#i'm not policing people's media consumption

[hecoxthirst]

Is you blog 18+/a No minors allowed type thing? Its fine either way I was just wondering

i don't specify it anywhere, but pretty much yes? I'm an adult and talk about sexual themes on here quite a lot, so i'd prefer if minors mind their business and stay away but i'm not a cop

[ventbloglite]

People will say things like "I'm critical of..." and then proceed to explain why their bigotry and complete commitment to media illiteracy is actually fine and something more people should agree with actually.

[cuckoo-on-a-string]

"Appropriate" responses to the Gaiman issue

TLDR: This isn't a Rowling situation, be wary of internalized purity culture.

He's a predator. I'm glad a proper journalist followed up where police have failed (and possibly given victims a better footing for future charges).

But I have a problem with the knee-jerk responses targeting the fandom.

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about insulting The Predator. This is about how you treat people who have/do/will enjoy the stories that unfortunately came into the world through his keyboard.

Fans aren't intrinsically evil/uncaring for continuing to participate in associated fandoms.

This is not another Rowling situation. Why? Let me clarify. The consequences of consumption are very different. Rowling is ACTIVELY using her popularity and income as a creative to target one of the most vulnerable minorities in the world. Buying official merch/books/movie tickets prove to the powers that be that she remains a good investment, so they'll give her even more money. This perpetuates the cycle - new movie/book deals, more income, more hate, rinse and repeat.

The push to avoid Rowling's work in full is driven by the fact that she has FACED NO CONSEQUENCES and is still powered by her creative properties. It's fandom/consumers trying to bring justice.

Gaiman, on the other hand, knew he was doing bad shit on some level because he kept his abuse hidden. His status and reputation let him get close to vulnerable fans and essentially intimidate authorities from going after a celebrity. He is FACING CONSEQUENCES. I would personally like to see criminal charges brought against him, but that's out of the fandom's hands. Things we could've influenced (his Disney deal appears to have gone to shit, he's been booted from the truncated final season of GO, and there's no news on Sandman 3) are already in motion. If his publisher doesn't drop him, I'd say avoiding his future works is beyond valid (I certainly wouldn't buy them). But I'm going to watch the new season of Sandman. And once I've taken time away, I'll probably finish my active fics.

"Judging" people who still enjoy his work stems from good intentions that grew out of the fetid ground of purity culture rhetoric.

Writing fanfic and enjoying shows that are already made do not make people soulless accomplices. The idea that unproblematic stories by saintly creators are the only things you're allowed to enjoy is not only flirting with censorship, but it's also impossible.

If you think people should have nothing to do with Gaiman's works, you better throw out anything Weinstein touched. That includes Jackson's LOTR trilogy, FYI. Also, anything his company officially produced (which still gives him money in some cases) should never, ever grace your screen. That includes some of the better Stephen King adaptations, The Orphanage (which was a breakthrough Spanish-language film in Western markets), The King's Speech, The Imitation Game, Woman in Gold, Paddington, and It Follows.

If you aren't willing to publicly announce your "disappointment" in anyone who continues to enjoy any of those films, then kicking up a fuss over how other people process and interact with problematic content from a fallen celebrity who is in the process of getting his dues is pure hypocrisy.

Personally, I'm maliciously complying with Gaiman's famous quote about how once a story is out there, it doesn't belong to the author anymore. Well said, Predator, these are mine now, and I shall fuck about with them as I see fit.

Attacking or snobbishly looking down your nose at the fandom also erases YEARS of beautiful critique and thoughtful exploration of existing, acknowledged problems in works like The Sandman.

People in these parts already know how to handle complex issues in complex pieces of media. Gaiman isn't our god. His canon is not our bible. He didn't teach us morality, as is apparently the case for a lot of people who grew up reading Rowling's works as a child.

If you have a problem with the censorship comment I made, I'd like to point out at least one writer friend is LEANING INTO the fandom as a way to process their own trauma. Suffice it to say they survived a very similar situation. They see it as empowering to take the stories away from the abuser and use the characters/settings to make something new.

I get the ick. I have it right now. But I'm not burning every copy of his work I own (full disclosure I have... *checks shelves* a copy of Neverwhere and The Sandman series). Doing so is totally valid, and if that helps you process and feel better - go for it!

But this is not the same as Rowling and the only ones you hurt by declaring your "judgement" is a complex group of individuals who are able to enjoy fiction, remain aware of potential social consequences, and found a place that doesn't align with your black/white morality.

With that said, judge away! I better not see any stories from Charles Dickens, anything in anyway associated with the Weinsteins, Nickelodeon shows, Charlie Chaplin references, or Francis Ford Coppola films touch your feed. If you scratch the surface, you'll find more things to judge others for enjoying, and they will inevitably find something to judge you for, too.

[vi-arcanes-left-biceps]

So... I wanted to write about the Caitlyn hate train because it's flooding my twt.

First I'd like to start by saying that you're entitled to dislike a character. Arcane is a work of art, but it's also just cartoons -whatever, just hate the cartoon character. I don't even like Caitlyn that much, mostly I find her arc very compelling.

But. The amount of hate and the shape it takes, for me, is very clearly influenced by a few factors.

With Caitlyn I feel like half of the folks are just regurgitating discourse they read before and try to earn internet morality/politics points while very much forgetting to touch grass. There is no"I don't like her", there is a sense of rightgeousness in disliking her that doesn't make much sense. "She's literally Hitler!" Please think. There are real life fascists and nazis over here. This is a cartoon who's the bad guy for like four and a half episodes.

There are interesting conversations to have about how Caitlyn's actions mirror real life oppression, as many also point out as a reason to hate her. It's fair that you dislike her those actions, to be honest. But 1) stories are not made to be morally perfect but to explore themes and emotions -characters will do bad, even evil things; 2) critical consumption of media exists; 3) using political language to hate on a fictional character with no real political critique/analysis behind makes me think you don't really believe that much what you're saying & you just want to use buzzwords you learned on the internet.

