#none of this is ethical and all of it is problematic

[strangesickness]

THIS IS A PRO COMICS/ROCKSTEADY/ETC. BATJOKES POST PLS DONT GET IT CONFUSED FROM THE MEME. I LOVE THEM <3

batman twt when they find out i'm reading batman comics where batman and joker are trying to kill each other and i'm kicking my feet and giggling

#okay but seriously what on EARTH is going on on batman twt rn #“yeah its okay to ship telltale/lego batjokes but comics batjokes is just disgusting” #what are you? my mother? i'll ship those freaky old men who keep stabbing each other all i want #“just ship brutalia instead” they are so not the same and you know it #like talia is my girl i love her to death why would you say that about her #also why are people acting like all of the other bruce/rogue ships are sunshine and rainbows like WHAT #all of them are toxic guys. guys. please look me in the eye and tell me you understand that. guys please. #guys please tell me you don't think beating each other to bloody pulps constitutes a healthy relationship please guys #guys you read comics about a rich guy who beats up mentally ill people and then throws them to the most unethical institution ever #none of this is ethical and all of it is problematic #batjokes #the joker #bruce wayne #batman #posts afflicted with a strange sickness

[just-antithings]

A fandom YouTuber I like is using the "Proship = abuse, and problematic ships" definition. And like It sucks because she's not a total Anti, (as far as I can tell.) she did say something along the lines of if you ship incest please social distance yourseves. the video this was in was on ethics of shipping villains, focused Bowser and Luigi. And like most of the video was completely fine. make your own story and all that. But when she went into the 'what is proship it completely derailed into a dumpster fire' like, I have no ships, it's just not my cup of tea. but to anti's I'm still one of the 'filthy proshiper's' because I like gore and intense tranformation stuff. it's just exhausting. I wish people would just let fiction be fiction. None of this is real. no matter the reason for writing 'problematic' stories. it will always be better than a real person getting hurt.

#mod erin #ask #just anti things #image #incest mention #gore mention

[chaifootsteps]

I’ve been seeing some people talk about you on Twitter, and all of these HH + HB fans being anti shippers is making me nauseous. How can you be pro-censorship, but are fans of animated shows with queer and sexual elements, while also supporting its creator who has done some stuff that these same people would consider “pro-shipping”? So backwards.

It’s also kind of worrying that they don’t classify genuinely abusive dynamics like Stolitz as “pro-ships” but consider a ship between two aged up adults problematic. And the sad part is most of these people are in their early 20’s, so they’ve had plenty of time to grow out of their anti phase but probably never will.

I can guarantee you that none of them give a single solitary shit about the ethics of shipping or what they claim to preach...if they did, they'd be holding Spindlehorse employees and people like Dani to the same standards, but of course they never do. Only Chai's the monster here.

#Anonymous #vivziepop critical #viv stuff #actual blog post

[acti-veg]

i genuinely feel like it’s impossible to be an ethical person without sacrificing pretty much everything which gives me any joy

i went vegan, but now i just keep seeing how i fall short in so many other ways. it seems like everything i previously enjoyed has to be boycotted. everything is problematic in some way.

I don't feel like 'ethical' is a thing anyone actually just achieves and becomes 'an ethical person' one day by being nice enough and boycotting enough companies; it's something we have to strive for. I agree with Aristotle that virtue is a skill, it's not something you just are, it's something you have to constantly practice and that won't always be easy. That is made all the more difficult by capitalism.

Whatever you want to buy that will give you joy that you know is harmful, consider whether there is a more ethical version. Can you buy it second hand? Is there a more ethical company selling the same thing? Can you replace it with something else? You can't deny yourself every pleasure, but if something that brings you joy is inherently harmful you can choose to examine whether or not you actually need it to feel happy, and if you really do, how you can mitigate at least some of that harm. It's about choosing your battles.

I can't not eat any vegetables or grains without a severe health impact for example, and I can't afford to buy everything locally and I can't grow it all myself, so I buy it from the supermarket, knowing that much of it will have been farmed in environmentally destructive ways using unfair labour practices. People who aren't even trying will bring that up as a reason why veganism isn't ethical, but it's a lot better than consuming that unethical produce alongside animal products, which require even more of that exact produce.

I can't be completely cruelty free but I can relatively easily boycott animal products, and I can pay for the extra 15% on coffee, chocolate and bananas to buy Fair Trade. There is just about no smartphone or computer that does what I need it to do that is also ethical, but I can buy them refurbished instead of new. I can boycott particularly harmful companies, while knowing that what I replace their products with won't be ethically perfect either - just better. None of these are hugely commendable acts or difficult sacrifices, but it all helps.

Being vegan does not make you a good person, it's just one stance on one particular issue, which is the exploitation of animals. I oppose exploiting animals and refusing to purchase products which engage in that exploitation is accessible to me, and so I do it. It's that simple. Plenty of my other purchases aren't ethical and neither will yours be, because a lifestyle free from any and all harm is not possible under capitalism.

So long as you're doing your best that's really all anyone can expect. We're going to pass through this world just once, so we should enjoy it while trying to leave our small corner of it a little better off than it was before we got there. Being kind to one another and living a good life may not always be easy, but its also not some great burden that robs you of any joy. It is the entire point of living.

