bluelichengreenstone

[bluelichengreenstone]

"being distressed about an evil thought is what shows you're a good person" = bad, unhelpful, is not at all conducive to OCD recovery

"there's no such thing as a good or bad thought", "your thoughts do not define your morality", etc = good, helpful, acknowledges the fact that thoughtcrime isn't real

remember kids, implying that distress is what makes you a good person is NOT a good way to encourage people to build a life where they are able to learn to live alongside intrusive thoughts

[bluelichengreenstone]

many problems are caused by the mindset that the world is divided into good people and bad people and the bad people can be "found out" and removed, eventually leading to a utopia containing only good people.

[bluelichengreenstone]

Man I hate when these purity kids try to take down ao3 because ao3 is about sharing and choices. You get to CHOOSE what you are comfortable with! A true safe place is about informed choices, not guidance designed to keep you ignorant.

[bluelichengreenstone]

You are always, without exception, allowed to critically evaluate the information presented to you and make up your own mind about it. This is baseline human dignity; to deny it is abusive. Resist anyone, even the loudest and most influential voices, who tells you that allyship requires subordinating your own capacity for critical thought. You do not owe anyone that.

[bluelichengreenstone]

Scrupulosity and Uncertainty

I think my reluctance to publicly share problematic fanfiction (if I did write that kind of thing) stems from a desire for 100% certainty about the impact of my conduct on other people. 

When I talk about my problematic ships with close friends, I don’t have a lot of remaining fears or doubts about whether my conduct harms anyone-- I know my close friends have opted into discussions about this subject matter and they are able to distinguish between the dynamics we’re discussing and dynamics that would be ethical irl. I consider talking to close friends about this stuff to be neutral-to-positive in terms of ethics; we’re having an enjoyable conversation, strengthening our friendship, and even helping each other feel better about our problematic kinks. When I leave the discussions, I feel happier, calmer, and closer to the friend I talked about this stuff with. 

But when I think about sharing problematic fanfiction I’ve written, there’s always a chance that the work reaches an audience member who doesn’t share my understanding of ethics. That uncertainty still bothers me. I feel a twinge of discomfort when I think about the possibility, however small, of unintentionally endorsing a fucked-up dynamic in the mind of some naïve person. 

On the other hand, since intolerance of uncertainty feels characteristic of scrupulosity, I might benefit from pushing against that discomfort at some point. Do I want to go through life avoiding any action that potentially harms someone somewhere, even in the service of creating art and sharing the kind of fantasies others might like to read? Would I actually hold someone else to this standard? It seems like I’m harsher to myself than I am to other people.

[bluelichengreenstone]

So I’ve been reading about someone who was ideologically abused within Catholicism and it’s bringing up a lot of feelings, but one thing it’s really crystallizing in my mind is an important thing that people fail to understand about ideological abuse.

The (relatively mild) ideological abuse I have experienced was used to convince me of some bad and harmful shit. But I’m worried that the things I’ve said about it make it seem like the abuse was bad because it convinced me of untruths. That’s a very very small part of the problem.

It is possible to commit ideological abuse in the name of ideas that are 100% true. People think that ideological abuse is only done in the name of darkly comic nonsense (Xenu only makes sense to someone who’s been abused so badly they forget how to think clearly) or ideologies based on cruelty and subjugation. It’s true that abuse is more common in ideologies that cannot possibly defend themselves with actual arguments, but it’s completely possible to abuse people in the name of things which make sense.

If you’re dealing with someone who thinks two plus two is five, you can show them they are wrong with counters or numberlines or whatever. This will teach them basic arithmetic and also respect their personhood. This is what any decent person would do.

Or you can control them with fear. You can make it sure that they know that if they ever say two plus two is five, they will be physically harmed or threatened with physical harm. You can lie and belittle and mistreat them in dozens of ways and any time they complain you can tell them that they deserve it for believing that two plus two is five. You can say that they’re not allowed to make even the smallest decisions for themselves (what to eat, how to dress, who to be friends with, what to read) because a person who believes two plus two is five shouldn’t be allowed to decide anything. You can isolate them from anyone you haven’t vetted (which means no friendships with anyone who is wrong about math, but also no friendships with anyone who says “obviously two plus two is four but there’s no need to hit people over it.”) The fact you are right about math doesn’t make it not abuse. You’ve abused them into believing something, and the fact that it is true doesn’t make the abuse ethical.

