fictofaggot - Tumblr blog

[fictofaggot]

scared, crowbar?

[fictofaggot]

Re: last reblog so it turns out tf2 fans don't know what an otter is either. An otter is when you're thin and hairy. Medic tf2 is still not an otter. Sniper tf2 is an otter. Get it right

[fictofaggot]

you said that you don’t take lines of questioning / thought about “romanticizing” dark topics (SA, incest, etc.) seriously. would you mind elaborating on that? what does it mean, if anything, to romanticize? i think i get why it’s a fundamentally reactionary (or just silly?) thing to be concerned about, but would you mind elaborating on why?

thanks! your posts have been very illuminating on this sort of thing.

okay so let's talk about "romanticise" as a literary discourse for a second because there are a handful of things happening with its usage:

is the assumption that there exists a state of non-'romantic' discursive matter from which something 'romantic' is being created, and the content of the text in question is the process by which that creation is happening;

is the use of 'romantic' to describe something that appears to the viewer as desirable and attractive, thus obscuring the ways in which it is harmful/abusive/violent/&c.;

is the idea that this 'romantic' state represents something morally odious due to the ideas it might impress upon the audience about the nature of the discursive matter made 'romantic' in question.

i think it's worth breaking each of these assumptions down because i don't believe that any of them actually hold water, and i find that they in fact telegraph some pretty reactionary paradigms around literary criticism.

first is the idea that there exists discursive matter that is not "romantic," here to mean suffused with cultural narratives that render it desirable, and that the matter in question only takes on these desirable qualities after undergoing this process of "romanticisation." by this logic, the matter is in fact prediscursive; the onus of constructing a “romantic” discourse lies solely with the cultural response. when in practice, normative cultural assumptions and the media that interacts with them exist in a feedback loop relative to one another, and it surely makes more productive sense to engage with the apparently objectionable material not as an object that creates or even necessarily reifies a normative cultural standard, but that interfaces with that standard in what could potentially be any number of variant forms. this widens the scope of our response as an audience—we might well say that a depiction of XYZ was tasteless, clichéd, voyeuristic, lacked interest in the interiority of its subjects, &c. &c., just as easily as we might say that it engaged with extant cultural narratives in compelling, thoughtful, meaningful ways. we're not taking the cultural object as the didactic “creation” of a social norm—we're situating it within the norms from which it already emerged.

the second is the idea that this ‘romantic,’ aesthetically desirable construction must necessarily obscure the ways in which the subject matter is harmful (however we define ‘harmful’). i find this position v condescending, towards creator and audience alike—one way of crafting horror that can be really exceptional when done right is the total sealing-off of the narrative from any didactic intervention, any suggestion that what's being depicted is morally “wrong.” the dissonance between subject matter and audience—and/or between subject matter and creator—can be brilliant when you can have faith that that dissonance exists. audiences aren't little babies who learn our morals from our media; we're prepared to critically engage with and respond to a discourse presented to us. as i said above, doing away with this whole “romantic” sheen as an obfuscator of violence opens us up to new, more precise, more compelling readings.

the third – and imo, the most damnatory – is the suggestion that the narrative itself represents a potential site of harm due to the underlying ideology that it imposes on those who engage with it. like, we're still adopting this approach whereby we construct and engage with narratives for instructive purposes; if we see a depiction of sexual abuse that renders the abuse pleasurable, aesthetically pleasing, desirable, then we absorb this idea that sexual abuse is pleasurable and aesthetically pleasing and desirable and thus covet the position of the subject in question. i don't think this is necessarily true! i'm obviously not suggesting that we don't absorb and reproduce our cultural narratives in media – as i said in the first point, there exists a feedback loop between the two – but i think we as audiences and critics ought to think more highly of ourselves than to imagine that we are incapable of seeing some fucked up shit given an aesthetic gloss without asking why the aesthetic gloss is being used, how the creator is making use of perspective, how we might respond to it, etc. and i just don't think narratives ought to be instructive or didactic; nor do i think creators bear responsibility for how their work is received to the extent that they are obliged to orient their discourse towards a presumed impressionable individual for whom every action or aesthetic contrivance is a categorical imperative. this is the oldest and honestly the most boring debate in the book; the question of "moralism" in fiction has been done half to death by now, and i don't see any use in rehashing it to any significant extent. suffice it to say that the “moralist” approach is stultified and limited and intellectually dull.

note that nowhere in this did i say that there are never narratives that ought to be called into question for their depiction of X, Y, or Z; just that i think we need better, more precise language to defer to do when we do so. simply put, i think it's possible to make a piece of art that holds these “romantic” qualities, and doesn't have a guy walk in midway through and go “by the way, abuse is Bad/age gaps are Problematic/mental illness is Unsexy,” &c., and still greatly compel me wrt its subject matter. & that is a statement which exists in straightforward contradiction to the idea that the term “romanticise” communicates anything necessarily and inherently condemnatory about a text, so, i don't use it.