#ask #vegan #ethics #philosophy #ethical consumerism

[heyifinallyhaveablog]

A Fan in Distress:

This post is basically being sent in vacuum, since this is probably the millionth of its kind on Tumblr relating to J.K. Rowling. I for one, could relate to Harry Potter for the longest time, until very recently, since once you try reviving an old favourite of yours, chances are, that you might love them, or find yourself in an ethical dilemma worse than ever.

TLDR: As of today, I harbour no ethical dilemmas. Whatever JKR has said and done in enforcement of her transphobia is problematic, and considering her power and position is inexcusable. Her social capital has already been elevated enough to shield her from the monetary effects of any backlash thereof. And we don't need to add to it.

Time to let the Harry Potter franchise rest in its grave.

---

Here, I'll confess my own sins. I'm an owner of all seven of those books. I've loved all of them more than life itself. I've loved Neville and I've loved Dobby. Completing my HP set was my first quest after I'd started earning, and I'd very recently bought the Harry Potter Almanac. It was actually after this purchase that YouTube (courtesy of its algorithm) threw up two podcast videos for me to listen to while working. (Yeah, I live under a rock, and, yes, apparently this issue of JKR being a transphobe hasn't really gained much audience in our country. I sincerely doubt that many people knew of this. They probably still don't.)

But yes, while ignorance may be blissful, it is certainly not desirable. And this is where those podcast videos by Contrapoints and Jesse Gender educated me about this issue. Particularly Aranock's testimony of her experience as a trans female, particularly with respect to the hatred and harassment she was subjected to after JKR's spiteful revelations actually shook me to the core. I felt despair, sadness, anger and yes, Guilt too.

I'D FELT CHEATED.

Because, you don't listen, JKR. For some reason, you've refused to listen, heed, and reason. This probably won't reach you, but I'm sure you would know what being unheard feels like, and here, you are, after having written of inclusion and consideration, love and respect, in your set of fantasy novels, standing on your millions that those novels got you, and yet, becoming the exact polar opposite of what you'd preached, and hurting millions in your obstinacy. You are now leading us to believe that your make believe world holds no good for anything apart from the age old viciously exclusionary social mores that people are fighting so hard against. Even to this day, even in countries as evolving as mine, even in countries as 'developed' as yours.

But yes, none of this makes any difference to you, does it? And as for us, we shall definitely adjust and cast aside something that millions of us grew up to love. For that, is the right thing to do.

So henceforth-

No Harry Potter merchandise for me.

No more Harry Potter books/films for me.

Harry Potter shan't be passed to my children from me. But yeah, Sandman certainly will.

An ashamed ex-Potterhead

#harry potter #jk rowling #anti jkr #transphobia cw #jkr #anti transphobes #we must do better #i must do better

[paperstorm]

The recent anon about fandom recovery after controversy made me want to ask something I’ve never been brave enough to but feel like you’ll give me an honest answer even if you don’t agree you’ll be respectful. Is it ok to like (love) Harry Potter? I know JK Rowling is problematic these days but those books, the films, the world she created meant (still mean) a lot to me but people say I shouldn’t be giving her money by buying merchandise and I shouldn’t like Harry Potter because she’s a terrible person etc. What do you think?

As for the Tarlos/Lonestar fandom I hope it will be ok. The majority of people I saw seem to be able to separate actors and characters so there is still a lot of TK love out there. As long as it doesn’t affect the acting and chemistry, and thus the characters we love then I think we’ll be ok. I don’t think it will (people have speculated they hate each other for years, or they’d lose the chemistry after Ronen got married and none of that has come to pass) so fingers crossed.

PS it would help if they went back soon. Has anyone been able to find out when they’ll start filming. I got hopeful when Ronen posted about getting in shape for S5 but that’s disappeared so I don’t know if they are still months away from going back. Natacha seems to be in the UK.

I am not any kind of authority on whether it's 'okay' to like anything honestly, I have my opinions but that doesn't mean I get to tell other people what they're allowed to like. Personally, as someone who grew up with Harry Potter and loved it to pieces and still has so much fondness for the story and the characters, I think that what matters in a boycott is not giving new money to the thing. The BDS movement as an example is very clear about like, if you already own an HP laptop (which I do), it doesn't make any sense to throw it out and buy a new one made by a different company. You already have it, you can't un-spend money on it. I think the principle holds for something like the Harry Potter franchise. I own the books, I own DVDs of all 8 movies. I have owned them for years, rereading them or rewatching them is not giving Joanne anything that she doesn't already have. That's very different from purchasing the new video games, and that, for me, is where I draw the line. I see no problem in continuing to love something that you already loved, my boundary is giving new money to it.

I do think it's important also to be able to recognize problematic content within media that you love. Again, I'm nobody's mother, I have no right to demand that everybody do this. But an important step that I take in my media consumption is looking with a critical eye at the things I'm consuming and recognizing where there are elements that are problematic that I need to be able to identify so that I don't let harmful ideas creep into my brain and make themselves at home without realizing it. Her portrayal of the goblins is incredibly antisemitic. Other problematic things exist like naming the Chinese character Cho Chang and having a 'race' of slaves that only one character seems to have an issue with. Harry Potter isn't the first medium to feature harmful tropes and it isn't the last either, and part of being an ethical consumer of any show/movie/book is putting in even a bit of work recognizing that and understanding that nobody is immune to propaganda. I still love Lone Star even though there is an element of copaganda to it. It doesn't mean you have to only consume content that is ethically pure - because that doesn't exist. It just means being willing to put in some work recognizing the harmful parts.