You’ve also severely damaged their ability to learn math. If they have a basket with two apples and they add two pears, they won’t be able to take an honest look about how many total fruits they have. They are only going to be able to think “I must have four fruits because I don’t want to get hurt again” or “I must have five fruits because there is no way on earth that despicable piece of shit can be right about anything after what they did to me.” You’ve done lasting and possibly permanent epistemic damage to this person. For a long time, maybe for the rest of their life, they will not be able to approach arithmetic with logic; they are going to come to a calculator with so much emotional baggage that they can’t be rational. They may genuinely need to espouse wrong beliefs about numbers because the only psychologically feasible alternative is espousing the (also wrong and more dangerous) belief that they deserve to be abused.

Almost everyone who commits ideological abuse thinks they are convincing their victims of the truth, and they think that this justifies the abuse. They are usually wrong about their ideas being true, but they are always wrong about their tactics being justified. I want anyone reading this to know that if you are seriously hurting someone to get them to believe you, it doesn’t matter that you are right. You have to find another way to do that. What you are doing does horrific damage and doesn’t even succeed in making people actually believe you, just in parroting you so that you will stop hurting them. You have to treat people who are wrong like people. Abusing someone into believing the truth doesn’t become okay because it’s the truth.

More importantly, I want you to know that if someone is using violence, the threat of violence or manipulation to control your beliefs, that is abuse. You do not deserve to be treated this way. You do not have to figure out right now whether what they are trying to make you believe is actually correct. You can leave (if it’s safe) or practice harm-reduction (if leaving isn’t safe yet) before you figure out whether or not they are telling the truth. It is not okay for them to do this to you, even if they are right.

You deserve to be safe. You deserve sovereignty over your own thoughts. Good luck. I love you.

[bluelichengreenstone]

The Gender Politics of Sherlock Fandom: One Year Later

I began writing this essay more than a year ago, on the plane ride home from 221b Con 2015. I originally thought that I would post it once the fandom wank had died down, but it shows no sign of doing so. In fact, it’s back with a vengeance, as the fandom responds to the show runners officially refuting T J L C and people have discussed the history of the conspiracy theory and the impact it has had on Sherlock fandom. As fans have spoken out about their negative associations with the acronym, the conversation inevitably turns to what happened at 221b Con 2015 and its aftermath. Since this essay seems relevant again, I decided to pull this out again and finish it.

This is the first of a series of essays I wish to write on the Gender Politics of Sherlock fandom. There are many things I wanted to say at the official panel but was unable to, since it was derailed by a group of individuals who showed up with the intention of intimidating and harassing the panel moderator. In future essays, I’d like to share my thoughts on femslash, Mary Sues and the fridging of female characters, on heteronormativity in slash, and on queer representation beyond slash (bisexual, pansexual, asexual and trans people in fanworks and fan spaces). I’d like to touch on race and being a queer Woman of Color in a fandom mostly interested in White male characters.

Before I get to those subjects, however, I feel a need to return to the original intended topic: the essay I began writing on my phone on the plane.

And that essay is on the subject of noncon fanworks.

This wasn’t on the list of topics we had prepared in advance as a panel, and I didn’t feel I’d been adequately prepared or had done the subject justice. In the first few hours after the panel, when I felt like a group of fellow fans whose respect and understanding I wanted had attacked me for the kind of fic I read and write, I wanted to articulate how noncon fanworks have changed my life, how they have been a source of deep friendships and personal healing. I wanted to convince those people that I wasn’t a bad person, or a bad feminist; that I had thought long and hard about rape culture and my possible contributions to it, and decided in the end that it was more important to try to engage with rape myths, to digest and transform them, than to eject that part of our collective psyche.

And then, as people began to speak to me privately and share their own stories of being bullied by this same group of people, I realized that what had happened at 221b Con wasn’t actually about noncon fanworks or people’s reactions to them. What happened at 221b Con was that a clique used young fans and CSA and rape survivors as a shield to hide behind while they bullied my fellow panelist for shipping the fandom OTP in the wrong way. So instead of writing an essay on noncon fanworks, I wrote about the bullying that I witnessed and experienced firsthand. But I never quite lost my initial desire to explain myself and my writing. I hoped that it would still be possible to have a conversation I thought was actually worth having, in good faith with well-intentioned people.

