a-lukewarm-take

[a-lukewarm-take]

buddy, i understand why youre so confused. cause i am too.

i understand the whole things yeah, the 'harassing people is bad', 'mind your business', etc etc. but other than that im lost on whatever the hell this 'pro' and 'anti' stuff is. ive just been not interacting with that, i think those pro anti people call it being 'neutral' im pretty sure. anyway i think the whole concept is pretty dumb, but its the internet. i wouldnt be surprised if someone doxed someone else over ice cream flavors

what ive for the whole thing is this: pro in proship stands for 'pro' as in 'for' for shipping/ship and let ship, anti is the opposite of that. antis believe that fiction can influence people, pros dont. pros believe what you like in fiction does not dictate your morals, antis dont. etc etc

my tip is this: keep far far away and ignore everything about those two things. if you dont wanna do that, well, try not to get too lost in the sauce while listening to both sides and keep your mind open

sorry if you already knew half of this and this is just kinda null, have a nice day

I'm not big on lables. I think theres a pretty reasonable middle ground to be had but I doubt either side is going to actually listen for long enough to figure this out. It would be nice if they did but, this is the internet.

"Pedophilia is bad" 

can coexist with

 "Fictional characters aren't real and doing reprehensible things to them has no real life victims"

 aswell as

"Fiction and the way objectionable content in fiction is framed has historically been used as propaganda to enable or encourage harmful behavior irl." 

They're not contradictory unless deliberately misinterpreted and exaggerated via a bad faith rube-goldberg of causality.

Books like Lolita play with framing in a way that a lot of mainstream readers miss the point of, especially readers that expect Lolita to spoon feed them the morals as many other books would have. Whether or not a reader is aroused or horrified by Lolita has nothing to do with their own morals and everything to do with whether or not they picked up on the fact that the narrator is an unreliable monster justifying and lying to himself when it comes to the girl in the novel. 

Art is complicated and some audiences, no matter how hard the author tries, are going to interpret that art in a way the author did not intend or even pervert the meaning to support whatever worldview they had before encountering the work.

Sometimes stories show you an oversexualized and glorified depiction of a repugnant act, explicitly because they trust that this framing would make the audience uncomfortable. The titillation is intended only as a gateway to vomiting or a profound sense of horror as it highlights that not all bad things are prevented and that this world will not punish the unjust inherently. It's asking you to wallow in the tragedy. 

There are surely stories that have no such deeper meaning and are quite simply porn. The line is thin and blurry. When you censor one you run the risk of censoring them all because someone unprepared to think critically about what the media they consume is trying to say, is going to miss the point.

Censorship is a difficult thing to manage and everyone has a right to distrust the powers enforcing it. 

You can believe strongly that there is media that does more harm than good whilst also understanding that very rarely is this the direct or intentional fault of the creator or consumers of the work on an individual level. But rather cogs in a larger system to which individuals can participate much in the same way we don't blame the butterfly for the hurricane. You can fight for censorship without shaming or harassing the people who don't want it.

I'm sure someone else could explain this better than I could and I'm open to being wrong about this. I certainly don't have all the answers, that's a part of being human.

-Luke

[a-lukewarm-take]

There’s a book called “it’s perfectly normal” which has a chapter with sexual abuse in it. It’s a children’s book that aims to educate children about sexual health

One could argue and say the mere depiction of sexual abuse is bad and that it could lead to the normalization of it

10-year-girl in Delaware picked up the above mentioned book while at the library with her mother. When they came home, she showed her mom the chapter on sexual abuse and said, “This is me.” She was being abused by her father, and it was the first time she’d spoken about it.

The father was convicted after that

Oftentimes stories and books like that exist to educate people, to spread awareness. But I also think people are trying to normalize survival with it, rather than abuse

That's a really good point. Giving children the verbage to describe their experiences makes it signifigantly easier to persecute their abusers.

