#my answer is all of the above

[firein-thesky]

Why is it that dc such as r@pe, sa, and incest is totally okay to write about and romanticize but y’all draw the line at racism, fat phobia, and homophobia *talking about the writings creators make, not personal beliefs*? Whats the difference between these things? All of them are hurtful and affect people in real life, so why is everybody on here choosing and picking one and not the other? Do writers on here think that they are not comparable or that one is okay to romanticize and the other is going way too far?

Im just genuinely curious as I have seen this topic be brought up again and again, which has made me realize this and Id like to see it from someone else's pov.

hi! there is a lot to answer and unpack here and i have every intention of doing so underneath the cut. forgive me if this gets long, but you’ve asked me 4 very massive questions that i think warrant detail, nuance, and thought. there is a lot i’d like to say here.

that being said, mind the content warnings and protect yourself.

cw: mentions of rape, incest, racism, homophobia, fat phobia, discourse in general

firstly, i am going to choose to give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you are actually curious in hearing another side and you are not simply looking to stir a pot or pick a fight with beliefs you have no intention of changing or having an open discussion on. your accusatory tone in the first half indicates otherwise and kindly, i am not an idiot. but i want to earnestly talk to you about this and again, will think better of you than you perhaps have indicated you think of me.

secondly, you do not have to censor words like rape in my inbox. that sort of censorship has become wildly popular because of tik tok and other money-hungry social media that also desperately want to silence people. do you know why you have to censor words like that on tik tok? or words like genocide? suicide? racism? 1. so that they can make money and market and push their squeaky clean algorithms but 2. and perhaps worse, so they can silence victims. if social media platforms and capitalism and the systems of powers had it their way, you would never utter these words again—whether to call someone out for justice or to have an open discussion like this one. i encourage you greatly to think critically about this and how you choose to use censorship and why.

now, to your questions.

to preface, i am interpreting this ask as being anti-dark content in fiction as you state that ALL these subjects harm people in real life. or at least, you are being critical of all dark content in fiction and the way writers engage with them, effectively ‘picking and choosing’ which are deemed acceptable and which aren’t, when they are all hurtful. i apologize if that wasn’t your intention/what you believe, but regardless, i’ll endeavor to answer you.

i personally have drawn no lines about dark content nor spoken about any of these topics specifically really, which indicates to me you have a different narrative and/or are coming from more inflammatory arguments that are always circling fandom lately. in the post i most recently reblogged, i spoke mostly of violence. which, of course, all of those things can be. but i didn’t name one of those topics in particular.

regardless, i don’t believe in the censorship of any dark content in art, but rather advocate strongly for critical analysis on a case-by-case basis. in general, i encourage thinking critically about every aspect of the world around you.

i do not believe that rape, incest, and sa are okay to write about or create art about but racism, homophobia, and fat phobia are not. i believe all of those topics are ones that can, should, and will be explored in the safety of art. all to varying degrees of success, earnestness, impact, and intent. you’re right that these are real things, that can hurt people, and the fictional work about them can have impact on our society that is tangible but the actual art or fiction created is not real. and again, this is all to varying degrees on a case-by-case basis.

art and fiction also historically and massively do discuss these dark content topics and have actively swayed the public’s opinion on matters, whether for better or for worse. throwing away all dark content in art and fiction because it is ‘harmful’ is deeply, deeply dangerous and reductive. a lot of art that engages with dark content actually makes very succinct points about it—i think of vladimir nabokov’s lolita or octavia butler’s bloodchild or speak by laurie halse anderson.

this is where we must exorcise critical thinking. some pieces of work will handle dark content poorly—white saviors making art on racism. men making art about a woman’s experiences that (as you are so interested in) romanticize her pain. etc. etc. and some art will handle it’s dark content incredibly and be transformative, perhaps even revolutionary in how we talk, perceive, or acknowledge systems of oppression, violence, and dark content in this world. some dark content in fiction will have damaging beliefs and effects on society, some will not—we must also look at scope for this, at the writer perhaps, the historical moment, their audience etc.