I’m still not convinced it’s possible to have that conversation in this fandom, which has become toxically polarized on far more benign issues than this one. I also believe that the tendency for arguments to escalate is inherent in the format of tumblr, because of the way that posts are reblogged back and forth in front of an audience of thousands of witnesses egging both parties on. I also believe the current Sherlock fandom climate is one in which individuals are on a hair-trigger, poised to respond with hostility to anyone perceived as stepping out of line. I am not interested in engaging in that kind of debate for spectacle. But I felt it was necessary for me to collect my own thoughts on noncon fanworks. And as several others have indicated their interest in also reading them, I’ve decided to go ahead and post them so they become part of the fandom discourse.

Keep reading

Read More Now! Read More Now!

[bluelichengreenstone]

An Intro to Blue Lichen, Green Stone

I am an adult in my 20s who developed OCD in my early teens. In my late teens I held views typical of many antis and found the proship arguments I saw dismissive and mocking, particularly about what I saw as many antis’ sincere concerns about how fanfiction depicted certain issues. Over time, though, I began to question various aspects of the anti worldview and the norms of anti communities. 

Under the cut for length and blog-typical sensitive topics.

Overall, I think that many people who subscribe to anti beliefs have some sympathetic values, motivations, and goals. Many people with anti views genuinely want to help people avoid real-world harm and want more realistic representation of many issues, e.g. trauma. Some people with anti views had negative and traumatic experiences in fandom communities, which inform their views. I believe that I have a responsibility to grapple with many of the ethical and sociopolitical issues people who subscribe to anti beliefs have raised. 

That said, having reflected on issues related to problematic fanfiction and how anti communities have evolved over a period of years, I don’t believe that the anti subculture is achieving its goals of reducing real-world harm or creating more realistic representation of (for example) traumatized characters. In fact, I have a lot of critiques of how people in anti communities overlook the real world harm of how some people in their subculture think and treat other people; my views of the anti subculture frankly have gotten more negative over time. 

 Above all, I am concerned about how anti ideologies create rationalizations for what I see as social ostracism and harassment, as well as their advocacy for institutional censorship of fiction with ideologically objectionable elements. I recognize that not everyone who subscribes to anti views approves of these things, and I do not blame everyone in that subculture for them. Unfortunately, though, these behaviors are still pervasive and have direct, negative real-world consequences. I also believe that in many anti circles, the prospect of being labeled an apologist for real world harms (or otherwise morally bad) prevents people from criticizing their peers’ beliefs and behaviors, even if they privately disagree. I have talked to people who broadly subscribe to anti views who are concerned about this phenomenon, but do not feel comfortable talking about it publicly.

In my view, this culture of shaming, guilt-tripping, and ostracism discourages critical thinking and encourages people to police their own thoughts and emotions. I know that some antis believe that these punitive behaviors are justified by the harm they prevent, but I disagree with this claim. I believe that the behaviors don’t prevent direct harm, and that they often cause certain kinds of harm to both people involved in anti circles and their ideological opponents. While my recovery from OCD and development of self-compassion remain my responsibility, I ultimately decided that many aspects of anti communities reinforced my OCD symptoms and my feelings of guilt/shame/self-loathing. 

As my sidebar suggests, I made this blog to share analysis and personal narratives about various issues related to scrupulosity/moral OCD, kink, and the ethics of problematic fanfiction, as well as my trajectory towards and away from adopting anti beliefs. I chose this combination of topics not because I feel that it describes every person who holds or once held anti beliefs (most of whom probably do not have OCD or other traits in common with me), but because for me, these were intertwined. You may not identify with my experiences, which is fine.

 I’m also open to discussing these issues with and receiving questions of people from a variety of perspectives (whether they identify as anti, proship, or do not associate themselves with a particular discursive faction), provided we try to treat one another with respect. If I feel someone is being particularly disrespectful towards me or engaging in dog-piling (intentionally or not), I am likely to block them. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and try to be open to questions about my views.

If you’re triggered or upset by the typical content of discussions related to “anti versus proship” matters, scrupulosity/moral OCD, or non-titillating discussions of kink (including problematic fantasies and how to deal with them in an ethical way), please take into account these topics recur on this blog. I try to content warn for or signpost potentially triggering content, but I want to err on the side of making a space where I feel comfortable discussing sensitive topics without self-censorship. Please curate your own online space.