Takes like this are tinted with some sort of attempt to a moral high ground for disliking a fictional character for political reasons, while simultaneously refusing to understand the narrative of the character and think critically about what it is trying to say about real world politics.

To analyse a story you have to engage with it. See what it wants to tell you. See how it does it. See how it fails. You can dislike Caitlyn and tbh disliking her because of her role in the story is more than fair. But that doesn't equal media analysis. And I'm sorry but not liking a character doesn't make you more politically committed than the rest.

There are so many interesting things to say about Arcane's flawed portrayal of politics. How it uses the aesthetics of oppression to tell a story without deeply analysing the oppression itself within the narrative, how the context in which it was created and the beliefs held by its authors afect the portrayal of themes... Among all these, "Caitlyn is evil and irredeemable because we saw a montage of her and Vi doing police violence" is a very superficial take. Please, please, pleeease analyse those montages frame by frame and discuss how they showcase police violence, what bias they have, what purpose it serves. Analyse how it takes from real life events in a way that is insensitive. I'd love it sooo much to see posts like this.

On the other side, I've seen people say both that say Caitlyn is evil because of the acts she commits and then say that Silco is a revolutionaire. What? Silco WAS a revolutionaire, and he still had a motivation to make Zaun free, but his motivations do not match his actions and that's pretty obvious. "Sometimes revolution requires violent resistance" = "Silco is a revolution hero" showcases a very shallow level understanding of the first phrase there. Silco flooded the streets of Zaun with drugs. The Firelights were born out of willingness to defend zaunites from Silco and Jinx. Silco did not do violent resistance against Piltover, not since the rebellion he had led with Vander. He tried to invent shimmer as a weapon to fight again and the only thing he managed is to make many people misserable and dependent on it -and he didn't care. His character and his actions are quite more complicated than "he's doing everything for revolution"; but again, another character reduced to a catchphrase that fails to actually engage with his story. Only difference between these people's opinions on Silco and Caitlyn is that Silco's character has the word "revolution" near in the script and Caitlyn's script includes "cop".

Another thing is, why hate Caitlyn so much and not say a single thing about Ambessa? I can think of a few reasons but I'll summarise like this:

1) Not being aware that Ambessa is always the one calling the shots here even if Caitlyn is given the title of Commander. Even though the show is very much making this clear.

2) Because Caitlyn gets a redemption and Ambessa gets "punished" aka is a villain and dies. As if humans where not more complex than good and evil.

3) Caitlyn's more popular than Ambessa I guess? It's always more fun to hate on the popular character. Also she's a main character so she'd obviously get more more attention.

3) Some people just want women to be perfectly moral all the time, and in wlw relationships even more. I didn't want to bring up fandom misoginy & lesbophobia but I can tell if it was Jayce having her narrative and redemption the discourse would be quite different.

Anyway. Acab and long live critical thinking. I guess I just want to say please send some nuanced Caitlyn takes my way because I'd really love to read those.

[demonslayerunhinged]

Hello!! I saw your recent post and I thought it was really interesting :3 would you mind going a little more into depth about your opinions?

Hello anon! If you're referring to the sexualization post, then sure! Loooooooong answer incoming! Also, I'm going to be using 'You' a lot, just know I'm not referring to you anon but to the imaginary morality police I'm arguing with in my head. I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but I'm writing an essay about this and I will release it, swearsies! But lemme add some tidbits from it here.

Lemme start by saying that I understand that there's a problem with how female characters are portrayed in anime and manga but in my honest opinion right now sexualization isn't really a major issue when it comes to female characters especially the ones in other popular anime/manga series like My Hero Academia(kinda), Mob Psycho 100, Jujutsu Kaisen(🙄), Attack on Titan, Hunter x Hunter, Naruto, One Punch Man, Tokyo Ghoul, Chainsaw Man, hell even One Piece!

People just throw around the word without knowing what sexualization actually is. So here's a definition:

Sexualization in media is when a character is portrayed as a sexual object and nothing more. The goal of their existence is to titillate the (male) audience. So because of that they hold no relevance, no character growth, no interesting personalities and are essentially stripped of their humanity. They're literally just objects for consumption.

A perfect example is Tamaki Kotatsu from Fire Force, who conveniently has the Lucky Lewd curse where she loses her clothes regardless of the situation. We're introduced to her boobs and the MC Shinra ogling them-who unintentionally gropes her in the next scene-before we get introduced to her as a person.

This is the first of many, many, MANY instances of her 'lucky lewd' curse. There's even not one, but two whole episodes dedicated to the various ways she'll lose her clothes when fighting enemies.

Even in her character defining arc where we get to see more of her backstory and where she is put in a life-threatening situation, her humanity is still denied and is she placed in this sexually suggestive position.

And when she is saved by Shinra because of course she is, the lucky lewd activated, and he crashes into her boobs for no reason and spends a good amount of time ogling her torn outfit I wish I was joking.

This is a serious situation btw. Like she was deadass just about to be killed. Even when she begs for mercy as one of the characters that she sees as an older brother figure attacks her so viciously it leaves her bloody and bruised that she begs for someone to save her, the camera focuses on her lips and portrays her pleads for help in an erotic light.

This was supposed to be her arc that would've not only developed her as a character but allowed us to gain more insight into her compelling backstory but no, instead she got to be a sexual object to be ogled by Shinra and the audience, even during her dire moments when she was brutalized she couldn't even have the chance to be portrayed with basic humanity as a human being. Her arc ended up being more about Shinra that it was about her. I mean, she can't even catch a break in the official art 😭.

This is what actual sexualization of a character looks like, now lets compare this to the 'sexualized' characters in KnY.

Mitsuri

The morality police like to point out her boobs bouncing, running scene and her bath scene as proof of her sexualization, but I disagree. Firstly, Mitsuri wasn't the only one that got a bath scene, Genya and Tanjiro got one too where we saw Tanjiro's bare ass on screen!