#anon asks #911ls asks #this is an older ask that it took me forever to get to #i'm assuming you know that there has been some posting about them starting soon

[cassatine]

I'm not done with the last episode of the season, but here's my first hot take anyway: SaB suffers from a lot of things, and one of these things is narrative cowardice — and more specifically, the refusal to have the Morally Good protagonist not only choose to do something ugly and #problematic but even to contemplate doing so.

Possibly the most striking example of that is having Vasily be offed by the Darkling’s shadow babies. Vasily’s function in the narrative is to serve as a foil to Nikolai: Vasily sucks, he’s a creep and a vocal Grisha hater — all in all it’s made pretty obvious letting him take the throne would be a bad idea. Nikolai, meanwhile, has as clear a case of one true king-ism as can be had, but he’s only the spare heir. In another story, it would have set the stage for our heroic protagonists to grapple with the fact that if they want to spare Ravka from Vasily’s rule and the civil war they fear he would make unavoidable, they have to do something about him, whether straight up killing him, imprisoning him, or something else — but thanks to Darkles conveniently doing the killing, our heroic protagonists don’t have to do something about The Vasily Problem. They don’t even have to start grappling with it at all.

Another example is, of course, Mal’s death (not that he's dead for realz lol). Now, I am a slut for trolley problem-style ethical quandaries, so something like ‘should I sacrifice someone I love to gain the power to save untold numbers of people’ is my jam, and I can honestly appreciate the frantic search for loopholes in the face of it. (As a slut for #problematic female characters, I am kind of disappointed that while Alina does her ‘oh woe be me for wanting power’ routine she never actually is shown to be tempted to off Mal for power, like if you’re gonna go there then fucking go there, but oh well win some lose some). Still, for the trolley problem-style ethical quandary to truly hit, the frantic search for loopholes has to end in failure, bringing Alina back to ‘should I sacrifice someone I love to gain the power to save untold numbers of people’ with the heavy knowledge that there are no loopholes and that this is a choice that must be made, however ugly and soul-destroying it may be. But since this is a story written by cowards, once again our heroic protagonist is spared making an ugly decision by none other than Darkles, who nearly offs Mal, leaving Alina with but a shadow of the OG quandary (‘now that someone I love is dying, should I use their death to save untold numbers of people or not’).

Using a villain to spare the protagonist from doing something ugly isn’t exactly original, nor is it wrong per se: it’s an old trick, and such tricks exist to be used. It’s just that those tricks shouldn’t be turned into a cheat code either, and repeatedly using a villain to spare a protagonist not only from doing ugly things, but from even having to contemplate having to do ugly things? That’s a cheat code, and it’s cowardice, and worst of all, it’s boring.

#shadow and bone #meta #i was going to make one (1) post about the politics but i am weak and bitchy

[sabakos]

🔥 fetishes

I feel like the word "fetishes" encompasses too many different things that aren't productive to group together? Like foot fetishes and feeder fetishes and ageplay fetishes all seem like they're doing different things for people, even if you distinguish them from kinks in that they're paraphilias, i.e. that you can't get off without them. To that extent, I'm not even sure if I have fetishes anymore per se, there's a variety of kinky flora and fauna and fungi growing in my brain and none of them are necessary for me. I guess I'm a yaoi fetishist? Seems wrong to say that though.

I don't think I have anything more spicy? "ageplay is okay no matter how young you decide to play it, and not only is incest play okay but you can ethically fuck your real life siblings so long as you're both adults and you both consent" would get me tarred and feathered in a variety of online situations and pretty much any offline ones, but I tend to think this corner of Tumblr I post in is at least as open-minded as me about most of those things.

Oh, and problematic take but I often find fetishes that I have no revulsion or attraction to comically funny. I was watching AI generated anime girl feeder gifs for a while a few weeks ago when it showed up in my recommendations and just... dying laughing. Oh well...

[aficionadoenthusiast]

probably the thing I miss the most from the ancient world (greece specifically) is that people were allowed to have flaws, even, and at some times especially, the gods

look at percy jackson (the series): the main character's fatal flaws are stuff like loyalty, hubris, grudge holding, and the inability to be selfish - while holding dire potential, none of these are flaws that would ruin someone's day or make a person outright objectionable; those flaws are saved for the villains/antiheroes: excessive wrath, the need to be better than everyone (this is different than hubris - hubris is the feeling, this is more the action), the need to attain a goal at any cost

and this aligns a lot with the modern view of how people should act: we can make mistakes as long as they're hidden and they don't happen again, but really we should just avoid making mistakes and try to be a person the most people would like

but in ancient greece: the great heroes had some pretty bad fatal flaws that by modern standards would get them a lot of hate: major anger management issues, impulsiveness so bad it harmed others many times, hubris that far exceeded annabeth's (and that's another point), excessive pride (again, different from hubris, and the extent was far worse than any pjo characters), and anxiety (which is coming to be tolerated in the modern world, but back then was just a flaw for a hero)

while a lot of these are very close or even match those of the pjo characters, the ancient heroes were able to let their flaws get much farther than any pjo character. the ancient world saw character flaws as a problem, yes, but they also saw them as unavoidable and just something that needed to be controlled whereas the modern world sees character flaws as personal failures