-Luke

[a-lukewarm-take]

Re: your last text post: Because obviously you can't talk to either side in good faith. This is the Internet, there is no such thing as neutrality and not knowing enough information. (very large /s here! but seriously, I have the same question to your anons)

Thank you for the tone tag. It really helps.

I think people are a little cranky right now.

Much love and good vibes

-Luke

[a-lukewarm-take]

ICYMI, there was fear that companies were scraping public AO3 fics to train their AI without the consent of AO3 or its users. That fear has been confirmed.

AO3 has written about what they’re doing (and what they’re not able to do), and they recommend restricting your work to AO3 registered users only. [Instructions here]

This gross misuse of the archive by techbros is why I’ve locked down my fics for the foreseeable future. I recommend the rest of you do the same.

[a-lukewarm-take]

Why do people keep asking if this is a troll account? I don't get it.

This isn't rhetorical, I'd like an answer.

-Luke

[a-lukewarm-take]

I've actually made a post about exactly this. I explain aging up in fiction. I can't tell if this post is a joke or not but I figure I'll link what I'm talking about just in case.

Much love and good vibes

-Luke

"No, you're not allowed to age up fictional characters, they MUST stay whatever age they are in canon" and "I don't care if canon made them adults, I personally still think of them as children, so you're not allowed to depict them as adults" are two contradictory statements that can and should be allowed to co-exist because I decide where the goal posts go, actually

[a-lukewarm-take]

Do I want this explained? ? ?

-Luke

just saw an anti saying that proship self shippers aren't real self shippers because, apparently, it's hypocritical to say that we love our f/os while saying that "fictional characters don't matter and aren't real".

I legit don't know where to begin with this one /neg

yeah I saw that one and my brain immediately turned into a pretzel.

we're *fictionkin and fictives* and we don't think like this.

[a-lukewarm-take]

If anyone is worried about getting termed and wants to preserve control over a sideblog that would be completely innocent collateral , make a new account now and invite that account to join the sideblog as a group member. Give that account admin status. Then leave the blog under your orignal account.

This transfers blog ownership entirely but it only works on sideblogs. I'd reccommend keeping all the blogs that are likely to be termed under one account/email. So if your main is a target transfer your safe sideblogs to the new account.

If your main is safe transfer the iffy sideblogs to the new account.

It only works on sideblogs.

Also change your usernames so the originals are available if you actually get termed

Good luck! Much love and good vibes.

-Luke

[a-lukewarm-take]

Jesus, fuckin pick a side, and stop whining.

-Luke

[a-lukewarm-take]

Ohhh. Okay. Thanks for the help.

-Luke

pro violence antis.

[a-lukewarm-take]

I meant my addition was supposed to be lighthearted. Not the original post. Sorry that was unclear.

-Luke

pro violence antis.

[a-lukewarm-take]

Dumb question (sorry): Who is the "us" in that last sentance?

-Luke

pro violence antis.

[a-lukewarm-take]

My addition was lighthearted! Not the original post. Sorry for the confusion!

-Luke

pro violence antis.

[a-lukewarm-take]

No, I meant my addition was lighthearted. Not the original post.

But also, you did do the thing. Which was what I was trying to point out as a lighthearted jab.

Ive put my foot in my mouth here.

Much love and good vibes

-Luke

pro violence antis.

[a-lukewarm-take]

I get your point, but you are litterally doing exactly what the tags said. There's probably a nicer way to point this out but I can't seem to find it. This is supposed to be lighthearted.

-Luke

pro violence antis.

[a-lukewarm-take]

The strawmanning in this discource is some of the worst I've ever seen. Most every hot take in the pro/anti ship debate is arguing with an absurdist parody of the ideology they're opposing. Rarely does anyone actually adress the points being made.

I'm not convinced that's terribly productive for anyones goals. The more you listen the more obvious it is that ideology isn't a monolith and the core tennants of why each exists are at least grounded in good intentions.

-Luke

[a-lukewarm-take]

everyone has pronouns, moron. you sound like a republican.

No, no, you're supposed to call me by name rather than pronouns. It's a thing. I swear.

-Luke