salserscorbunny

[salserscorbunny]

okay, so- this is coming from someone who really hasn't engaged in fandom discourse, especially regarding shipping and such. I dearly hope this doesn't come across as bait or troll, I'm genuinely curious and want to learn. apologies for the possibly-dumb question, but I really just need to ask-

what is proshipping? and what are 'antis'?

you know how it is, when you ask around you always get a biased answer one way or another. "proshippers are pedos" "proshippers all condone incest" "proship Bad and if you interact You Are Bad" (i think these are 'anti' points of view? am i using that term right? that's the rhetoric ive mainly heard). but despite all of that, i don't know if ive ever actually gotten a straight answer as to just.. what it factually is. because it doesn't feel like the sort of thing that you can boil down to insults or accusations or whatnot. it's all just very confusing to me, especially because i come from a place that essentially just told me to avoid like the plague and never look back. sorry, this became a bit of a ramble, lol. thank you so much in advance, i hope i'm not being a bother or insulting with this ^^;

The modern term; 'proship' (s.a; 'proshipping' and 'profiction') is an evolution of an earlier fandom acronym known as: 'SALS.'

Ship And Let Ship

SALS was one of the earliest fandom adoptions and interpretations of the concept of not bullying others for what they shipped or their fandom interests, and not trying to control or dictate what was "allowed" to be shipped or enjoyed. The most notable origin of SALS was during the early years of accessible fandom via Star Trek, and the present homophobia and misogyny in a largely male-dominated community.

As woman became more involved in fandom spaces, the presence of 'other' ships and pairings began to increase. M/M, F/F that wasn't purely for sexual gratification, and M/O and F/O (where 'O' is Other) pairings were popular amongst women, much as they still are today.

Not only did the presence of women in a "male space" receive a not insignificantly negative reaction, so too did them filling the fandom space with their shipping content. Now; sexism and misogyny and homophobia were not entirely to blame. Again as is still very much present today, people simply Did Not Like Certain Ships or Characters. And as they still do today, they'd spread hate about them and to the people who did enjoy them.

Thus: the birth of SALS.

(In other words: I like what I like and it has fuck all to do with you. Shut up and move on.)

Back then, SALS was mostly contained to just that. Ships and characters. Since back in that era 'taboo topics' and 'sexual content' were still pretty covert, people weren't exactly arguing the merits of incest in public forums and at conventions.

However, as all things do, the internet evolved. Society evolved. Media evolved. And so too did 'SALS' evolve in keeping with the new culture and subjects present in fandom spaces.

Suddenly it wasn't just ships and characters to be advocated for. It was themes. Subjects. Kinks. Plots. The more things people found to enjoy, so too did the more things people found to hate.

'Proship' is actually grammatically pro-ship. As in; in support of shipping. This is why I always state that the modern conceptions of proshipping would more accurately be coined profiction. It is no longer just about ships, but fiction as a whole.

However; the core value and sole inherent point of being proship, SALS, profiction and so forth remains exactly the same:

[I/We] believe you have no right to harm others over the [ship/content] they create or consume and [I/we] do not have the right to dictate what is or is not allowed in fandom spaces.

That's it. Don't harass people for what they enjoy fictionally. Don't try to force them into not enjoying or being able to enjoy it.

Of course, the modern adaption varies wildly in terms of 'additional values' thanks to the evolution of the term and what it can encompass. However, there is certainly no obligation to:

Create or consume content you are uncomfortable with.

Create or consume content regarded as 'taboo' or 'triggering.' Such as incest.

Be involved with any aforementioned content beyond turning a blind eye if its not your thing.

Inherently, anyone who says they're 'neutral' on the matter but firmly believes in minding their own business is just a proshipper refusing to use the label if you're taking the term solely at its core value.

In terms of 'antis' they're just the antithesis of the above. Antis are people who generally believe that fiction is irrevocably tied in with who you are, what you believe/condone, and that real-life limitations and values should also apply to fiction.

Although, its is heavy debated and it wildly varies per individual to the degree this is taken.

(E.g: some 'antis' believe you should only write rape fic if you are a victim using it as catharsis or education. Other 'antis' believe there's absolutely no excuse or reason to write rape fic at all.)