(for example, there is a significant difference in a main stream male writer, writing of a woman’s experience with rape in a published book in a way that makes it sound romanticized, sold to thousands and thousands of general public vs. a woman using fanfic to explore rape, take control of it, or whatever in a fanfic for a small online community where there are warnings on it. indicating she is aware of its potential damage in a way her male counterpart is not…)

but i still believe in dark contents’ existence in art. of course there is differences between all of these topics you brought up, but i don’t think their differences matter in this answer. i believe in their right to be explored in art. i am talking broadly of media/art here, which i think is the more relevant conversation, but i think you are actually more interested in a much smaller scale of people. ie. fandom. ie. mostly marginalized people in small communities online writing and creating dark content.

people will choose and pick which ones they’d like to create art over and which ones they don’t, which ones they read and which ones they don’t. there’s no ‘hard line’ drawn anywhere. and i can’t control it and neither can you. perhaps you think violence is okay to be explored in fanfic, but racism isn’t. someone else will have different preferences. i do not believe in its censorship.

now, let’s move onto your interest in romanticization and what i think you are more pointing to, which is fandom. you are specifically referring to people in fandom who write about rape, incest, etc. and ‘romanticize’ it—ie. they write about it in a way that is a fantasy. it is perhaps supposed to be horny or sexy. so let’s talk about it.

i must remind you that these topics you’ve brought up (rape, incest, sa) being written are fiction and it is (most often) done by someone marginalized who has either experienced this or is in threat of experiencing this under a patriarchy. i assure you, they are aware of its harm. hence the copious warnings in fandom spaces.

if i can be candid, sometimes i think that people forget how systems of oppression work when discussing fandom and whether dark content being created should be allowed or not.

for example, i sometimes think people who are anti-dark content in fandom believe that a woman or afab person writing a fictional fanfic about rape or sexual violence then influences people to go out and rape people or that women actually like it. when the reality, in fandom spaces, is that rape and sexual violence happen frequently under the patriarchy and then these women in fandom write fictional fanfic in response to cope, explore, take control of, etc. etc.

to insinuate that women or afab people (which fandom mostly is) exploring dark content safely in fiction then causes their own oppression and harm or trauma is rather victim-blame-y to me. fandom exploring dark content does not cause these things to happen in our society….these actions (rape, incest, sa) happen in our society or systems of power and fandom reacts to them in their art by exploring it in dark content. do you understand what i’m trying to say?

it’s not a matter of what is ‘okay’ to romanticize and what isn’t. i do not think the romanticization that fandom does with dark content (ie. my kidnapper actually loves me! or this sexual act that i did not consent to…maybe feels good) is not actually romanticizing but coping because of the systems of power that i described above. and this can be coping with anything—shame of sexuality, shame of fantasies, trauma, fear, etc. etc.

as i said in my tags in that post i reblogged and as plato said, dark content in art is a safe place to explore what would otherwise be harmful and dangerous in real life. it is cathartic. potentially even, a purging.

and even if it isn’t all that—maybe it just is trashy fantasy. it is still playing pretend. it is still fiction and in fandom spaces, it is still most likely being created by a marginalized person. and again, even if it isn’t, we don’t get to censor it. we can be critical of it or wary or whatever, but to censor it, is a slippery, slippery slope. do deem some topics as “acceptable” and others as “unacceptable” is dangerous.

just like kids play pretend where they ‘fight’ or ‘kill’ or ‘kidnap’ or ‘shoot’ each other in games of cops and robbers or heroes and villains, they are safely exploring adventure, dark content, fantasy, tragedy, and higher emotions. adults can do the same in fiction and with adult topics like sex.

and at the end of the day, we don’t get to demand the credentials to do so either. we don’t get to censor them or control them and nor should we be allowed to. i cannot stress enough that i encourage you to be critical of censorship or the absolute disgust in dark content and at those (again—often marginalized people) who engage with it in fandom. i believe it is deeply puritanical, conservative, and dangerous.

you don’t have to like dark content or consume it at all and fandom makes it easy not to with all the warnings and tags, but you cannot control others or police them. nor should you want to.

