dannyfandomphd - Tumblr blog

[dannyfandomphd]

I think one of the saddest things about antis is that rather than viewing therapy as, well, therapeutic, they view it as:

Punitive ("you're a bad person, I don't like you, you're bad; go to therapy")

Corrective ("go to therapy so you can learn to be NORMAL")

A tool for spreading ideology ("your therapist would never agree that writing fics about [kink] is normal")

Not allowed flexibility on point 2 even for patient comfort ("if your therapist says your kinks ARE normal, you need a new one, because they are a bad therapist")

Devoid of patient care standards ("I want to be a therapist so I can fix the proship freaks [unspoken: not out of desire to help people and make their lives better. Solely so that I can be more comfortable and not see fic I don't like]")

Something only a 'defective' person would need, and that fixes all 'defects' ("you write icky fics. That's wrong. You're bad. You need therapy")

Has a standardized goal, determined by antis of course, instead of trying to help patients to navigate life ("if you were really in therapy, you wouldn't think it was okay to write about fictional characters being raped")

Not healthcare ("I, a layperson, am qualified to speak about how therapists should operate, a statement I would not make about medicine")

Yet also, healthcare, but only accessed by 'those icky people' ("you're insane, freak, only a delusional schizo would think this was okay")

For the comfort of others instead of for the patient themself ("you should go to therapy so you stop making works that make me comfortable; I don't care if it improves your life in any measurable way")

All of which are toxic and pervasive views of therapy demonstrated in multiple other aspects of society too, so I can't exactly say I'm surprised antis latch onto it so hard, but it is disheartening in any case.

[dannyfandomphd]

🔹 Saying that it's okay to write or read about dark and taboo topics but only when they're portrayed in a certain way is still censorship.

🔹 Wanting to ban or forbid media that you believe portrays a negative topic in a positive light, by glorifying, romanticizing, or fetishizing it is still censorship.

🔹 There is no objective metric to decide if a story is portraying a negative topic the 'right' way.

🔹 Just because a piece of fiction doesn't explicitly condemn or portray an evil action in a bad light in the text doesn't mean the author thinks its good or is trying to persuade the audience that it is good.

🔹 Survivors of trauma will not always write fiction about their trauma in a way that seems 'right' or 'normal' to you.

🔹 Banning fiction because it portrays dark, taboo topics in a way you consider gross or disgusting is still censorship.

[dannyfandomphd]

You know, one time I read a fanfic and it triggered my psychosis, sent me into a month long episode THEN a whole year later I was on ao3 just mindlessly scrolling, I came across the fanfic title and it gave me a panic attack, but something compelled me to click it, i didn't read it but i did scroll through it, why? mental illness.

So like... ya

This is me responding to your old(?) post about someone else's fiction not being able to hurt you, this is probably just a me thing but mental illness makes you do things and react to things in insane ways that sometimes you cant control. I knew while reading that it was affecting me in some way, but I kept reading because well, I'm mentally ill, and then a month of my life dissapeared lol

I think I'm trying to make a point about something but I'm not sure

I did after the fact comment to the author and just kinda, told them about what happened, but I didn't harrassed them or something, -

-but when something does what this fanfiction did to me then you're basically obligated to let the creator know I think(they are a really good writer), I'm an adult and the fanfic was in the ballpark of something I would read and if like, 59% of it was taken out and it had a happy ending I would be fine but oh well

Oh boy, I'm starting to have a panic attack just typing this out holy hell anyways uh, I'm not disagreeing with you(?) but I am saying, don't be too quick to dismiss someone who says a piece of fiction fucked with them? idk sorry, have a good one

My friend, the fiction didn't harm you.

Your mental illness harmed you.

Random writers on the internet are not responsible for managing your mental illness for you.

You are responsible for managing your mental illness.

I knew while reading that it was affecting me in some way, but I kept reading because well, I'm mentally ill

This is self harm. You were engaging in self-harming behavior by continuing to read a fanfiction that you knew was triggering to you.