Antis typically believe that enjoyment or being invested in content which is regarded as harmful or illegal in real life is morally unsound and reflects that you're a bad or morally unsound person.

Although I disagree, I can honestly say in some aspects I do understand this reasoning. I don't agree, but I do understand why people may come to that conclusion.

As with proshippers, antis vary from people who simply ignore and block content they don't agree with to radicals.

'Anti' is again a prefix. Although modern adoption of the term uses it as a singular signifier, it would grammatically be anti-[fandom], anti-[character], ect. As was commonly used in the past.

The rhetoric that all proshippers are pedophiles or support incest is common-spread and effective 'anti' propaganda. Similar to how so many people believe 'proship' inherently signifies that you must create and/or consume taboo or darker content.

It doesn't.

¹ Proship may also be accurately termed as simply: 'anti-harassment.' ² Its important to note the 'definition' of these terms may vary wildly depending on the individual. However, detailed above is the most historical use and evolution of the terms and their definitions.

[salserscorbunny]

Saving this screenshot so I could show my nonexistent child what ‘chronically online’ meant

# Fellas is it pedophile if I’m super tall and my partner is shorter than me 😔

[salserscorbunny]

The fact that antis always use "go tell your parents/boss/coworkers what gross fiction you read if you think it's normal!" as a gotcha in arguments always amuses me so much. Like babe YOU just admitted that YOU have no concept of having different boundaries with different people, you don't think there should be a clear delineation between professional and personal affairs, but you think I'M the weird one?

[salserscorbunny]

Andrew Garfield on consent and privacy

[salserscorbunny]

***TW for discussion of pedophilia, grooming, child murder in relation to Five Nights At Freddy's***

Another ramble about people that Ignore Very Important Things....

I myself don't really venture into headcanon territory when it comes to FNAF media and lore. But I do like hearing others' headcanons and theories. Something that perplexes me though, is the visceral objection some people have to the possibility that William Afton could have been a pedophilic child abuser in addition to murdering children. My first personal thought upon hearing such a theory was that "yeah, he could fit the bill based on behaviors, definitely a possibility." But then there was whiplash upon finding out it's a very frowned upon headcanon to a point where people call it "morally off limits" and demonize the people who theorize such a thing.

That makes me.....so concerned. And very confused. Concerned and confused because people are acting like that the Child Abuser type of Evildoing has no place in the FNAF community or official media, like it is a line that should never be crossed and You're Bad for thinking such a possibility. They talk as if...William Afton ISN'T ALREADY ONE OF THE MOST EVIL FUCKED UP VILLAINS EVER. As if he hasn't ALREADY crossed so many irreversible lines such as serial child murder and child experimentation. Talking as if....those things aren't "as bad" as sexual abuse.

Idk, makes me very uncomfortable to a point where I don't really wanna engage with the hyper-specific headcanon debates even if it's not about that specifically, in case I run into someone sharing any disrespectfully flippant comments that downplay child abuse that isn't explicitly sexual in nature and downplaying the gravity of real life atrocities that are portrayed in fiction.

Cause like....how can someone look at the actions and strategies of William Afton in the simplest of terms (separated from the fantastical supernatural elements and settings) and NOT see how it relates to REAL-LIFE TEXTBOOK GROOMING TACTICS OF SEXUAL CHILD ABUSERS???

William Afton:

*** Works in an establishment with TONS of easy access to children, that may or may not be running around left unattended

*** Dresses up in a costume that presents a FRIENDLY NICE PERSONA that allows him to have closer contact and interactions with said children

*** Proceeds to use that friendly persona to isolate said children and lure them to the PRIVATE BACK ROOMS of the establishment to murder them

Now, I am not gonna go into the details of the timelines and whatnot because that's not the point here, and I'm still not knowledgeable and confused about a lot. But the actions and situations connected to William Afton that are SEEN AND IMPLIED in many of the secret/alternate/between/unlocked cutscenes mirror how real life child predators go about accessing children to abuse them sexually.

Knowing that a lot of us are viewing the same exact scenes play out explicitly for the viewers to see, with all the subtext and implications that are THERE.....yet people REFUSE to acknowledge how it mirrors real life strategies of how predatory people groom and sexually abuse children???