and we do this so much with public and religious figures: the second we see something we don't like from those we already don't like, we attack, but we're so quick to defend those we do like even when their mistakes go beyond mistakes and start becoming actual problems that need to be addressed (cough gop cough) - and again, we do this with everyone: politicians, the religious people we believe in, celebrities, our friends, etc - when what we really should be doing is acknowledging that no one is perfect and perfection is an impossible, unattainable burden

and i cite the gods because the ancient greek gods messed up so damn much, and the greeks didn't deny that. that's why there were so many gods, so that the different ones could pick up slack. but now, people act like they have to hold themselves to the same standards as the monotheistic gods we have now that are often seen as perfect. (I won't get into this because it seems disrespectful to me but the main idea is that we're not gods, so even if you view your religious figures as flawless, you don't have to be)

sometimes this modern view is a good thing such as in the case of morals and ethics or when people need to be held accountable for their actions, but too often this new perspective just puts unnecessary stress on people already doing their best, and it opens up opportunities for the people who are actually problematic to makes others feel like shit, plus it pushes the idea that everyone should be the same when people use this view to push their agenda

besides, part of the point of allowing people to have fatal flaws is that they have people around them that will help them control their flaws so they don't get out of hand. we see in the case of theseus when he was with his parents or ariadne until he was with pirithous, a horrible influence, and percy and annabeth, who each remind each other when they're being too prideful or letting their loyalty get the best of them, and nico and will when will reminds nico to let bygones be bygones.

anyway all this to say, take care of yourself. you don't need to be perfect. you don't even need to always do your best, and it's ok to make mistakes. the things you see as personal flaws are what make you spicy.

*the characters for the listed fatal flaws are tagged in order if you weren't sure which person I meant

#percy jackon and the olympians #pjo #percy jackson #annabeth chase #nico di angelo #jason grace #luke castellan #octavian #ethan nakamura #heracles #theseus #otrera #perseus #greek mythology #percabeth #solangelo #anti gop #ariadne #pirithous #anxiety #self care #notes on humanity #thoughts

[hopecomesbacktolife]

hey, just. friendly reminder that fanfiction is morally neutral.

yes, that includes smutty fics. yes, that includes self-insert fics. yes, that includes the fics you consider Problematic TM and the fics you don’t think are Smart or New. in fact that’s kind of why I’m writing this post.

I know we all love to talk about Themes And Narratives, but—and please listen to me very carefully here—you are not earning Good Place Points for only reading the kinds of fan fiction you feel are Smart or Only Focuses On The Important Things Like Themes.

fan fiction is morally neutral.

what I mean is this: no one is harming you, themselves, or anyone, by writing a fic about two characters having sex. (are you uncomfortable with the fact that I typed the word “sex”? hi, this post is about you. people have sex. and they write and talk about it. it’s seriously fine.)

no one is being harmed by self insert fics, by smutty fics, by anything not exclusively Smart TM about the fandom or analytically adding to it.

(and that’s not to say these two types of fics, that any type of fic, can’t have those elements— some of my favorite fic authors, my mutuals, my tumblr friends, write fic in these genres, and they also explore Themes and Emotions and analyze character traits and histories and write brilliant plots and incredible character arcs and yknow what, it’s amazing! it’s fantastic to examine what makes two characters react a certain way to x situation while also having them fuck nasty about it!) (and yes, I did just type ‘fuck nasty about it’ and I promise, that’s fine, too.)

what I’m saying, though, is that it doesn’t NEED that to, I dunno, somehow validate it into existing. it just Is. it just Exists. it doesn’t need an aspect you Approve Of TM in order to earn the right to be shared, to be written, to be published and commended and interacted with and read. it just. Is.

and I think a lot of especially younger, or newer, tumblr users especially get uncomfortable with that, and they unintentionally veer right (..ha) into self-censoring, puritanical behavior which is exactly what every person trying to ban books and generally kill art, wants. (and we’re not even going to examine in depth here, beyond mentioning it, the fact that policing, censuring, and banning art has historically and still today is being used to silence marginalized voices, so, I ask you to keep that in mind as you think on this, too, please.)

what I’m trying to say is this—if you personally don’t enjoy smut, don’t enjoy self insert fics, don’t enjoy a certain genre, that’s great, you do you! but, you must, must understand that this is not a moral stance. You are not objecting to a problematic practice, exploited workers, consent issues, labor crises… none of that applies, because no one in these stories is a real person. a story written about two Star Trek characters kissing on the bridge of the Enterprise is just that, a story. there is no actor for whose rights to fight, no wages to dispute fairness of, no ethical ramifications of scenes to discuss. these are Fictional People in Fictional Situations.

fan fiction is morally neutral.

and the moment you try to make yourself feel Better TM, More Correct TM, or—one of the ones I encounter the most—Smarter TM, by saying oh, I don’t read that kind of fic, I read the good kind, with thought in it—

you’re not only causing harm, you’re actively employing art censoring behavior. is that something that you want to do? I hope not. I certainly don’t.

next time you see a fic or a genre you don’t Approve Of TM, please remember the easiest way of exhibiting that— simply scrolling by or blocking a tag! If you’re on ao3, their system is incredible for niche content searches, and blocking a tag even here on tumblr will (most of the time) work.