Second the running scene was gratuitous yes, but she's never groped, she's never ogled, in fact Tanjiro was more worried about her breasts spilling out than how she was dressed, and the moment was done over in like seconds, the show moves on to establish a character defining trait; her love of food. Already we see that she's humanized, we see her likes and her complaints about being ignored. There are no comments on her body and no other lingering shots of her boobs and she most definitely isn't put in sus positions like this

As for her uniform, I dunno maybe it's because I personally like wearing skimpy clothes because of sensory issues, but I don't see anything wrong with it. Her miniskirt makes sense because her fighting style relies heavily on acrobatics and flexibility, try doing acrobatics in an Amish-length skirt and let me know when you eventually eat shit and end up with a broken neck. Acrobatics are mostly done in either leotards or skintight costumes, and I don't think those were popular in Taisho Japan.

Like yea even though male gymnasts typically wear trousers so y'know their cock and balls don't slip out, a lot of them just wear short shorts.

Then her boob window, honestly come off it. Yea, when I first saw her I didn't like it, but that was because I was scared that she was going to be another fanservice character, but after reading the manga and Gaiden, it doesn't bother me anymore. I've seen some comments such as 'oh her breasts might spill out' and all, but they never do though. Do people forget that she's a fictional, 2D character???!!! Her boobs won't spill out unless the animators want it to.

We also got an explanation for the design; it was the work of the pervy designer Kakushi who's known rightfully as Scum Glasses, and Mitsuri though embarrassed just couldn't bring herself to burn or discard it, which tells us about her character and how she cherishes the hard work of others, no matter how pervy their intentions are.

None of our main characters shame her for it, even ogle her or make sexual comments about her body. Shinobu shames Scum Glasses and offers her matches to burn it, Sanemi's reaction to her embarrassment shows that he doesn't see it as a big deal and when it interfered with the wellbeing of the female slayers, his anger was directed at Scum Glasses, not the slayers.

Even Giyuu's comment in the Corps Records reads more like he's concerned for her safety, and the fact that she doesn't have scars despite her uniform is honestly impressive and a testament to her power as a Hashira.

She's one of the kindest (and frankly realest)characters in KnY-second only to Tanjiro. She was practically the only one against Tanjiro and Nezuko getting executed or punished, she accepted Nezuko without hesitation despite being a demon and treated her like a little sister, she didn't shame Genya for eating demons, in fact I don't think she noticed because all she saw was her junior who needed help.

She's not a 'sexualized female character', she's Mitsuri Kanroji. Who was literally rejected by the world for being different but instead of being bitter chose to use her literal strength to help people, who brings comfort to others with her smile and personality despite seeing so much loss and devastation, who fights and protects not out of spite or revenge or heritage but out of love and duty.

But yea sure, let's focus on her inconsequential uniform and her 10-second bath scene 🙄.

Nezuko and Daki

The main point of contention about Nezuko and Daki's 'sexualization' is because they're 'minors' which is so dumb and a whole other topic, but let's focus on their clothes. I really don't understand the complaints about Nezuko, because the majority of the time when she's not fighting she's dressed in her regular, 'modest' kimono.

What about when she's in demon mode? Oh! Her thighs are exposed when she's fighting? Yes, that tends to happen when you wear fucking skirts. Oh! Her clothes don't fit when she grows twice her size? You mean just like how the Hulk loses majority of his clothes when he grows too? Shocking that her clothes don't grow with her when she's not a fully formed demon. Shocking, I tell you!

Same with Mitsuri, there are no lingering shots of her boobs or her body because the main action is focused on her kicking ass. Go look at comments on anime sites in the episodes where she grows in size and fights, how many of them actually mention her body as opposed to her being kick-ass. The majority of Nezuko simps are simping over her as a moe character rather than a sex object. The most popular image of Nezuko is her shrunken form when she was running away from Kanao as it should because that scene was cute and funny as fuck.

For Daki, it's different, because yea she's wearing super revealing clothing, but here's my take; I don't see anything wrong with Daki's clothing. I'm sorry, but to me her outfit is iconic.

Her character design radiates power and intimidation to me rather than sexual object, and as with Nezuko and Mitsuri, despite her outfit, she never has any lingering shots on her boobs or placed in positions where she's groped and ogled, and she's never shamed by any of the characters because they're too busy trying not to get themselves killed. when I see her I'm not thinking 'heh, I can see her boobs', I'm fearing for my life and hoping she doesn't eat me! I mean look how terrifying she is in this shot.

Also, just like Mitsuri and Nezuko her humanity is never denied, when she had her head cut off by Tengen there were no suggestive shots of her body, in fact more people were shocked at her sudden cries which showed how young she was.

When she and Gyutaro are defeated, it's not portrayed in a sexually suggestive or erotic way, we're not made to see some femme fatale seductress, we're made to see an angry, bitter but ultimately hurt little girl who is spiteful at the world that rejected and abandoned her and her brother.

We see how she's had to survive, how she was brutalized and burnt for just standing up to her brother which in hindsight makes her reaction to Nezuko setting her on fire all the more heartbreaking. We see a girl who rejects 'heaven' if it means that she will be separated from her brother - the only person who was ever there for her, took care of her, comforted her and made her feel safe in a world that made them feel so rejected and so alone, the person who told her this:

If you're given all this character and backstory and all you choose to focus on is how she's dressed, then you need to check yourself and look inwards because you're the one with the problem.

The truth is, female characters are going to be sexualized regardless of what they wear, y'know just like women in real life, so how about we instead focus on making sure that they have relevance in the story, relatable backstories, character growth, rich personalities, and most of all humanity.

Sorry for the long answer anon but I hope this is okay for you, I would still post the full essay on Mitsuri eventually. Thanks for your question! ❤❤❤

[menlove]

like I'll be honest my biggest hatred and annoyance w tumblr/twitter/tiktok culture is the way media consumption is like. the peak of activism and morality. it's genuinely just the stupidest thing. you'll have people that have literally never done anything for their community thinking they are the Height of moral purity and excellence bc they only consume Morally Correct Things. like baby that does Not make you a good person I'm so sorry to break that to you. it has just about 0 to do with whether or not you're a good person. how do you treat people? how do you treat strangers? friends? family? do you try to be kind? do you try to make sure you're leaving the world better than you found it? or do you just go online and Get Real Mad About Stuff

and I'm speaking from experience bc I used to BE like that too and idk like maybe it's age but it's genuinely rarely ever that serious or deep. being a good person is a lot more than policing yourself and your interests to align with the modern moral standard you subscribe to.