[fictofaggot]

Marx said you have to make a callout post for every trans woman who expresses enjoyment of anything. it's the basis of all leftist theory

[fictofaggot]

midnight crew based / inspired kids or something

i have been spinning them around in my head like a microwave for 3 days now and they make me so happy

their names are jack ( original i know ), coby , dean , and hunt ( not a lot of 4 letter h names thinking about it ) respectively methinks

[fictofaggot]

will poor thang flourish or perish?

[fictofaggot]

@ultrakill-gabriel

It's just ears

[fictofaggot]

the realest

[fictofaggot]

Being in the top 1% of your top artist is mental, but have ya'll ever been in the top 0.5%? I've done it twice. Once for 2pm and the other for Somo.

[fictofaggot]

the decline of malls is like deforestation for emo kids

[fictofaggot]

monkeycatluna on ig

[fictofaggot]

like it or fucking not that also includes people who cope with fiction. i'm sorry for the reactions people are going to have irt me saying this but that includes people who draw lolisho that includes cub that includes feral porn it includes all of the gross yucky disgusting fiction you don't like and it includes the ageplay and cnc and kinks that you think are evil. because that is how people fucking cope. and making it out as though that directly equals assaulting a fucking child makes people with fantasies feel as though their only options are stewing with thoughts they can't cope with forever or committing actual fucking real life sex crimes and holy fuck if you can't recognize that there has to be a gray area in this situation unfollow me right fucking now. im so fucking serious about this shit the internet is so vicious towards mentally ill people im astounded at how the people who say this shit unthinkingly also somehow consider themselves fucking LEFTISTS

[fictofaggot]

i have intrusive thoughts and the only fucking thing the internet's violent hostility towards paraphiles has done for ME is make me fear my own thoughts even MORE. i do not feel safe in my own head because i am afraid that the things i can't stop myself from thinking make me irreparably evil and deserving of violence and if you can't see how fucking harmful that is you are not mature enough to be having these discussions about paraphilias. i do not feel safe around the majority of the internet. i can only feel as though my intrusive thoughts AREN'T EVIL when i'm in spaces designed for people with paraphilias to cope. actual real-life therapists will play around with the idea that maybe you actually are a paraphile, maybe you're not, it's neutral either way, and THAT is how people actually heal. active hostility towards paraphiles does absolutely fucking nothing to stop children and animals being put in danger and instead makes it so much harder for anyone like me to cope with the thoughts we have and can't control. it is a fucking hellscape out here you all need to recognize that. next time you want to wish death to all pedophiles or whatever why don't you think for a fucking second about the repercussions of what you're saying

[fictofaggot]

i'm going to be so fucking honest and clear with you all right now. if you are going to be a leftist you HAVE to reexamine your reaction to the concept of paraphilia that you've been taught. attraction is neutral. paraphilia is medically defined abnormal attraction. being a paraphile does NOT equal being a predator, and it does NOT equal committing beastiality or being a child predator. it is simply the attraction. it's the reality that people experience paraphilias with zero desire to act on their attraction and you cannot treat people with paraphilias as though they're actively dangerous for something they cannot control unless they express a desire to act on their attraction i'm so fucking serious. you NEED to treat paraphilias neutrally. you are making the internet and leftist spaces actively hostile to people with paraphilias and intrusive thoughts and literally the only thing that will come of this is the people who need help and who need a space to be treated neutrally will simply move into spaces with active and dangerous predators because no one else will fucking accept them, and that is how you make it more dangerous for victims. holy fucking shit you guys

[fictofaggot]

im specifically referring to the one floating around on my dash today because 3 minutes of looking at the "evidence" in the twitter thread proves that literally none of the claims except the most glaringly obvious are true. come on guys

if you put one more callout post on my dash i will kill all of you