👉 You are responsible for managing your mental illness.

👉 Writers are not responsible for managing your mental illness for you.

And I hate to tell you this but messaging the author about it was absolutely harassing the author.

[dannyfandomphd]

Hot fandom discourse take but framing dark content as only being acceptable if its a vehicle for exploring personal trauma is just giving ground to the puritan segments of fandom.

Simply liking dark content for its own sake is perfectly fine.

[dannyfandomphd]

[dannyfandomphd]

The thing is, right? I’m very open about the fact that I do kink art, I don’t try to hide it, and I’ve made so many friends outside of that scene, retained friends outside of that scene who have full knowledge of what I do, made friends in the scene and in others who are wonderful, kindhearted, and normal-ass people. Like- to people who aren’t fuckin’ weirdos, it’s a nothingburger, just a Thing I Do that I don’t involve them in.

And like, if we peeled away all the bullshit and the knee-jerking and all the hang-ups, I think that’s the truth- it IS a nothingburger. The people who treated me poorly for it clearly had their own hang-ups regarding their own relationship with attraction, the people who don’t know how to treat people who don’t want to be involved with respect have their own social problems that that’s a symptom of, not the cause, and the societal stigma is just… made up.

Kink is a non-factor to normal-ass, well-adjusted people, and I think it’s time we stopped stigmatizing it. If you treat someone differently because of what they do in their free time, sorry to say pal, but the one who needs to examine their heart is you.

[dannyfandomphd]

one of the biggest things I can advocate for (in academia, but also just in life) is to build credibility with yourself. It’s easy to fall into the habit of thinking of yourself as someone who does things last minute or who struggles to start tasks. people will tell you that you just need to build different habits, but I know for me at least the idea of ‘habit’ is sort of abstract and dehumanizing. Credibility is more like ‘I’ve done this before, so I know I can do it, and more importantly I trust myself to do it’. you set an assignment goal for the day and you meet it, and then you feel stronger setting one the next day. You establish a relationship with yourself that’s built on confidence and trust. That in turn starts to erode the barrier of insecurity and perfectionism and makes it easier to start and finish tasks. reframing the narrative as a process of building credibility makes it easier to celebrate each step and recognize how strong your relationship with yourself can become

[dannyfandomphd]

Help finding a book

I'm having so much trouble trying to locate a copy of "Moving Images, Culture, and the Mind" by Ib Bondebjerg, originally published in 2000. Looks like the ISBN is 9781860205736 or 9781860205739.

I'm not able to find it at my university library at all even though the interloan option (like those ISBNs literally don't bring up anything, and searching under the author's name or the title doesn't bring it up) and I can't find an eBook/PDF version of it on any of my usual sites like LibGen or Anna's Archive.

Does anyone know where I can actually obtain a copy of this? I'm literally looking for a specific chapter inside it that I've seen referenced/cited multiple times but I can't seem to actually find this source material.

Much appreciated.

[dannyfandomphd]

It occurs to me, looking through a bunch of DNI lists and carrds (although it has surely been observed before by others), is that what the people who make these want is not unreasonable per se. Rather, what they are asking for is unreasonable, because what they want is to not be using social media. They want to be using forums, or group chats, or instant messenger, or blogs; they want online communication spaces that are moderated, that are topic-specific, that are limited to existing/vetted members. And these this desire is not unreasonable, but it does not match modern social media.

And because so many of the people who make these seem so very young, I wonder how many of them even realize that spaces that do what they want can (and used to, and still somewhat do) exist, realize that social media can't do what they want it to, but that social media is not the only way for the internet to be.