[saintsenara]

How are you able to enjoy toxic/unhealthy/“problematic” ships/characters without feeling weird (for lack of a better word) about it?

I ask this because I want to be able to do this myself as it seems like a much more enjoyable way of engaging with fiction to me. I can get over some ships just being toxic and the characters not being good together and still enjoy their dynamic but I have trouble with the other ships that feel morally wrong. I know it’s just fiction but I can’t seem to get over the ick feeling I have when I think about those ships/characters. I feel like I’m being too puritanical about these things but I don’t know how to stop feeling like something is gross when I feel it’s gross…

Do you have any tips to stop jumping to moralizing ships/characters?

thank you very much for the ask, anon!

i'm going to be upfront that this reflexive gross feeling isn't something i've ever really struggled with - both in fic and more broadly. this is due to various personal idiosyncrasies, above all the fact that i've got disengaged boomer parents who didn't police our media consumption [my favourite book when i was eleven? lolita...] and that i'm a doctor, which is a profession which requires you to develop a very high threshold for what you find disgusting. the human body - at all stages of its life-cycle and its cycle of decomposition - produces a lot of different fluids... and it's also the case that [just as if you can think of it, there's porn for it] if an inanimate object exists, somebody somewhere has got it stuck inside them...

and so the situation that i find myself in is that i consider it infinitely less weird that i enjoy the odd bit of hot tomarrymort action than that i actively enjoy cutting through bone with a saw...

but, obviously, "get a medical degree" isn't particularly helpful advice...

i am a ride-or-die fan of the concept of stepping outside of your comfort zone. this is why i'm such an avowed multishipper - i think it's good for us as fandom citizens to examine the potential of our faves in relationships [romantic or otherwise] which are either not their canon endgames or which aren't our preferred pairings, and in situations which don't align with their canon experiences [whether that means making them suffer or giving them full-on fluff]. it draws out the multiple aspects of a character to consider them from these different angles - and it prevents us from getting so stuck in one interpretation of a character or configuration of a ship which means that it puts our backs up to stumble across stories which approach things differently.

but stepping outside of your comfort zone doesn't mean that you have to go enormously far. it may be that a reader decides - having only ever read teen-rated fics where characters' sex lives don't extend beyond hand-holding and forehead kisses - to take the plunge into an explicit piece filled to the brim with watersports and age play. it may be that a reader decides - having only ever read teen-rated fics for one canon pairing - to read a teen-rated fic for a non-canon alternative. both of these are entirely valid approaches.

by which i mean, our comfort levels and our thresholds for discomfort are subjective, they're personal. if there are ships or themes or characters you don't want to read about because they don't feel good... you're not doing something wrong if you avoid them. exposing yourself to fics you expect to make you uncomfortable can be useful - and fiction is certainly a way to explore discomfort which gives you much more control over the experience than encountering it in real life - but it's not something you're obliged to do to be active in fandom.

the thing you are obliged to do to be active in fandom is to be nice to other people, no matter what their tastes in fiction. this means, at its fundamental level, that when you see people who ship pairings or like themes which make you think "ew"... you keep it to yourself/the group chat rather than putting it on the timeline.

but, once this is something you've got the hang of [which takes a bit of time! but practice makes perfect!], something i feel can be a really useful way of overcoming a tendency towards knee-jerk moralising reactions is to just vibe in the vicinity of people you know like the content you instinctively feel is gross.

this doesn't mean you have to read any of this content - but you'll learn just by hanging out near them that the people who do are just... normal. one minute they might reblog a rec for a pairing you think "absolutely not" about, the next they might reblog a cat picture which makes you squeal with delight. you'll like some of their content, but not all. you'll agree with some of it, but not all. you might like progressively more of it as you spend time in their orbit - maybe they'll explain why they like the pairing or character in question and you'll think "huh, i've never looked at it like that" - or you might not. this is absolutely fine.

all of us - at one time or other - have made a black-and-white moralising pronouncement: people who think x are gross; people who like y are fucked-up, you'd never catch me doing z. and these pronouncements are different from our wider, societally-influenced moral codes - which are good things, otherwise we'd live in the purge - in that they're fundamentally ways for us to feel good about ourselves and our families and our friends by defining ourselves as better than a faceless other. we say "you'd never catch me reading that, it's foul" when we know [or think we know] that the friend we're talking to would agree with the statement. we are far less likely to say it if we know that the friend - whom we see as a human being who is beautiful in their imperfection and inherently worthy of love simply by virtue of being alive - was reading and enjoying that just the other day.

and so the best way to train yourself out of reflexively moralising ships or characters or tropes is to put a face to the faceless other who likes them. be intentional in sharing a space with fans of the stuff you feel uncomfortable with and, eventually, it just becomes background noise. you'll scroll on tumblr, say "well there we are, jane's written some more of her sirius/harry piss kink fic - although i'm not interested in clicking on it" and go on with your day.

because the other thing i think it's really useful to do is to train yourself into reframing your disgust as disinterest. there are plenty of things which i don't seek out to read - and some of these topics are completely benign and some are darker [i don't enjoy reading explicit non-con, for example] - but this is because i try to frame it as that i don't think these things would interest me.

this is still the maintenance of a personal comfort zone, but thinking of the content outside this zone as something you are disinterested in turns it into something neutral. when you think of it as something to be disgusted or grossed out by, it naturally provokes a visceral response which makes you look through a moral lens. thinking in terms of disinterest, instead, gives you sufficient detachment from this visceral response to recognise, interrogate, contextualise, and control it.

and - in time - this neutral reframing may result in you feeling more interested in taking the plunge into the ships and characters and stories you currently don't vibe with, once you don't have an instinctive disgust response as a barrier.

or it may not. and this is absolutely fine.