I just., there’s so many better options out there for you than to… act like this. I believe you, we, all of us, can be better than this.

fanfiction. is. morally. neutral.

#my words #personal #saw one too many posts of people being ‘oh haha no I read the GOOD fanfic the SMART kind yknow’ and being so pointlessly self congratulatory #like babes there is so much joy in media content once you stop feeling shame or moral superiority about it #I just. had to put this out there #especially because like. so many. soooooo many. of the people who say those things. are just. so thinly veiling actual like bigotry beneath #‘oh haha I don’t like ship fic’ to ‘well actually it’s just slash fic’ to ‘gay people having sex is gross’ see what I mean. it’s a pipeline #the ‘smut fic is gross lol’ to ‘actually talking about sex at all is bad’ to ‘hi I’m anti choice’ pipeline is. more real than u might think #and I say this as someone fucking raised in all the problematic bigotry. but like babes you cannot flourish like that sorry! #anyways it’s just like. so much of this is just thinly veiled censorship biases or self discomfort unexamined or latent prejudice #and it’s so pointless too like babes smut fic has existed since ever you are not going to stop it from existing now #and in general hating on a fic is just.. kinda pointless! there’s so much fic in the world you can just go find the kind you enjoy instead #anyway let’s hope this one does not break containment 🫣 I have walked the puritan walk I do not need them heckling me lmao #fanfiction is morally neutral

[muchymozzarella]

I feel like I gotta mention I was a big fan of Mr Beast before and not so much now, but also like. I cannot pretend he doesn't help ppl because he absolutely does. Especially early on when he was simply spending money as fast as he could earn it by straight up giving it away. I found that charming if uninformed bc none of it was sustainable and yet it was genuine and did help ppl in the moment. He also allowed them to choose what they needed. Even now he often asks ppl what they need and provides it, which I think is good. The problem we run into is when his newer vids have such an obvious advertising angle for big companies. Oh you gave thousands of Brand Name Shoes away when many places have dumpsites full of shoes bc they don't actually need those shoes and a lot of them are bad quality, cool ok that sounds great (it does not) 👍🏾

Oh you're shilling for Tesla again sure ok whatever

I want to make it clear that I still appreciate he wants to help. Half the time he does very much help. He also informed ppl of the behind the scenes of stuff like what taxes and insurance goes into getting stuff like a new house and car and whatnot.

But philanthropy as a whole is kind of structurally harmful when it's done by rich ppl and companies that lobby against the social safety nets and structures that allow ppl to even afford to own a house. I don't know if MrBeast owns one of those companies, but he certainly collaborates with those types of companies and gives them good press to hide all the anti poor lobbying and other ethical issues

I must also say that according to him in his own interviews, his goal is just growth, which is probably Prime Capitalism and fills me with dread, just trying to one up himself over and over, when actual social welfare is not interested in infinite growth, but in sustainability. I don't know how these two goals will align if he purports to be philanthropic.

I can list down all the reasons MrBeast is Problematic but it will not change the people he helped, who I truly believe benefited from his help. But it will also not change the fact that he's become too big to be a good guy without the many, many caveats of "if you don't count his chocolate partner having a child labour lawsuit" or "if you don't count the many issues with the ghost kitchens his Beast Burgers operate out of" or "if you don't count that the Real Life Squid Game was just a clownishly bad idea that missed the point of the show entirely"

I also want to add that there's something I appreciate about him that I cannot fully agree with, but I can't say is wrong.

When he says he's "apolitical" outside of being LGBTQ+ positive, my first reaction is the usual cringe of people claiming to be apolitical, but then he follows it up with the fact that he believes there's no political boundary to charity and being poor, and quite frankly he's correct. In the USA both Democrat politicians and Republican politicians protect corporate interests, and there's functionally no political divide when it comes to class struggle.

He's directly worked with people who know the needs of those who are struggling. He works directly with people who actively volunteer or work for nonprofits that help poor people.

He may be a bit too centrist for some of y'all but I think he means well and is much more left than right.

I worry that he seems to aim to be a billionaire. I worry that he's further entrenching himself in that sort of crowd.

I liked the guy I used to see in his videos and the more he rubs elbows with crypto shills and billionaires and corporations the less I see of that guy.

I guess this is my long-winded way of saying I don't think Jimmy Donaldson is a bad guy. I just worry that, outside of his recent stand against transphobia, it doesn't seem like he's becoming a better guy than he was years ago. I could be wrong, but idk.

I also think his products mostly suck but that's not a personal failing lol that's just average YouTube product releases

#mrbeast #jimmy donaldson #thoughts

[kelyon]

I'd love to hear your opinion on whether or not Goldenlace in the show has some dubious concent issues going on. Like do we consider Lacey (and by proxy everyone's cursed personas) some kind of a legally incompetent parasite without body autonomy? Or is it more complicated?

This is a fun conversation. I remember talking about this stuff in 2013. Really wish Screwballninja's blog was still up, she wrote great essays. I'm basically going to be repeating what I remember about her conclusions. In short, there are a lot of layers.

In the broadest possible sense, technically everything people do under the curse is nonconsensual. Snow White did not consent to be a teacher, Rumpelstiltskin never consented to driving a car, couples who were married in the Enchanted Forest technically have no say in whether or not they have sex with each other in Storybrooke. None of the cursed people are "themselves" or can be considered to be in their right minds. Regina is ruling over an entire town of brainwashed victims.