IMO, it does NOT look good that people are denying parallels to real life people's stories and refusing to think logically about HOW abuse happens and HOW it can be commonly ALLUDED to in fictional media. Whether or not it's the canonical context doesn't matter....It's concerning that people are not OWNING UP to how truly fucked up their favorite fictional villains are, to the point they outright justify that some irreversible fucked up actions are "not as bad" as sexual abuse, or they heavily imply that it's wrong for Evil Characters to be TOOOOO EVIL😱. Like many real life abusers would toooootally care about not going tooooo far to hurt people when they aim to hurt people for funnies or for entertainment or for selfish reasons🙄🙄🙄

Doesn't bode well that the textbook signs/tactics of grooming & child abuse alluded to in fictional media are being purposefully overlooked and/or downplayed because of some people's discomfort about encountering a smidgen of these contexts in their favorite media. You're not doing a Good Thing to insist that villains Aren't Actually That Fucked Up and the subtext is Totally Not That Deep while we see them to the most heinous horrendous things, cuz that, to me, looks like Romanticizing Abusers🫣🫣🫣 *cough cough* Okay end of rant.

[salserscorbunny]

My vibe about ships since forever tbh

[salserscorbunny]

do you fucking mind not adding your fucking kaeluc bullshit to the fucking ragbros tag? as someone who is adopted you are gross and insulting to not just me but other adoptees.

i dont care if you ship incest but deliberately making people uncomfortable and triggering them on purpose when you clearly know its not okay to, is gross.

Seek some fucking help.

Nonshippers are welcome in Mint Condition just as much as shippers are. The zine is SFW and allows all dynamics, including familial, platonic, and otherwise. So with all due respect, my answer is no. This zine is inclusive to everyone. Keep your petty intolerance to yourself and block like a responsible adult participating in fandom. The zine is tagged properly to allow you to do so. PS: The head mod is also adopted. Your grievances and projections are not everyone's.

[salserscorbunny]

i was on twitter for 2 seconds to look at fursuit pictures and stumbled upon the most insane pointless sequence of symbols conveying a concept ive ever seen and it genuinely made me pause and consider the trajectory of my life and what it means to be alive in the first place

[salserscorbunny]

antis call proshippers chronically online but like…,,. which is more chronically online.. letting people live and do what they want without bothering them for it, or doxxing and threatening people over fiction

[salserscorbunny]

Bullying and harassment should not be normalized. There’s not much else to say about that. People want to get rid of bullying but then see a proshipper and say the most insane things I’ve ever seen.

[salserscorbunny]

Problem 6073:

It's always so hilarious when people try to "both sides" something like this. It's like when someone sees "video games cause violence" and "satanic panic" people, who are yelling at everyone else and saying they'll go to hell for being naughty and supporting satan and child abuse or something, and claiming that both them and the common sense people "need to just calm down."

Posting as a response to a previous problem.

[salserscorbunny]

"no GOOD therapist would tell you that creating darkship content to cope is healthy!! your therapist must be unprofessional/must be grooming you!!"

[salserscorbunny]

ex-anti here. let me shed a little light on the experience of being an anti for those of us fortunate enough to never have been one.

the primary driving force of anti-ism for a lot of people, not everyone, but a lot of them, is fear. thats why they all have that weird talking point about "well i bet you wouldnt tell your family that you like media about incest/noncon/lolisho/whatever-morally-outrageous-ficition-theyre-upset-about-today. its not that theyre actually morally outraged by the existence of "problematic" fiction, its that theyre personally afraid of being ostracized/attacked/disowned/etc for liking it.

i read noncon and underage smut all the fucking time when i was an anti. i felt no guilt or shame for reading it. but i knew my friends would hate it and me for reading it, so i always pretended to be morally outraged at the right moments when outrage was demanded of me in order to fit in and then i kept reading my noncon and underage stuff because i knew good and well that fanfic about teenage anime characters noncon-ing each other wasnt doing any actual harm to the world. but if i didnt keep up the semblance of moral outrage, my friends could and probably would do harm to me.

someone who was a friend of mine back in my anti days liveblogged an entirely satirical and mocking review while watching boku no pico (a shotacon anime for those who dont know). this person was a pretty popular anti blogger (at least in our corner of the internet), had all the "right" opinions, was public with their identity as a csa survivor (which they weaponized against proshippers and kinksters, as the anti-sphere encourages and praises people for), was a minor THEMSELF... and i watched the anti-sphere that we were involved in completely and utterly tear them apart. they pretty much left tumblr after. it was sickening.

so yeah. when you see those 15 year olds hand wringing about underage smut and whatever the fuck... just know that theyre scared to death of the people they call their friends, every single day.