[nocturnalazure]

Why I don't do TZR

I schedule my story posts to get published between 2pm and 4pm CET. That's early morning on the US East Coast and late evening in Asia. I thought it was a good compromise.

I never do timezone reblogs for that reason, and also because I trust my mutuals to check on my blog whenever they have the time. I don't feel the need to spoon-feed them. If they don't come, so be it, but I don't want to play by the rules of mindless content consumption, ie endless scrolling every single second of free time. Maybe it's a generational thing, but I want people to come and see my stuff out of their own initiative, not just coming across it randomly, among a sea of other content, just to forget it right away. And if you tell me that that's not the way social media work, well I'm sure you know that those platforms and their algorithms are designed to grab our attention for as long as possible, which has a devastating impact on our attention span and our ability to take a step back and actually digest all that content. I simply refuse to add up to the problem by using social media the way it's designed to. And if that's the reason why I get less likes and comments, then I'm perfectly at peace with it.

My dash is filled with unique, original content that I chose to see and that I find inspiring. I don't feel the need to follow thousands of blogs and it doesn't take me that long to catch up with my dash.

One word on reblogs also. Because my blog is mine and mine only, I share content the way I deem manageable for me. I don't care if "that's the way Tumblr works". I'm thankful when a mutual reblogs one of my posts because I know that they do it to keep track of something they particularly liked. It makes the post stand out for me and for them. I use reblogs the same way, to highlight something I really loved from one of my mutuals. But I don't expect that being reblogged will improve my visibility. I find new blogs by proactively checking out people who like and comment either on my stuff or on that of other people I like. If I see that the first pages on a blog are all reblogs, it doesn't give me any vibes about who the blogger is and whether I will like their style. I prefer leaving reblogging to specialized blogs, like CC blogs.

There are several ways of using social media, regardless of the platform, and it would be absurd to argue that there is just one way to run a blog. You can follow a gazillion blogs to fill up your dash and reblog stuff that you think is great if that's what makes you happy. Or you can mind your own business, post your own stuff and carefully curate your personal experience, which is what I prefer to do. Don't try policing other people, especially when what you end up doing is promoting content obesity and information overload.

[mywitchcultblr]

Terf/Conservative-lite bingo

Bingo or signs that someone might be terf/conservative leanings (even if they claimed to hate terf or conservative) if they match a LOT or ALL points below

Hates pansexual people

hates xenogender

kink critical, spending too much goddamn time ranting about people's sexual preference and what consenting adults do, overall being sex negative

hates asexual/aromantic people

Puritan about fanfic/fan art and shipping also they are anti-ao3, spending a lot of time policing fandom

Trying to instigate a fight between bisexual people against pansexual people

Doesn't want the term 'queer' to be reclaimed or used in any way

Dismissing the plight/suffering that trans men endured

Instigating a fight between trans women and trans men

Obsessed with media purity

Exclusionist and trying to divide LGBTQIA+ community

Overusing the term 'biological woman' too much to uplift themselves and to demean trans women, just another way to say "i'm the real woman and you will never be a woman" to trans women

Ranting about how women enjoying yaoi/mlm are homophobic and evil or fetishizing gay men (this mentality is common amongst sexist queer men, terf-men and terf woman) not caring with the fact that media consumption is not always reflect people real morality, also a lot of yaoi enjoyer/fujo are queer themselves

I often see blogs that match all of those specifics points above (from their dni/bio) and yeah they are not pleasant people, its like every goddamn time, its like a pattern

[thefangdomcryptid]

Villains

Yeah, I've been trying to sleep but it's been eluding me, and when sleep eludes me, I tend to hyperfocus on things. In this case, villains and how people treat them or worse, people that like them.

I am and always have been a fan of villains and morally grey characters. I just find them fascinating, and love to see what drove them to their actions. I see a lot of people that complain about villains not being villains anymore and I'm just here like: perhaps you never really understood them in the first place. Perhaps you just want them to be one-dimensional because the thought of humanizing them and realizing that that villain could very well be you, or someone you love if someone just pushed you hard enough, if someone just bullied you hard enough. Perhaps, if that is how you want to see them, then they're not for you, and that's okay. And even villains who are just "irredeemable" still have some depth to them. Slaughtering millions for no reason because you can is soooo basic (yes I'm looking at you Bhaal. Bombastic side-eye)

Also the constant "but they're evil, they can never do good!" Even alignments are flexible. Because *gasp!* they were written by humans with complex emotions. Good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things, it's not a one size fits all characterization.

And then of course, my biggest pet peeve is when people police how you enjoy your characters. "You can like this villain, BUT you can't condone their actions." I am here to tell you, yes I can. You know why? Because THEY ARE VILLAINS. They're not going to invite people for tea and crumpets now are they? Villains do villainous things and that includes some very unsavory crap. Which I am fine with, because again, they're not the good guys. And sometimes, I'm glad some villains bite the dust, because they're just bad people. And sometimes I find myself rooting for some form of redemption story.

Sometimes villains are not for you, accept it and move along, instead of trying to inject your unwanted opinion into every piece of media involving a villain you hate.

Same goes for certain types of media. No creator has to cater to your sensitive soul. You are responsible for your own media consumption. Shows and books like Outlander or Game of Thrones are not for everyone, so instead of trying to police people who can stomach such content, find something else to read, there are enough books and shows out there that fit what you like. And no, just because a writer writes questionable stuff, it does not mean they are into that, and also, actors are NOT their characters, get therapy. For real.

And last but not least, I am not here to start and endless discussion with fandom weirdos. Try me and get blocked.

I will leave you with a gif of Aemond serving CVNT. (And no, I am not Team Green or Black, I am Team Aemond, Team Daemon and Team Dragon LOL)

[novashelby]

Nova Thoughts: You can't censor art...

Not even a little.

TW: mention of rape, murder, incest, abuse, molestation, etc.