and at the end of the day, i have some questions for you. you don’t have to respond to this, perhaps they’re just things to think about. what is the end goal here? what is the point in harassing, shaming, attacking, criticizing, or interrogating people in fandom spaces who create or support dark content? do you believe that if it is purged from fandom, it will be purged from our society? if you want it purged from society—shouldn’t you start there rather than in the inbox of marginalized writers in fandom? people in fandom did not create rape, incest, and sa nor do they in their exploration of fiction…they are merely reacting to a world that did create it.

i hope at no point i came off as rude to you, as was not my intention. i intended to stand up for myself and respectfully state my opinions and thoughts on this matter. i’m sorry it got long, but also i don’t believe in being brief on such complex matters. i am a writer who engages critically with the world around me and sometimes, things cannot be made into short, snappy answers. sometimes, we must unpack.

genuinely wishing you well.

[yardsards]

i needed to express a sentiment in the creative stylings of @dunmeshiminimumwage

[galedekarios]

"Gale is scheduled to finally join Idle Champions on the 3rd of April and his canon age will be revealed along w him :-)"

[source]

[blueskittlesart]

deeply refreshing to see someone critical of Swift who also like, genuinely likes her. Like i'm neutral to positive on her, but the online discourse has been absolutely rancid. flipping between "Taylor Swift has never done anything wrong ever and she's a fucking genius" and "Taylor Swift is the worst lyricist of all time and also a bad person" is exhausting, so thank you for like. nuance or something lmao

not to make it serious for a sec but i genuinely think that being able to like things that are bad is really important. like I think that it's an important skill to be able to look at something and see what you personally enjoy about it and then take a step back and acknowledge that objectively it's flawed. and to also be able to acknowledge that liking something isn't necessarily an identity or a moral stance. and i think that fandom space in general could really benefit from more people taking the time to learn how to do that. it's okay to like things that are bad

[decolonize-the-left]

genuine question: i thought communism ideology supported no states? what do you not support with communism?

Also: is PSL problematic/harmful? I hadn’t seen anything about them denying a genocide.

Apologies if this looks like I’m coming to you instead of research. Unfortunately research has lead my to discourse reddit threads and people speaking over another of what is true and right. It’s difficult for me to sort through what is actually backed and i always perfect to get first hand, personal opinions from individuals for conversation purposes! If this is inappropriate please lmk! I’m a fan of your blog and truly am just looking for more input and takes on our options and to know the best way to get involved in a community— and avoid getting involved with the wrong kind of people I don’t agree with!

Thank you in advance!! Hope your future doctor visits continue to treat you well!

So a classless, moneyless society is socialism.

There are branches of socialism the same way there can be democratic and Republican beliefs within capitalism.

So communism is socialism with a state/government. This is what PSL is and advocates for.

And yeah im stepping on a fucking beehive saying this but yeah, Marxists/Marxists-Leninists support a communist state. For this exact reason, they deny that China has been persecuting Uyghur people. They think if they deny the genocide is happening at all then communism will seem more "valid."

Additionally, they think the genocide is little more than more anti-communist propaganda from the USA. Even Aljazeera has written about this.

Aside from that, yes PSL has organized with orgs like BLM before, but that said.... Ugh.

They speak over everyone. In fact, I've been told several times that they are now doing the same thing with the Pro-Palestine rallies they've been hosting, too.

As someone who worked with them closely during the BLM protests of 2020 I can confirm this with my own experiences. They're super organized, which is great for them. For the rest of us though, it means we have to work around their schedules. They spread their own parties propaganda at these events while making themselves out to be The Official Organization for the event which was almost never true. When they were at our events it's because they were invited by us, but everyone thought it was the other way around. They have a way of centering themselves which seems anti-thetical to their allyship.

They very much use minorities to boost their party's status. Which is not much different from how a democrat tries to get minority votes would.

I don't use Instagram but the USPCN and NAARPR posted about how PSL was doing this. I had just reblogged a post where PSL was calling for a strike in solidarity and was immediately informed to IGNORE it and boost actual Palestinians calls for action instead. They included a link to the Instagram post as well. I'll see if I can find it and reblog it after this.

Anyway, It was a good question and didn't bother me at all to answer, thanks for sending it!