[dannyfandomphd]

to clarify about fan fiction

to clarify something chuck said in post about being PRO FAN FICTION, some buds have asked if i misspoke when i said ‘fan fiction is part of the original art’. i did not misspeak. i really truly believe this.

if i write a story and you read it an this moves you to paint a picture of snabe and harriet porber, that WHOLE EXPERIENCE FROM ME TO YOU is its own mixed media piece. the medium is motion (getting up and getting the paints) visual (painting) literary (reading the book in first place and then writing your own commentary when you post about it later). it is drama and performance. it is meditation. it is dance in its own way.

i very much mean this: art does not begin and end on the canvas or the page. it is what you had for breakfast the morning you wrote those words, or the story that stuck in your head after watching a show the night before. art is the buckaroo who was moved to pen a whole five page romance story about your characters having a kind picnic in the part.

we are here to create as we push back against the blank empty void, and we prove love is real every time we fill this blank space with little pieces of us. i will not stand in the way of that, and it is an honor to fill this space with this web of inspiration from one bud to the next. ALL OF THIS TIMELINE is a piece and we are one big writers room. there is no shame in this and it is a group project i am proud to be a part of.

[dannyfandomphd]

The one referenced in this post is Who can resist a villain? Morality, Machiavellianism, imaginative resistance and liking for dark fictional characters (Black et al 2019), doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2018.12.005

Some of the other papers I recommend by Jessica Black and Jennifer Barnes of a similar vein are:

Fiction, genre exposure, and moral reality (Black, Capps, & Barnes, 2018) doi: 10.1037/aca0000116

Measuring the unimaginable: Imaginative resistance to fiction and related constructs (Black & Barnes, 2017) doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.055

Morality and the imagination: Real-world moral beliefs interfere with imagining fictional content (Black & Barnes, 2020) doi: 10.1080/09515089.2020.1775799

Fiction and morality: Investigating the associations between reading exposure, empathy, morality, and moral judgement (Black & Barnes, 2021) doi: 0.1037/ppm0000281

Hopefully you can find them with the doi (assuming you have journal access)!

Happy reading!

Moral purity and imaginative resistance as influencing factors in fandom 'anti' attitudes

Jessica Black et al.'s 2019 experiment on the correlation between enjoying dark/villainous characters, personal morality and purity beliefs, and imaginative resistance is so interesting when applying it to anti culture and fandom.

They created a Dark Character Scale where participants self-selected how strongly in agreement or disagreement they were with a series of statements about dark or villainous fictional characters. Some of these questions were the following:

"I enjoy films and books that feature main characters that choose morally questionable actions."

"I can often understand where the bad guys in fiction are coming from."

"My favourite fictional characters are morally ambiguous and often do horrible things."

They then utilised the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (Graham et al. 2011) to see what participants considered important when deciding on whether something is morally right or wrong, for example:

Whether or not someone suffers emotionally

Whether or not someone did something disgusting*

Whether or not someone was cruel

Whether or not someone was denied [their] rights

Whether or not someone acted in a way God would approve of*

as well as how strongly participants agreed or disagreed with statements such as:

Compassion for those who are suffering is the most crucial virtue

People should not do things that are disgusting, even if no one is harmed*

It can never be right to kill a human being

I would call some acts wrong on the grounds that they are unnatural*

Respect for authority is something all children need to learn.

One of the final scales participants used was the Black & Barnes (2017) Imaginative Resistance Scale. This is basically used to gauge how resistant the reader is to enjoying or consuming fictional content that contains characters, situations, or worldbuilding that they personally find morally disagreeable. They had to select how strongly they agreed/disagreed with questions like:

Reading books where bad things are depicted as morally acceptable makes me feel dirty

I just can't go along with a story when it violates my beliefs about morality

At times it feels like the author of a book is asking me to endorse actions that I know are wrong

Some things just shouldn't be done, even within a book

I sometimes cannot go along with a story when the "good" characters do morally reprehensible things

Sympathising with immoral characters makes me feel immoral myself.

Unsurprisingly, analysis of the data revealed that there was a strong correlation between disliking or not enjoying dark fictional characters or villains and having a higher purity morality score and more imaginative resistance.

They performed this test in three studies done on three completely different demographics - the first being mostly liberal women from social media sites, the second being mostly younger conservative college undergrads, and the third being adults split 50/50 in gender recruited from MTurk. All three studies showed that having stronger imaginative resistance and higher purity morality scores is directly linked to a lower score on the DCS - meaning that they would like or enjoy dark fictional characters and their actions less.