That being said, we can take the cursed characters on their own terms, as people with what they think of as free will and autonomy. The classic example is Mary Margaret having a one night stand with Dr, Whale. Is she doing what Snow White would want to do? Absolutely now. Is she doing what Mary Margaret wants to do? Yes. And in this case, since Whale is also cursed, they're on equal footing. Victor Frankenstein may or may not want to sleep with a married woman (we don't know his ethics), but Whale was all for it. Same if David happened to sleep with Kathryn Nolan when he thought she was his wife.

Those situations are contrasted with what Regina had going on with Graham. Regina was not cursed. She had full knowledge of her true identity and the identities of everyone else--including the fact that the Huntsman did not want to sleep with her. Creating a version of him who is willing to sleep with her is a violation of his consent. Rape by deception, if not physical assault.

Which brings us to Golden Lace. If Lacey had been around during the curse and had some kind of relationship with cursed Gold, it would have been as consensual as any other action in Storybrooke.

This is where it gets tricky. Rumpelstiltskin does not have power over Lacey. He did not create her personality with the intention of having sex with her. His motivations regarding her are twisted--he wants to get her to love him so he use TLK to destroy Lacey and get Belle back. But I wouldn't say he uses any knowledge about Belle to help with his seduction. For the most part, he presents himself as he is--a guy who wants to get to know Lacey better and pursue a romantic relationship with her. He even tells her about Belle! He tells her that she used to be someone else, someone he loved. Rumple is being as above-board as it is possible to be.

I also want to point out that, in the canon of the show, we don't know if they actually slept together. Unlike Belle, Lacey never wakes up in Gold's bed. All we have to go on is chemistry (which is, obviously, off the charts.) That's an interesting point of ethics too. Would it only be nonconsensual if the relationship was sexual? Is it problematic to try to get someone to like you?

I'd like to believe that if Lacey had stuck around, the relationship would have developed to the point where Lacey would consensually sleep with Rumpelstiltskin. The relationship would still be... fraught, because she would have to be told about, you know, magic and shit. Though Lacey in canon seemed to take that in stride! I think she sees herself as her own person, able to make her own decisions. If Rumple can accept her on those terms--and please her on those terms--I wouldn't call it nonconsensual.

(Might still be weird when Belle does come back, or if Lacey ever thinks he's thinking about Belle when he's with her. But those are monogamy problems, not consent problems. Belle couldn't even call him out for sleeping with someone else and then coming back to sleep with her, because Lacey is in Belle's body! He's not gonna bring back any STIs when he's only with one body.)

Now we get into fanfic theories. If cursed Gold and cursed Lacey had a sexual relationship and Rumpelstiltskin pretended he was Gold so he could continue that relationship, that would be nonconsensual. It would be the same as a stranger pretending to be your husband in order to have sex with you. Rape by deception, in the exact same way it is in the real world.

If, as in canon, Rumple found himself with Lacey--maybe this time a Lacey who had had a sexual relationship with Gold and was unthinkingly ready to be a sex object for him--and he wanted to develop a personal romantic relationship with her; if he wanted to treat her well and respect her boundaries and help her come into her own autonomy and then Lacey's autonomy lead her to wanting sex with Rumpelstiltskin...

Well that would be a interesting fic, wouldn't it?

#golden lace

[misscrawfords]

The whole thing about minors absolving themselves from responsibility for seeing things on the internet they shouldn't see is like...so funny to me??

I remember getting into fandom when I was 12/13 or so and I remember the first ever HP fanfic I read (the P&P ones I was reading earlier were very tame) was a Snape/fem!Harry teacher/student fic that contained a very tame sex scene towards the end IIRC.

I clicked on it without having any preconceptions of shipping or ratings or warnings, I just thought that "what if Harry was a girl" was a cool concept. I loved the fic because it was interesting, exciting, and well-written. (I don't know if I'd think that now if I read it again but 12 year old me was into it.) It didn't mean I thought teachers and students should get it on IRL, it didn't mean I was attracted to Snape, it meant literally nothing except that I was into this story.

After staying very much in my lane and not reading anything NC-17 because it wasn't suitable for me (I was a rule abiding sort of girl), I started to get curious. I read some R rated stuff for Harry/Hermione and quite enjoyed the sex scenes as part of my teenage acquisition of knowledge about the world and relationships. After all, I wasn't getting it from anywhere else and there was nothing worse about getting it from The Paradigm of Uncertainty as from watching Friends or Buffy which my contemporaries were doing.

Sometimes I read stuff that I didn't like. I clicked on a fic once that was a NC-17 Giant Squid orgy fic. I was curious as to how that would even work. I guess I found out! The writing was pretty bad... Did this have any effect on my mental or emotional development? None, whatsoever. Sometimes things weren't tagged very well or at all, because there wasn't really tagging back on FF.net and I really did start reading something and realise I didn't want to continue. Excessive violence, rape, certain ships - they were not for me. And then I'd give a mental shudder and click the back button. Or I'd continue out of curiosity to see what all this was about and then go, "Okay, so I guess that's what it's about and some people must like this but I don't" and then click the back button.