[sillyravenpassingby]

Crying because Gwen knew of the many possibilities of gwens and spidermans falling inlove and she didn't mind at all. And with her being the spiderman in this scenario and her peter now gone, wouldn't that make her safe from death? But then she thought of Miles. Now STEP.ASIDE. cuz why on earth would she think about Miles if she hadn't already fallin in love with him hUH?

Think about it... she's the one who started this whole conversation at the clock tower. There's no reason for her to do that if she doesn't even consider him a love interest. And like that other post i saw, she hesitated because the 2nd part of this love story is the ultimate deal breaker. But she waited on Miles to respond. She wanted Miles to take the LEAD. That's why his response easily put her at ease.

[blindmagdalena]

S/O giving Homelander a silly gift like novelty socks just because. Do you think he'd like them, hate them, wear them in secret.

Homelander stares in disenchantment, holding the pair of socks up over the gift bag you had presented them in. He should have known by the impish way you were grinning as he opened it—or even the way you wiggled as you handed him the bag—that you were up to no good, but presents have always been his blind spot. He still gets giddy when you surprise him with them.

Maybe that's why you do it so often. He's been delighted by pretty much all of them, but this...

"If this is your way of trying to break up with me, the answer is no," he says dryly, turning the socks side to side.

You laugh, already near tears. He's sometimes envious of how freely and easily those come to you. How deeply you feel your every emotion, the good and the bad, without shame or repression. His lips quirk slightly as you laugh, though he otherwise maintains his unenthused expression. "So, you like them?" You ask, smiling cheekily.

"They're... certainly something," he says, clicking his tongue.

"Oh, so you love them."

"Have I done something to offend you recently?" He continues, holding them up to you. "Because this—this is hateful," he says, feigning severity in his tone for the way it makes you laugh even harder.

"Put them on," you practically plead, resting your head on his chest.

"Aww, babe," he coos, kissing the top of your head. He whispers against your crown, "Not a fucking chance."

They may be horrifically ugly, but—as he discovers the next day—they're actually pretty damn comfortable. So long as they're thoroughly hidden under his boots, anyways.

[transmascissues]

About your coworkers being absolute pricks: Is there a supervisor you can go to who isn't like that? If they won't listen when you personally tell them to train/treat you as male, maybe someone above them can get them to? I don't know how your workplace is though

sadly that would be my manager, who sucks at her job and also sucks at gendering me correctly. she’s the kind of person who pretends to be really accepting and then immediately proves that she doesn’t give a single shit about trans people. one time she gave me a whole speech about how she really wanted to get my pronouns right, so i told her very explicitly how i want to be referred to, and she immediately proceeded to misgender me in front of my face while talking to someone else on the phone about me. she told me i’m the first trans employee she’s ever had and let me tell you, it really shows. so yeah, aside from a couple of my coworkers who knew more about trans people to begin with and can back me up when we’re on the same shifts, i’m on my own.

[twentyfivemiceinatrenchcoat]

sometimes i remember that gojo wanted to tell geto “we’ll meet again, right?” just before he died but forced himself not to knowing it would have cursed him and then i start thinking about how kind and thoughtful gojo is as a character and how he hasn’t been able to lean on another human being since geto defected and then i want to . Scream

[shittyutmv]

my aroace sisbrotheyit wsg 🔥

i feel like i should be angry because this is the MOST insane way to address someone but unironically it’s sort of endearing because you’ve hit every single aspect of my queerness. like yeah you nailed it. I’m doing pretty swell. next question

[gorespawn]

also while we're here i would like to share the two iterations of tumblr user gorespawn that have existed since i abandoned this blog back in like early 2021. Who wants me

[utilitycaster]

hi! I'm sorry if you answered this already and I missed the post, but what are your general thoughts on the party being split for so long?

Short answer: I think it's great. I think the best way to answer this accurately is to cover some of my past complaints about the campaign, and discuss how this split is addressing the vast majority of them. This is also, I suppose, serves as an argument for why it's worth getting caught up with Campaign 3 for anyone who fell off of regular watching.