I just read a post, but I didn't want to comment directly on it because I respect the opinions of the people I follow. What we write does not define who we are morally. You cannot force someone to purify or censor their work, and it really is not up to anyone to judge others for what they write. Even if you don't agree with it. You like horror where people are getting brutally murdered, but you aren't fine with other vile things like non-con, incest, abuse, and so on? Okay. Those are all awful things. So, where do we do we draw the line? Okay, we have a group who doesn't like non-con, so we collectively decide no more non-con. Non-con is gone. What's next? Okay, people decide they no longer like incest. As a group, we decide no more incest. So, we got rid of incest and non-con, what is next? Where is the line? Murder is bad! Okay, no more murder. What's next? Abuse? No more abuse in writing. Do you see my point? These lines are tricky. You can't "censor just a little" because there is no such thing. Of course you can argue in published books, movies, tv, there are measurements of censorship. Of course, and I have my own thoughts with that. However, there are still streams where those uncensored versions can exist. But I'm talking about fandom specifically. We, especially in fandom, should not dictate what people write or read. It is not our job to police, shun, censor, or bully people for their media consumption. It is writing. It is fictional. It is fake. Therefore, it does not HARM REAL PEOPLE. No writer should ever have to justify or feel bad for what they write. Instead, it should be common sense that what we write and/consume-LEGALLY does not define our actual beliefs, morals, and feelings. Human sexuality is complicated. While rape and incest are not kinks/fetishes, they are fantasies. Which, guess what, exist all in the realm of sexuality. Want to know something else? People can have sexual fantasies without actually wanting to execute them or have them happen to them. For example, I admittedly have a rape fantasy. Yes, me, someone who has been a victim of rape and molestation 3x in her life. Just because I have the fantasy of being in that position, does not mean I actually want to be raped. Make sense? Actual rape and incest are absolutely disgusting, vile things. Playing out fantasies, safely and consensually, does no harm. For example, CNC is the kink for rape play. That's what it is. It is a consensual act that allows a group of consenting adults to safely and consensually play out a fantasy. CNC has to exist in that realm because real people are involved. That being said, in writing, it is all fiction. Those people are not actually involved. I can write Tommy Shelby brutally tearing Y/N's legs open. A. Tommy Shelby is not a real person...he doesn't give a fuck because he isn't real. B. Y/N isn't actually getting raped in a real situation. HARMS NO ONE. Now, this isn't really incest and I personally am not fond of that theme myself, but I could even write John Shelby fucking my OC Evie Shelby(Adopted niece), if I wanted. Why? John Shelby isn't real and Evie isn't real. Harms no one.

All this to say, stop calling for censorship. Stop trying to dictate what others write just because you don't like it. No one has to justify themselves to you. But hey, you don't have to justify yourself for blocking or not reading certain material. We all curate our safe spaces. If certain themes make you uncomfortable, I 100% understand you. I get it. I respect that. Just as I have the right to write whatever the fuck I want, you have the right to ignore whatever you don't like. But just because non-con make you uncomfortable, doesn't mean NO ONE should be allowed to write it because it's "wrong". In real life circumstances, they are wrong, awful, vile. However, fictional writing, it is not real.

Happy reading and writing, and put the proper warnings on your fucking shit!

Good day.

[blackstarising]

oooh people aren’t gonna like this part but when it comes to this discussion of miguel o'hara being racially fetishized (and I do believe it's happening, mind you) I think it’s really important to note - and I am metaphorically sitting down and saying this gently in my Auntie voice - that you're not automatically exempt from this conversation if you're a creator of color yourself. like, you're not, I'm sorry.

I'm not latine so I'm not speaking to latine creators here, but I am black, yeah? and you might not like to hear this but we are Just as capable of perpetuating the hypersexualization of minority bodies as anyone else. we do not get a pass, okay? we do it too, and to be blunt, that shit is not acceptable nor is it at all cute.

now before someone comes in saying “oh, so I can't be attracted to him?? he can't be sexual??” I think you know very well that is not my point here. my point is that the miguel o'hara tag is predominantly sexualized content right now - it's about breeding, it's about biting, it's about possessiveness and aggressive sex, fan art is constantly accentuating his physical size, and it would be FINE if this content wasn't the exclusive majority. but it is so, so dominant and creators of color are doing it too and we have to be accountable.

creators of color, especially black creators, I am not disregarding the time you've spent on your work. I know that some of the content you are creating is also for readers who aren't represented. but, please, I am asking you to be careful. I am asking you to think critically about the content you both consume and create. I am asking you to ask yourselves why you might be inclined to exclusively associate this darker skinned man with violence. I am asking you to ask yourselves if you're only considering him speaking another language in a sexual context. I am asking you to think very carefully about why you might feel tempted to fixate on quote-unquote animalistic traits. I get up on this rusty fandom soapbox every now and then because I do believe that fandom is not without implication. we perpetuate racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and other forms of bigotry in fandom as it is modeled in the real world. and the hypersexualization of black and brown bodies is very, scarily real, and it has real world implications that include adultification and sexual violence.

like, that's the issue here. look, I’m not trying to be the fandom police. I'm not telling you to stop writing or drawing. I'm not telling you to turn off your feelings. and I can block tags, I can monitor my own media consumption, and I will. but this doesn't exist in a vacuum and yes, white people should be called out but don't think we get a pass and don't think we shouldn't examine our own works because we're people of color too.

[anxious-al]

Magic Kaito & Dead Boy Detectives

Okay I might be overanalyzing but since it was called out by name I wanna talk about how Magic Kaito allows us to deepen our understanding of Niko.

I might be explaining this badly but Magic Kaito is about Kaito Kuroba who has an alter ego as master thief Kaitou Kid. He does heists to try and steal this gem that the organization that killed his dad wants (side note his dad was the former Kaitou Kid). Kaito's clever kid, he's good at magic tricks, he's very confident in himself (he sends letters to the police detailing his heists), and ultimately isn't a bad guy cause he returns the items that he stole, as they aren't the gem. Kaitou Kid has appeared in Detective Conan a few times as an antagonist to Conan.