This tracks pretty well with what can be seen in the emerging anti culture within fandom:

Self-identified 'antis' are likely to agree strongly with the statements from the Imaginative Resistance Scale, and are more likely to score highly on the questions in Moral Foundations Questionnaire that are specifically demarcated as being concerned with purity (marked above with an asterisk *). This means that they are also, according to these studies, much more likely to disagree with dark fictional characters and their actions.

There is also a very interesting point in one of the discussions areas where Black et al. state "It is worth reiterating that the participants in Study 2 tended to be more conservative, and therefore potentially more likely to have greater concerns about moral purity" which tracks with what people in fandom have been saying about antis parroting conservative/puritan talking points and arguments.

What I find the most interesting is the following statement:

"However, moral purity and imaginative resistance are consistently positively correlated, both in the current studies and in prior research ... and are both likely to reflect a fear of moral contagion that would discourage people from identifying with and liking [dark fictional characters]."

This, when applied to antis, suggests that antis may harbor the subconscious belief that enjoying dark fictional content, and therefore being a 'proshipper', is literally psychically contagious. They may view this as some kind of moral disease which is spreading and infecting fandom, which could explain why they are so vehemently against it - fear. This is the puritan Moral Panic all over again.

Black et al. also discuss theories of fictional engagement and parasocial relationships/identification, and whether these studies is relevant to "when and for whom fictional engagement could have the potential to negatively affect real world attitudes or behaviour".

Jessica Black and Jennifer Barnes often publish articles together and have some incredibly interesting reading of morality and fiction that I'd be interested to see applied to fandom and anti culture in an academic setting. Perhaps some people in the field like Samantha Aburime (@rainystudios) are already looking into it - and I'm hoping I can do the same in my studies.

[dannyfandomphd]

i'll never forget being in university, and hearing my mentor / dissertation supervisor (who had also been my creative writing prof for years at this point) give the most intense dressing-down to a student who claimed we shouldn't engage with the works of authors who are 'problematic' (which at this point in time ranges anywhere from 'said something sexist once' to 'was a member of the nazi party' with no differentiation). the gist of her argument was that while it was important - no, crucial - to examine personal bias within literary works, and examine the impact they have on a text, that to entirely throw an author out of the canon for personal transgression was tantamount to thoughtpolicing. where exactly do we draw the line with who we cast into the fire? where do we decide that a person was 'bad' enough that the literary aspects are no longer important when analysing literature? what do we do with the past four thousand + years of literature - do we ignore the way it has influenced society and all of the literary texts that followed it, a chain of hands linking into the past, because an author was racist or sexist or ableist or antisemitic? do we throw away the iliad, do we stamp all over beowulf? do we set fire to the entire western literary canon? for what? who benefits? and when this has been done, what history do we learn from to better our own future? where do we find ourselves, groping around in the dark?

[dannyfandomphd]

me looking at my research, my research looking at me, me looking at my research, my research looking at me, me looking at my resea

[dannyfandomphd]

Moral purity and imaginative resistance as influencing factors in fandom 'anti' attitudes

Jessica Black et al.'s 2019 experiment on the correlation between enjoying dark/villainous characters, personal morality and purity beliefs, and imaginative resistance is so interesting when applying it to anti culture and fandom.

They created a Dark Character Scale where participants self-selected how strongly in agreement or disagreement they were with a series of statements about dark or villainous fictional characters. Some of these questions were the following:

"I enjoy films and books that feature main characters that choose morally questionable actions."

"I can often understand where the bad guys in fiction are coming from."

"My favourite fictional characters are morally ambiguous and often do horrible things."