I'll begin by saying that I understand the desire to have something akin to Campaign 2 but in Marquet: a group of people deeply tied into the lore and fabric of the setting and yet displaced within it, finding each other. I still would have liked to see that story. I do not fault people for being disappointed in not getting that, particularly given what Marquet means as a setting, and this still is not that campaign. But pretty much all of my other complaints have been addressed by the apogee solstice and the party split and so I'm not here to mourn what I know didn't happen, and instead to talk about how the last ten or so episodes have been banger after banger.

I said this elsewhere recently but my issue wasn't that the campaign was building up to the apogee solstice setpiece; it was that it took about 30 episodes to even reveal that was what the buildup was for, and yet, somehow, 35 episodes to finally be done with Treshi. Which meant in turn that the party was constantly kind of shepherded from place to place. Even the sidequests were mostly part of the buildup - Heartmoor Hamlet is a good time, and achieves quite a lot in only a handful of episodes - but it is, ultimately, mostly there to wipe out Ashton's debt which would be a detriment to getting to the main plot. The modular, party-driven nature of Campaign 2 just wasn't an option, since they could have quite possibly avoided the solstice (akin to how Campaign 2 completely avoided the Augen Trust plot and required a drastic reworking of the Lucien plot). But because it started so early, it was hard to get a sense of what would actually motivate the characters so that they could be guided more naturally by hooks they'd be likely to take, since they were doing fetch quest after fetch quest with a wealthy patron (I love Eshteross with all my heart but that kind of figure early in the story is tough to incorporate; more on that later) and getting lore dumped at by NPCs and never really had to scramble or take weird jobs killing rats in the sewers or even share rooms in an inn with people they didn't already know before the story started.

Which is the second part: the party did not really mix that much. Imogen and Laudna came in codependently joined at the hip, and Orym and Fearne were also quite close. Ashton and FCG had a looser arrangement, and Chetney was the only true free agent. So a lot of the time, the party felt like three groups working together with tenuous bridges rather than a coherent party, and they never quite had either the downtime to cohere, or the massive crisis to force them together. This party has actually seen quite a lot of death, but Bertand's happened too early, and while Laudna's didn't quite reset to the status quo, it also occurred just as the Treshi plot had ended and so the timeline was becoming even more accelerated. The seeds of something were there, but they needed something more to actually take root.

Enter the apogee solstice and the party split. This has fixed basically everything:

The fact that the solstice happened means that now we're in damage control mode. There's a clear motivator for the party, but one that they genuinely care about rather than one that requires the DM being like "and THIS NPC wants THIS thing."

It also forces the party to develop those relationships outside of the friend they started with. The obvious first reason is that the groups are split up along those lines. That is not an accident or a cruel joke; that's fucking necessary, frankly, to get the party to bond. As my meta about Laudna and Orym points out, not having their emotional support prior colleague - even by sending - and frankly, yeah, not even knowing they're alive, for certain, is what will make these characters actually grow and change. As we saw, the same is true for Fearne, Imogen, and FCG.

It notably removes the spotlight from Imogen, which is good, because the cool development happens after the character-focused arc, when they can process, rather than during. She's still Ruidusborn, but what that means is very different from what it meant pre-ritual.

Then there's the practical element of travel. This party probably isn't going to be teleporting nonstop, but they did have comparatively fast travel in the form of a skyship from very early on, and in another three levels Fearne will have transport via plants, and Imogen can take teleport as a cast spell the level after that, and then we'll never get to see much of the world...but if you break teleporting a bit? You send them into the middle of the wilderness? Yeah, they're going to need to have those watch conversations that were far too few and far between early in the campaign.

And allies! This party's doing it backwards. They've lost Eshteross; Keyleth's fate is unknown to them; Ryn is a statue; Beau and Caleb's fates are similar question marks. After so much time of having patrons and friendly wizards telling them what to do? They're alone, and they have to survive by their wits and by leaning on each other.

The fact that we've got guests is good both because we get to see different facets of the main cast's characters through their responses to these new companions, and because we're getting to fill some of the gaps in the party (people with more longstanding relationships to deities; people with 20 INT scores). It also pushes Bells Hells, in some way, closer together, by having to assert that they are part of a group with shared experience. And it's just a delight to have them.