Now how can this connect to Dead Boy Detectives, more specifically Niko? First of all, since Magic Kaito is connected to Detective Conan we see more of Niko's enjoyment of detective media (of course she also loves Scooby Doo). Niko's consumption of detective media reveals her desire to be a detective, explaining her excitement when learning Edwin and Charles are detectives. Additionally, Niko shows respect to one of the antagonists of DBDA, the Cat King. Despite Kaitou Kid acting as an antagonist in Detective Conan, he possesses redeeming qualities, such as returning his stolen items, and serves as the protagonist of his own story. This connects to Niko's respect for the Cat King as it shows how Niko can have respect and empathy for supposed antagonistic figures. Furthermore, there's an interesting parallel between Kaito and Niko as they have both lost their father. When Kaito loses his father he assumes his father's role as the Kaitou Kid and makes an effort to destroy the gem the organization wants. Niko expresses a desire to bring her father back when talking to the Night Nurse. Could be interesting in a season 2 to dive further into Niko's grief for her father and how that affects her journey from the igloo back to the agency.

Apologies if I explained Magic Kaito badly, I have never read or watched it (tho now I definitely want to). If anyone has additional connections feel free to share! I'd love to hear more! I also linked the only 2 posts I could find about this mention in Dead Boy Detectives as I was surprised people weren't talking about it.

[autisticandroids]

been listening to you're wrong about and like. okay @barren-and-trivial-words said once that on hannibal, serial killing is fundamentally considered a type of artistic pursuit. and they were right, obviously they were right. that's the basic structure almost, of the series. my favorite example is the eye sculpture serial killer where hannibal is literally like. we are situated in his gaze and he is evaluating the sculpture on artistic merit. but overall hannibal is a tv show about aestheticism and the inherent amorality of aestheticism - it is of course immoral to kill, but it is also often beautiful to kill, and shouldn't beauty outweigh morals sometimes?

and the thing is, media is... a good place to make this point. obviously because making a point is going to be in media, but the nature of hannibal as a tv show for consumption means that aesthetics will always trump morals. because the people on the show aren't real, but the beauty is, beauty does by default outweigh morals.

so hannibal kind of becomes this fascinating metatextual text on the nature of stories, or, you know, it can be read that way. because it is in the nature of all stories for beauty to outweigh morals.

but it's also a comment on the nature of serial killers as a concept. i want to link the two episodes of you're wrong about that got me thinking about this - both of these episodes are about the symbiotic relationships serial killers have with media. with fiction but even more especially with news and non-fiction. serial killers sell papers, and in fact the figure of the serial killer is kind of invented to sell papers - in one of these episodes, sarah marshall reads off a letter sent to a london paper "from" jack the ripper that was probably actually forged by a journalist to heat up the news cycle. it's very cinematic, it reads as absolutely cliche to the modern ear and maybe to the victorian one as well, but i'm sure it made the paper that printed it a lot of money.

and one of the things that i already kind of knew but was reinforced in these episodes is that most of the common knowledge that the public has about "serial killers" both in general and in specific cases is just... wrong. and that's for a lot of reasons. some of it is definitely because it's convenient for the police to have access to the figure of the mastermind serial killer for all sorts of reasons, especially to cover their own incompetence or to just pawn off unsolved cases. but also it's because the media needs sensation to sell papers, and so lurid stories of superhuman killers are just a lot tastier than some guy who murdered three women for obvious, petty reasons and also molested his stepdaughters. the public demands uniqueness, spectacle, extremity. it's not enough to bleed if you want to lead, stories have to bleed spectacularly. so the modern concept of the serial killer was built almost entirely on the back of newspapers, true crime paperbacks, and silence-of-the-lambs-alike feature films. it's not like. a real thing. it's a product of the spin factory, re-working reality into something marketable.

and hannibal lecter - the original, fava beans and a nice chianti hannibal lecter - is perhaps the height of this cultural concept, the star of the serial killer... craze? moral panic? i suppose the word is phenomenon. so it's interesting to read bryan fuller's hannibal as a kind of indulgent commentary on the existence of the newspaper-literary "serial killer" figure.

[i would also recommend ywa's episodes on ed gein, jeffrey dahmer, and the dc snipers for more perspectives on serial killers. while i'm at it you should also listen to their episodes on gangs, human trafficking, sex offenders, the satanic panic, stranger danger, and true crime, but i realize i'm kinda pushing it.]

[nutterzebutters]

Hey so hot take

Saying "I'm not going to turn into a pedophile by consuming media with pedophilia in it" in the face of "maybe don't go out of your way to consume inherently disturbing material 24/7" is purposely obtuse and you are missing the point.

No, you are not going to turn incestuous by watching Game of Thrones, you want to know why? Because Game of Thrones actively shows why cersei is delusional in the midst of her incestuous relationship with her twin brother. The show actively makes it a point to show other characters clear disgust and adversity to the mere idea and shows the active side effects of her actions. Stop using it as your safety net against the argument "fiction can affect reality."

Fandom, and fiction itself inherently has the goal in mind to make human connection across media, and a lot of the time are passion projects created from the human soul. because of this you can never truly separate the fiction mirrors reality argument. No, you should not be policing your thoughts, but you need to understand where the argument tends to take place and why you need to evaluate why you're feeling attacked.

The prime argument is in the face of things like pro-shipping or pro-fiction and those in FAVOR of incest, fetishizing lolicon, abusive relationships, ECT, people who did NOT know how to separate their fiction from reality. People who actively engage for enjoyment in these specific subjects. There is a fine line between consuming your media in moderation while that media properly depicts the disturbing content versus overindulging in media that tends to glorify or fetishize said disturbing content. To say that this 24/7 consumption will not affect you is either naivety or denial, especially when ppl are prone to things like being an "irl" (people who genuinely believe they are those fictional characters because of the state of psychosis) or those with online 🌽 addictions aligning with dopamine rushes for these fiction dynamics. You also have children on the internet who were groomed into these concepts and don't know any better, so they have a habit of overindulging in these fantasies as well because of the lack of moderation.