I read quite a bit of R/NC-17 rated Snape/Hermione stuff when I was a teenager - novel length plot-heavy fics with one or two sex scenes in near the end. Looking back, I do wonder at that considering my main ship was the super vanilla Harry/Hermione. I think these fics tended to be written by older people and were therefore better written and really intriguingly plotted. I still think about one of them that was unfinished after about 50 chapters but was soooo good. I never thought about the ethics of me reading this. I never considered that the fact I was cool with 17 year old Hermione getting together with Snape meant I was cool with it happening IRL - I wasn't. I thought it was awful when there was a rumour about our French teacher and one of the students. My fanfic reading life and my real life had really no connection. There was nothing ethical or moral or problematic about what I was reading online. It was just part of growing up.

Now that I am a teacher, I steer clear of high school teacher/student fics. From an older perspective, I do feel like that would be weird and potentially damaging if my online identity were discovered. It isn't something I'm into now because I can't not take my real life perspective here into account in terms of understanding the power difference involved. But I don't have a problem with my younger self being into it and I wouldn't have a problem if I discovered one of my students was into reading it. It's not a moral thing.

I just do not understand a) why it's so bad if kids/teenagers occasionally read or see something upsetting or simply something they don't like online. (Yes, there is a difference between what goes down in fanfic and what can be seen visually on places like tiktok or hardcore pornography sites though. That wasn't an issue in my day so I do realise things have changed.) Seeing things you don't like or upset you a bit is part of life and you have to learn how to deal with it. The things that upset me most came from physical books adults gave me, thinking I might like it, and watching Jumanji at a completely age appropriate time during a sleepover. You never know when something is going to really affect you. And b) why it's so difficult to take responsibility for your own internet use. At 13 I knew perfectly well that if I clicked on a NC-17 story with content I probably wouldn't like... I probably wouldn't have a great time. If I did it anyway, that was on me. And the "back" button was always there. It's not rocket science.

#fandom

[themadcapmathematician]

I think the funniest thing abt ppl who try to police what other people read or watch or whatever is that so often the core of it will be the idea that something can be more or less ethical to engage with based on the creator, publisher or content of the work and that you can just decide via mind over matter what appeals to your brain. it'll be like "watch a better show" "read a better book" etc, but none of these ppl will follow this philosophy. You look at someones blog whos made some stupid ass post like this and they always like some problematic horror game or marvel superheroes or barbie movies or my hero academia or british historical dramas. They don't carefully curate their Media Intake tm to only like these most ethical indie productions where everyone was paid a good wage and the company doesn't have a long history of exploitation and every creator involved has confirmed they don't have bigoted beliefs or bad political views and none of the morals presented in the work are questionable. They're all liars and hypocrites, every last one of them

#madcap rants #fandom discourse

[caparrucia]

i don't think people truly care about morality in fiction. people use "morality" as an start drama and discourse and harassment campaigns because they're so bored with their lives they have nothing to do. by using the morality excuse, they shift all blame to the people they're trying to other and not them. because these same people who scream about morality in fiction are also the people who also drawn-up long-ass excuses about why they support a something (totally not financially of course!) made by actual known bigots who spew hateful shit about real groups of people and actively try to harm real life society. they'll whine about how a piece of media is toxic and disgusting, but when presented with a piece of media that isn't so, they find reasons to make it problematic (even something as stupid as an author liking a tweet made by some guy who got cancelled 7 years ago for making shitty mario porn) so that way they feel good about hating it.

nobody cares about having a discussion about morality in fiction and how it reflects or affects or real world. people just want an excuse to be horrible people for the sake of it.

So, I don't think you're wrong, necessarily, in so far as yeah, none of these conversations about morality in media are being had in good faith, because a lot of people don't even know what a good faith conversation about morality in media even looks like.

Spoilers: it's not about "this thing shouldn't exist and we should make it so people do not create things like this, by force if necessary." It's more along the lines of "what kind of commentary and reception will encourage better ethics in media production" and "is there anything worthwhile to discuss about any given work, is the transgresiveness of the morality within meant to say something, or is it really just not that deep, bro."

Notice the distinct lack of "THIS SHOULDN'T EXIST" and "YOUR MEDIA CREATION/CONSUMPTION DEFINES YOUR MORAL CHARACTER" and trying to litigate the concept of "GOOD PERSON." Because all of those are dog whistles for anti-intellectualism and pro-censorship tendencies that are prime to be radicalized into something... well. Radical.

My thing is, genuinely, dipping into the ad hominem is cathartic but not particularly useful. And yeah, accusing them of doing what they're doing out of boredom is, in fact, ad hominem. Because that automatically changes the discussion back to the whole "NO, I AM NOT A BAD PERSON, I AM IN FACT A GOOD PERSON, THEREFORE EVERYTHING I DO IS GOOD BY DEFAULT" track of circular argument that ultimately devolves into thought crime.

It doesn't matter why they're doing it. What they're doing is wrong and harmful, and the way to put a hard stop on it, is to not engage with it. Because engaging on their level, engaging on theorizing about "why" is inadvertently affirming the validity of their viewpoint. It's tacitly acknowledging that if there's a good reason for it, the tactics themselves can be used. I think that's incorrect. The tactics are deplorable, regardless of what objective one argues they're working towards.

