enough to "argh my eyes my eyes stop reading" on.

Let me say this even more bluntly:

I love reading rapefic, it's a major kink for me. When it's written well, and in a specific way. Ergo, I'd still absolutely hate it if it were commonplace for people with rapefics to make the summaries and tags explicitly vivid. Please, in all your apparently infinite wisdom, go ahead and tell me which combination of filters I should use to not get upset by shitty summaries while skimming fic summaries for something I'd actually like!

Poor or gauche writing in and of itself can make something squicky or potentially upsetting.

So screw everyone who replied to this post with some variation of "Just get better at Not Reading Things while reading". You can't always predict what you'll find squicky and you can't filter for "this thing I only find squicky when it's not done in a way I subjectively find tasteful". Maybe don't be so intent on making the archive miserable to use, mkay?

--

Sorry to ask this. Did you block an account called glitchedcodex recently? They aren't a bot

Its more than likely, unfortunately right now this account has been fed into a script for bots, so I'm being followed by 50+ a day. I've been blocking any accounts fitting shared criteria.

My apologies; I'll unblock now, please feel free to refollow/tell them to refollow if they're still wanting to, I'll keep note!