They then utilised the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (Graham et al. 2011) to see what participants considered important when deciding on whether something is morally right or wrong, for example:

Whether or not someone suffers emotionally

Whether or not someone did something disgusting*

Whether or not someone was cruel

Whether or not someone was denied [their] rights

Whether or not someone acted in a way God would approve of*

as well as how strongly participants agreed or disagreed with statements such as:

Compassion for those who are suffering is the most crucial virtue

People should not do things that are disgusting, even if no one is harmed*

It can never be right to kill a human being

I would call some acts wrong on the grounds that they are unnatural*

Respect for authority is something all children need to learn.

One of the final scales participants used was the Black & Barnes (2017) Imaginative Resistance Scale. This is basically used to gauge how resistant the reader is to enjoying or consuming fictional content that contains characters, situations, or worldbuilding that they personally find morally disagreeable. They had to select how strongly they agreed/disagreed with questions like:

Reading books where bad things are depicted as morally acceptable makes me feel dirty

I just can't go along with a story when it violates my beliefs about morality

At times it feels like the author of a book is asking me to endorse actions that I know are wrong

Some things just shouldn't be done, even within a book

I sometimes cannot go along with a story when the "good" characters do morally reprehensible things

Sympathising with immoral characters makes me feel immoral myself.

Unsurprisingly, analysis of the data revealed that there was a strong correlation between disliking or not enjoying dark fictional characters or villains and having a higher purity morality score and more imaginative resistance.

They performed this test in three studies done on three completely different demographics - the first being mostly liberal women from social media sites, the second being mostly younger conservative college undergrads, and the third being adults split 50/50 in gender recruited from MTurk. All three studies showed that having stronger imaginative resistance and higher purity morality scores is directly linked to a lower score on the DCS - meaning that they would like or enjoy dark fictional characters and their actions less.

This tracks pretty well with what can be seen in the emerging anti culture within fandom:

Self-identified 'antis' are likely to agree strongly with the statements from the Imaginative Resistance Scale, and are more likely to score highly on the questions in Moral Foundations Questionnaire that are specifically demarcated as being concerned with purity (marked above with an asterisk *). This means that they are also, according to these studies, much more likely to disagree with dark fictional characters and their actions.

There is also a very interesting point in one of the discussions areas where Black et al. state "It is worth reiterating that the participants in Study 2 tended to be more conservative, and therefore potentially more likely to have greater concerns about moral purity" which tracks with what people in fandom have been saying about antis parroting conservative/puritan talking points and arguments.

What I find the most interesting is the following statement:

"However, moral purity and imaginative resistance are consistently positively correlated, both in the current studies and in prior research ... and are both likely to reflect a fear of moral contagion that would discourage people from identifying with and liking [dark fictional characters]."

This, when applied to antis, suggests that antis may harbor the subconscious belief that enjoying dark fictional content, and therefore being a 'proshipper', is literally psychically contagious. They may view this as some kind of moral disease which is spreading and infecting fandom, which could explain why they are so vehemently against it - fear. This is the puritan Moral Panic all over again.

Black et al. also discuss theories of fictional engagement and parasocial relationships/identification, and whether these studies is relevant to "when and for whom fictional engagement could have the potential to negatively affect real world attitudes or behaviour".

Jessica Black and Jennifer Barnes often publish articles together and have some incredibly interesting reading of morality and fiction that I'd be interested to see applied to fandom and anti culture in an academic setting. Perhaps some people in the field like Samantha Aburime (@rainystudios) are already looking into it - and I'm hoping I can do the same in my studies.

[dannyfandomphd]

➡️ Content warnings on fiction are a courtesy. 

➡️ Not every medium of fiction and storytelling has or is expected to have content warnings or extensive tagging.

➡️ Print novels do not traditionally warn for content in any way.

➡️ Until AO3 came along, fanfiction did not traditionally warn for content in any significant way.

➡️ An author is only obligated to warn for content to the degree mandated by the format they publish their fiction on.

➡️ Content warnings beyond the minimum are a courtesy, not an obligation.

➡️ 'Creator chose not to warn' is a valid tag that authors are allowed to use on AO3. It means there could be anything in there and you have accepted the risk. 'May contain peanuts!'

