#i followed a famous cute fluffy gay artist and it was like the most miserable vindictive judgemental experience ever

[necronatural]

My thought is why does the extremely reductive reblogger get the leeway from the reader to assume they're talking about ONLY exploitative works, while that EXACT concept - that exploitation and dark subject matter are separate topics - isn't allowed to be what the OP means in this scenario. Like only the guy you like more is allowed to be nuanced?

Like the instinctive response I have to posts like this is "people who say 'don't police what I write' are often posting out of frustration that they or someone they know have been criticized for their fetishistic joyriding". But... when someone says "not pedophilia or incest", that isn't saucily toeing someone's potential doublespeak about self-servicing artistic desires, they're saying like. Not pedophilia or incest. Pretty straightforwardly in fact.

Saying only one person gets the benefit of the doubt even if they are the one coming in with a significantly more incoherent comment, and then affirming that you literally shouldn't be able to create art about a human experience many people have familiarity with because you're not an acclaimed writer? Is just childish and reactionary.

How are we starting with world's simplest advice "if you see someone post shit about people bullying you for your writing WATCH OUT 🛑 READ THE PROFILE 🛑 SEARCH ACCOUNT FOR THE WORD 'ANTIS' ⚠️ STAY SAFE 🫡" and go completely into "only people who blindly hate the bad thing are correct".

I'm a little more fussy about this sort of thing because these topics are used as a kind of weapon to ramp up internet harassment using scandal, e.g. Tamsyn Muir being accused of being a pedophile for writing a pretty straightforward non-explicit horror short story about grooming, the infamous attack helicopter short story blowback, Kikuo being momentarily castigated for drawing a horror manga about child grooming, the general nuclear hyper-hostility in "wholesome" communities like cute fluffy gay art twitter (have met actual demons from hell here) - this harassment causes real immediate human harm that can't be reversed.

If the end result of bad reading comprehension could be someone being ostracized and verbally abused en masse, is it actually just?

This is what bothers me about reactionary thought. Even if I agree with the sentiment, its like dude, do we have like safety regulations here

i think when someone replies to the thought of "your triggers don't get to determine the kind of art other people make" with "maybe not pedophilia and incest though" maybe they are not talking about the controversial novel "lolita" or anything else with "dark themes that may make you feel uncomfortable" and are in fact talking about the people online that write thousands upon thousands of words about fictional kids being abused purely for fun and pleasure. like i dunno. uncomfortable themes have a place in something with good writing, sure. but maybe i'm tired of seeing this fucking "let people write what they want to write uwu" type bullshit post every other day, even if the OP means well. no one on fucking ao3 is vladimir nabokov. let's be honest