.

[salserscorbunny]

Mocking and insulting people for triggers and coping mechanisms is a no debate for me. Stop doing it.

What are your opinions about censoring words? Gooner, kiddie corn, etc.

Also, if you could preface it with pro/anti/neu if it’s not clear by your account? (Meaning your wonderful urls.)

[salserscorbunny]

Sometimes being the mum who exists in fandom spaces leads to awkward, even concerning, conversations. Such as the one which happened this morning. The mum of my daughter's best mate asked me if one of their mutual friends had sent her a specific message. This message was a link to a fic on ao3, if this had been a G rated fic this conversation would not have happened. It was not G rated. It was an E rated fic. Our kids aren't even 12 yet. As it happens, both of our kids have their internet access heavily locked down and monitored. They have phones because of how their school manages homework. The mutual friend, however, is not so monitored. Or she wasn't, given what her mum found she's about to be. This kid had found a fandom, joined it, and found it chock full of antis. The fic had been sent to her by one of them as an example of the sort of terrible people out there who need to be harassed and attacked because they wrote a smutty story.

Someone thought it was appropriate to send written porn to an 11 year old to encourage her to attack the author.

This resulted in a very awkward conversation where I had to explain to multiple horrified parents the anti culture that is becoming so prevalent. The fact that there are adults who use that purity message to groom kids. The way they escalate and how it bleeds into real life. One parent told me she'd wondered why her 14 year old was suddenly concerned about the two year age gap between her parents. The more I explained, the more absolutely ludicrous it sounded and the more baffled these poor mums looked. More than once I was told "but the characters aren't real, it's really weird but it isn't hurting anyone". Which is the point. The fictional situation isn't hurting anyone. The person who sent porn to an 11 year old is.

Was the person who sent it the author? Doubtful, that thing was tagged in the extreme. Was the person who sent it an adult? Almost certainly. The parent who's child received the original message has found more concerning stuff and gone to the police, but from the language the person doing the sending was in the US. We aren't. Did my daughter receive it? No, she isn't interested in that fandom and therefore wouldn't have bothered with it. Is this the fault of the author? No, they didn't send the link, they didn't ask to be harassed, they wrote a story and put it on ao3, the website created in response to rampant censorship and designed to allow for all kinds of fiction. Is this the fault of the parents? Partially, they should have been looking at their daughter's internet use and clocked what was happening sooner. Is this the fault of the child? No, she's 11, she didn't know better.

This has been a difficult day. Multiple parents have had their eyes opened to parts of fandom culture they had no idea existed. And the thing of it is, they aren't concerned about the why of anti rhetoric. They don't care about the adults writing about teens or rape or incest or torture or any of the rest, because they looked at the clearly tagged and rated fics and figured that it worked the same as a warning on any streaming service. They only cared because some utterly vile individual decided to expose their child to something this girl might not have looked at for years.

Proshippers did not cause what I have spent afternoon helping several sets of parents navigate. Antis did. Normally I'm fairly quiet about the whole debate because I just want to get on with my life and share my experiences. Today I got dragged into that mess in my every day life and the adults in the equation didn't react the way Antis like to think they would. They didn't condemn the author. They condemned the anti who shared the work with a preteen.

[salserscorbunny]

You are not a leftist if you think two adults consenting to kink should be considered a crime. Idc what kink it is. The perpetuation of shame around sex is inherently conservative. The criminalization of sex that you don't like or understand or that you think is "wrong" or "immoral" is inherently conservative. You cannot actually believe in the freedom of all marginalized people if you would enact oppressive systems on any group that you dislike. Like this should be common sense but y'all are so far up your own asses...

[salserscorbunny]

Just anti-fujoshi things: Hating Heartstopper because it "fetishizes gay people, although not in a sexual way" ????? If it's not in a sexual way, then it's not a fetish????