➡️ Writers are allowed to use 'Creator chose not to warn' for any reason, including to maintain surprise and avoid spoilers.

➡️ 'Creator chose not to warn' is not the same thing as 'no archive warnings apply'.

➡️ It is your responsibility to protect yourself and close a book, or hit the back button if you find something in fiction that you're reading that upsets you.

➡️ You are responsible for protecting yourself from fiction that causes you discomfort.

[dannyfandomphd]

Meta analysis/hypothesis on what is influencing the rise of anti culture

FAIRLY LONG POST.

I feel like antis (as most commonly minors) are stuck in this vicious cycle that has been perpetuated by internet culture over the last 20 years without having the advantage of the early internet etiquette/warnings/safety education that we as millennials and older got.

Kids these days are pretty much online from birth. The internet encourages people to post their thoughts and opinions at all times, often without much thought, and this norm is perpetuated pretty strongly through sites like Twitter and TikTok. So they're posting all of their thoughts and feelings and opinions left right and centre, often without privacy settings turned on, usually on social media sites where anyone can see these posts. And because the internet is a panopticon, unless you are on a private or hidden account, everyone is also able to post their own opinion about your opinion. It's easier than ever before for someone to discuss, argue, reject, and attack other people's opinions. And it's human nature to double down and defend your position instead of coming to an agreement or neutral ground (or god forbid change your mind), especially when tone is difficult to get across via text, and even so when people are often automatically argumentative and aggressive in their initial response (I have been guilty of this many a time).

This is all tied up in what I think for minors is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the internet is. It isn't a safe space, it isn't sanitized for your comfort, and it isn't censored or controlled much outside of strictly R18 sites other than literal illegal content being reported. But there seems to be this view among minors and antis that by default the internet should be safe for them to navigate, and they should not be able to stumble across, access, or engage with adult content (not even necessarily NSFW stuff either). So when they see this, they're shocked and appalled that it exists where they can see it, and because of the above, have been encouraged by the nature of the internet to post their very strong, often underdeveloped and shallow, opinion about it! They do not understand that the internet is the wild fucking west and outside of strictly under 13 sites and parental controls put on them, that it is your individual responsibility to curate your OWN safe space on the internet. Be liberal with the block button! Make use of mute functions! Set your shit to private so people who don't know you can't interact with your posts!

But they don't do this, because they were never taught about the dangers of the internet like we were. I remember when you should never give out ANY personal information about yourself, not even your first name, hell even saying the country you were from was often frowned against. We were taught that the internet is dangerous and you are responsible for keeping yourself safe. Now kids are putting out their name, their age, their country, all of their mental illnesses and neurodivergences and triggers all over the place! (It doesn't help that so many social media sites are encouraging linking your identity on other sites as 'verification', making it very impossible to be anonymous or fully under pseudonyms anymore.) So they think the internet is a safe and fun place to spend their time and encountering any content they dislike is free real estate to have a very loud opinion on, and are conditioned to double down on this when questioned.

This leads to two things that have become pretty rampant recently:

A lack of understanding of basic fandom culture and etiquette

The rise of puritanist views from LGBT+ youth on sexual deviance / morality / kink, and the encouragement of broad censorship.

Cancel culture is so fucking rampant these days. Kids especially are terrified to be cancelled or called out, especially since cyberbullying is so fucking common now. For kids this is often tied up in their real life school interactions, but it is rapidly becoming normal to consider your online identity and interactions just as real and valid as your physical, everyday interactions. Internet friendships are just as strong - or even stronger - as those you have in real life at school, or work, or sports clubs. It's known that people spend more time on the internet now than ever, so more and more of our time and mental energy and space is taking place in the virtual sphere. Being involved in something that negatively affects you like cyberbullying, or being cancelled or called out, or even just labeled as 'problematic' is so much bigger now, and it's not as easy to "just log off" or "just turn off your phone" as it used to be, because SO MUCH of our identity is caught up in online spaces now.