I've had conversations about this with a friend, where they educated me on a lot of the nuance about depictions of torture in fiction. And how the concept of "torture bad" is inherently diminished when your fiction also portrays "torture works" unironically right next to it, because it legitimizes torture as a thing that gets results, even though it is scientifically proven that it doesn't. But in the attempt to characterize the bad guys as bad and immoral, many writers use torture as synecdoche, where torture ends up being bad because it's used by the bad guys, not because torture itself is pointless cruelty weaponized stupidly.

And I feel the same way about the playbook of derailment and plain old bad faith engagement with media and morality. It doesn't matter why people are engaging in it, I don't think. Maybe individual cases, when you know someone who's falling into the funnel and you're trying to reach out and try to get them away from that edge. But in general? It doesn't matter. You're causing harm, and from a harm reduction perspective, what matters is figuring out an effective way to stop them.

This is also how I engage with other radicalized, discourse poisoned bigotry champions, like T*RFs. There's nothing inherently valuable in their ideology or their methodology, so the best thing you can do is de-platform it, as aggressively as possible. Because even just spreading it in order to dunk on it is just causing splash damage on people around you. And it might sound dramatic, but given how much of the rhetoric on faux media criticism revolves around horrific abuse being commodified for internet discourse points, and given the fact abuse is generally under reported and abuse victims are often around us, keeping their status to themselves for their own safety... yeah, it is harmful to spread even for the fun snarking.

I'm big on harm reduction. I look at problems and conflicts and I try to go for whichever option, at the time, I believe is going to cause the least harm possible. I also really don't believe in giving power to structures that are known to abuse it, because I belong to quite a few groups that have been historically the first ones to get shat on as soon as those shiny new powers are abused. And they will always be abused. I understand that is a frustrating POV for a lot of people, because I'm always of the naysayers that keeps trying to figure out how rules made in good faith will be abused in bad faith, but I've been on the internet for 25 years and I've done moderation work often enough, both IRL and online, that I consider that to be just basic politics.

Don't give the dude who wants to shiv you a knife, no matter how much he promises he's not going to use it on you.

#rie answers #Anonymous

[brightgnosis]

Calling Me A “Mormon Apologist” Is Absolutely Hilarious

I still think it’s absolutely hilarious that- as far as I can remember- I’ve only ever written 4 or 5 very short posts (save one long one) during my lifetime on Tumblr, that have even remotely mentioned Mormonism at all in any significant capacity. Up until incredibly recently, anyways, when I started exploring and syncretizing my ancestral practices. And because none of those posts were all “Ra ra burn the Temples and kill all Mormons! Fuck Mormonism!” ... I got called a “Mormon Apologist” by my stalker (and now others) for it.

Which is, like, and absolutely beautiful new addition to the roster of accusations for doing what just amounts to me simply talking about Mormonism as someone from an LDS family who was actively raised and Baptized LDS Mormon, and whose family actively hid (and is still attempting to hide, despite clear evidence) the fact that its family was definitely Ukranian and most likely specifically Ukrainian Ashkenazi immigrants fleeing Russian nationalism and antisemitism that was just breaking out at the time. 

You know, an actual insider to Mormon beliefs, rituals, and culture. Supposedly the very people we should listen to when it comes to issues involving culture. But I guess it doesn’t count in this case, because our bigotry is more important.

And, like... As an actual ex-insider that has been legitimately, directly wronged by Mormonism? Literally no one involved in any of this has more of a right (or a reason) to be mad at Mormonism as an institution, and as a set of beliefs, than I do- and certainly not complete randos who’ve never actually ever had anything to do with Mormonism in their lives ... But the thing is ... My right to be angry as an actual victim of the institution, and of the lies of its family within that institution? Still doesn’t disqualify it, overall, from a fair and just analysis- nor does it disqualify it from accuracy in representation and explanation. Nor does it inherently deny Mormons themselves fair and just treatment merely for being Mormon (and especially for not leaving as I ultimately did).

Furthermore, looking at the complex multiplicity of Mormonism and acknowledging its history, beliefs, and practices within their proper contexts as I am ethically bound to with all denominations of Christianity (and with all religions in general)? Fighting for truth, accuracy, and legitimacy in regards to their portrayal and understanding by outsiders, as I am ethically bound to with all denominations of Christianity (with all religions in general)? It doesn’t mean that I agree with it or excuse the horrors, pseudohistory, cultish qualities, and other problematic elements of Mormonism.

It also doesn't mean that I don't have a right to the folklore and folk religious and magical elements that were specific to women, as an AFAB person; things which were directly stolen from me by the Church before I even came of age, and which should have rightfully been mine to inherit from my ancestors in the first place; I do have a right to reclaim that.

It means nothing other than the fact that not only have I actively taken the time to legitimately heal from any religious trauma I may have had from my time within the institution (which is minimal, because ultimately I had decent experiences with my religious upbringing, and I will own that fact; which does not erase the fact that plenty of others have not had that luxury) --- but also that my values and ethics actually do come before my personal feelings.

And this is the ultimate difference between actually living by your values with wisdom and maturity ... And what is ultimately nothing but pitiful, toddleresque purity culture childishness.

People are allowed to be complex and have complex religions and practices, and complex feelings about their families and their ancestries. We are not simple, one dimensional creatures and neither is life.

#Old Blog Reposts #2020 #2021 #Ancestral Connections #Mormon Folk Healing #Being A Better Human Being #Religion & Magic #Personal #ExMo #ExMormon