This also applies to people who claim it as a coping mechanism, if it is a coping mechanism it has to affect your reality in order to do something for you. Coping mechanisms are built to better your behaviors in the face of trauma. If you are struggling with trauma I promise you the indulgence and problematic media will not help you, in fact it will most likely make it worse by validating the very behavior you suffered from, there are better more effective ways to help you heal from your trauma. And for the love of god, many things like non-con kinks are a completely separate conversation, the way you role play that is most likely for the CONSENT OF HAVING CONTROL and is NOT the same as romanticizing the outright actions. If you do, then it's time to seek therapy in other means to dismantle that within yourself. Stop bringing in the bedroom conversation when it's based off of the consent factor and safe space with your own partner, not the wild fantasy that a character is being 🍇'd- WHICH AGAIN. IS WHO THIS CONSERVATION APPLIES TO AND TARGETS.

If you are a person who reads things like darkship, power Imbalance, or anything that contains these subjects but never romanticizes them THIS CONVERSATION NEVER APPLIED TO YOU and you shouldn't be listening to those who think it does. That is 10 steps further than we needed to go and is 9/10 not a good faith part of the conversation nor is it coming from someone who is fully informed or aware of what they're claim means, exposure is actually a really good thing. In items like Game of Thrones built for mature audiences, the exposure lets us know yeah, it happens, and if you're curious you can learn more about it, children's media largely cannot and should not enter the chat here- as children can handle heavy topics as seen in bluey and be taught right from wrong. But should NEVER contain that type of content. Exposure in and of itself can be a small reality pointer which is good! We need to know about how these things work, and it's important that stories are written that explore these things thoroughly from neutral or personal POVS while being mature about it.

In the same breath, there is a reason we think of pro-shippers and people who tend to fetishize prepubescent anime girls or are into non-non and make their whole internet persona about how much they fantasize about it, that is because the "fiction doesn't affect reality" statement is a safety umbrella for them.

Once more, if you consume your media in moderation without that media romanticizing or otherwise trying to glorify inherently immoral subjects this conversation never applied to you and should never have accused you. No you are not going to suddenly be gay by consuming queer media, absolutely nobody of sane mind has claimed that. If you are not actively promoting dynamics that tend to reflect or represent something that's very harmful to real ppl, again this conversation does not apply to you. It applies to people who do not know how to handle themselves properly, and you trying to make the argument look absolutely insane has every warrant to have people assume that you are the issue in question. If you are not being a weirdo online pressing it on other people by making them look stupid for being against it, go ham.

Who cares if it's not canon, the people who care have long since forgotten what fandom etiquette even looks like and don't remember what fandom looked like before the "Great Tumblr Purge". But they're not the topic of this conversation.

You may notice that I mentioned IRLs. Many of these ppl do not need your "reality check" either, you are not a licensed medical professional or a psychologist, hell even a psychiatrist. You still don't get the merit to do so even if you took 101 classes, you can harm them and it can backfire, BAD. Again, these ppl do need to be careful about what they consume and how they consume it because there are people prone to not being able to separate the line and it can end up hurting themselves in the end, rarely have I seen hurt it others but I don't need it to affect outside of the IRLs bubble for me to care about how IRL got there and what they might be doing to themselves in the face of distressing/conflicting information, it's a state of mind realistically nobody wants to be in. Many of you act like saying "if you can't separate fiction from reality then that's an issue" isn't also where "fiction affects reality" comes from. We are well aware. That's why we're saying it.

I should also preface this, you should never want to label yourself as pro-ship/pro-fiction when the biggest and most well-known definition applies to somebody who absolutely does not know where to draw the line. If you are "anti-harassment" about the tame ships, maybe it is time to come up with a new term and to stop associating yourself with such ppl. If you immediately jump to defense, maybe you should dismantle why that is, bc you're not fooling anyone. No, there is no proof that violence and video games will cause a school shooter to become a school shooter, they were most likely already subjected to the ideas and desensitized, the violence of the video game only ever promoted it and their fantasies, two things can and should be true at the same time. I'm tired of y'all making it seem like the ppl saying "Hey maybe we shouldn't over indulge in something that gives us a vicious cycle of dopamine based in seeking disturbing/immoral content" are insane. Again, maybe dismantle why you feel the need to get defensive about it.

[radioiaci]

I legit think it's honestly a result of younger individuals on this website being so wrapped up in the black and white use of label to justify a narrowed world-view. Like I'm 32 years old and it's taken me a long time to unlearn a lot of biases and judgments I had about identity, sexuality, and everything else. So in that way, I understand why they're so adamant at policing something like a fictional character who they want to remain so one-noted that they don't feel strange for being the one who wants them to be that way. But at the same time, the presence of an identity/sexuality spectrum is something that one eventually comes to terms with as they grow older and realizes that people are very often shifting, growing, changing entities that can experience such a range of emotion, understanding, and sense of self that to slap a perma-label on someone and insist that they can never be anything else seems so restrictive and nonsensical. I am an aromantic/asexual individual who has come to that conclusion over several years of self discovery and investigation. I still have some modicum of attraction to all genders and I love to explore facets of myself through fictional characters that I connect with and can play with like little fantasy dolls in ways that I would absolutely never be interested in experiencing for myself as a real life human being. It just does not thrill me. But to be able to write and craft a character - whether or not it is my original character - that can traverse those obstacles, hurdles, and exploratory notions FOR me is TONS of fun and honestly a very healthy thing to do! I'm not interested in outright bullying children for being prickly and annoying - because they ARE children, for the most part, and I want to give them an opportunity to grow the hell up LOL. But I think that there is room to understand and learn that IT'S OKAY to write about silly little characters in ways that may not necessarily make sense to their original intent - but if they make sense to YOU and you are not producing real harm in that exploration of the character - then, like. Do whatever you want, man. That's not to say that there are not topics which I think very much toe the line as to what's acceptable to share publicly on something like a public website/forum as a silly ha-ha hobby, but there is always room for nuance and critical consumption of media; even unofficial media. ANYWAY. thank you for coming to my ted talk. <3