There's this dichotomy where we are encouraged to post all of our thoughts and opinions on the internet where anyone can see them, but cancel culture is also making people - especially kids - terrified to make mistakes or withhold opinions for fear of being labeled 'problematic' or 'siding with xyz if you don't post an opinion that disagrees with it'. There's a hyperawareness of what could be considered problematic behaviour, this strong need to be performatively moral, even if it means throwing someone else under the bus to prove that you're unproblematic!

This all links back to my previous two points. It means that common historical fandom etiquette - things like "don't like, don't read", the term "squick", "YKINMK - your kink is not my kink (and that's okay)" have all but disappeared from lexicon and culture. Where in the past we used to scroll past things we didn't like, kids now feel the need to call it out to prove themselves morally superior and unproblematic. They don't care that most of the time the space is NOT FOR THEM, they ignore all of the 🔞emojis and "MDNI" warnings, because of this fundamental misunderstanding that the internet is not always by default going to be palatable for them. Internet culture has destroyed any sense of 'if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it' which used to be more normal (though that didn't mean people still didn't label every fic with NO FLAMES PLZ!!!11!)

Because of this lack of 'fandom etiquette', because of this misunderstanding of how the internet works and historically has been, because of this instinctive reaction to immediately disapprove of and attack content they viscerally dislike, instead of ignoring it, this is giving rise to puritanist views and talking points amongst LGBT+ youth, minors, and antis. They are literal minors who are literally not even relevant to these conversations and concepts, as most of them are R18, inserting themselves where they aren't wanted into discussions on and posts about things that they consider sexually deviant or immoral. Because they are CHILDREN. Of COURSE they don't like this content!

I'm not a psychologist, but I wonder if developmental phases are playing a part here. Like, when you learn to differentiate concrete and abstract thinking, the ability to understand nuance and separate fiction from reality. A lot of these antis are literally too young to be able to understand some of these conversations, but don't understand this, and don't understand why they should not be involving themselves in these R18 areas that are clearly designated NOT FOR THEM, because "it's on the internet and I can find it easily, so therefore it's applicable and valid for me to have an opinion on this!"

And all of this culminates into what we are seeing now as the anti phenomenon. So TL;DR -

The internet is a panopticon. Everything you post can be viewed by everyone. Everyone has an opinion. Everyone is encouraged to voice those opinions. Opinions now must always be morally superior and unproblematic, or you risk being cancelled.

Minors are coming across content on sites they are on that is not relevant to them, and ignore R18 warnings and MDNIs to insert themselves into these spaces to give their opinion, because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the internet is and how it works, due to a lack of internet safety.

This means that common fandom culture/etiquette is being lost, and all of this is giving rise to youth parroting what they don't realise are puritan talking points and arguments against sexual deviance, morality, kink, and encouraging censorship. Which may or may not be exacerbated by the psychological developmental phases they are going through, which could be affecting their ability to understand abstract concepts and nuance, such as separating fictional morality and real life morality when it comes to taboo/dark/kink concepts in fan spaces.

(BTW many of my talking points above are thanks to @rainystudios' amazing academic papers which should definitely be checked out by anyone interested in this.)

[dannyfandomphd]

no but how much audacity and sheer entitlement do you have to have to tell people they need to stop posting their darkfic and porn fic and any other fic you don’t like to ao3 so you can have a safe space when ao3 was literally created as a safe space for writers to post their content without fear of it being randomly wiped out by pro-censorship assholes with an agenda like what has happened to plenty of other fic archives before?

“but a lot of us see ao3 as a safe space to get away from that kind of nasty content” - lol you can see the middle of a busy interstate as a safe space all you want too but that doesn’t mean that you get to walk into the road and scream at all the cars going by that they’re the ones infringing on your safe space either

ao3 is not, has never been, and will never be a site meant for nothing but children’s stories. you can “see it” like that as much as you want but there’s a difference between fiction and reality and that view of what ao3 is like is as fictional as the stories posted on it.