This is also just fun for fans in that we're getting to see some of the most wished for locations - the Mighty Nein's time in Uthodurn was brief and very focused, and everyone's been clamoring for Molaesmyr and Issylra. For all that Vox Machina and the Mighty Nein fought world-wide threats, they were largely contained to a specific region, and I think this is really setting the stage for how big a deal the apogee solstice really is, by flinging the party across the world and showing how everyone is affected.

Anyway: love the party split. I honestly would have been happy with one or two more episodes of the other party and am looking forward to a similar length arc for this party, and honestly, even then, it might take a few episodes for them to reunite, and I think they'll all be better for it.

[not-poignant]

Are Sebastian and Alex going to learn about bdsm and safe practices/negotiation? Or do they keep fumbling around and doing what they're doing?

Hi anon,

People who learn about BDSM don't necessarily practice safe practices or negotiation.

And there are elements of negotiation in this story! It's not a black and white 'they're not doing this in a paint-by-numbers sort of way and therefore it doesn't count' situation, y'know?

They are two characters in their mid-20s who live in a tiny town, one of those characters is dyslexic to the point that he can barely read, and the other's method of doing things has worked for him all his life (or so he thinks), they don't have any reason/s to learn about BDSM, and it's not likely that either of them ever will.

That also doesn't mean that they can't enjoy their kinky sex life.

There has been a lot of discussion already, and there will be more and more going forwards. It might not be at the level most people want, but Sebastian has certainly obtained consent (more than once), offered and then insisted on debriefs and post-sex discussion, explained to Alex how to communicate if he hates something, and made it clear that what he likes is unusual and sadistic in nature. It's also clear that Alex likes being pushed, i.e. - not being forced to give consent in every circumstance when someone can take control and give him what he wants anyway. That's actually pretty common in some people with a child abuse background who become people pleasers.

If you want negotiation + safe practices at a certain level, you'd have to completely remake Alex's character into someone who can magically be a functional, communicative, healthy human being, and he's not that. Alex is getting better at communicating (that's how we go this far in the story in the first place), but if you expect this story to end on Alex being a perfect human who can do Instagram-level kink negotiation, then no, this isn't the story you want, anon.

If you look deeper and don't expect cookie cutter kinds of dialogue, there has been ongoing negotiation in the story since the early chapters. When Alex makes it clear through physical response and then verbal that he doesn't like yelling, Sebastian stops yelling. When Sebastian makes it clear that he has complicated feelings about hiring his ex-school bully as a cleaner, Alex makes it clear that he doesn't share those complicated feelings, especially in light of the pay rate. Sebastian consenting to Alex being his cleaner makes it clear that those terms are acceptable to him.

When Alex tries to undervalue himself, Sebastian makes it clear that he's not comfortable paying someone less simply because they value themselves less. When Alex then takes that pay, it's a form of consent to Sebastian's attitudes. Their relationship has been an ongoing negotiation since the beginning, and that's how they've grown closer. If you're used to only looking for very obvious signs of negotiation, it might be easy to miss the non-verbal and subtle forms of negotiation that are happening.

For example, it might not seem like it, but Sebastian - many chapters ago now - talking about how he likes control in the bedroom and that turning Alex on long before they'd ever shared anything sexual together, is a form of communication. Alex learns he likes the idea of it without it ever been forced on him, and Sebastian wouldn't have that conversation with someone he didn't trust (for example, Alex in the beginning of the story). They had to have trust to have that conversation, Alex had to have trust to ask Sebastian questions about it in the oblique way he did, and they had to share a common comfortability have a conversation in that direction in the first place.

In A Stain that Won't Dissolve, these things don't look like a psychologist's version of: 'Okay, what do you want, and this is what I want, and here's where we meet in the middle' - a lot of life doesn't look like this (but if you want that, I've written that in Falling Falling Stars - it still has dubious consent though, lol). Both Alex and Sebastian have poor communication on their side, and it's a growth story for the two of them.

But no, I have no intention of Sebastian ever learning terms like 'subspace' or 'RACK' or anything like that. A lot of people in the world, especially prior to easy access to the internet, figured this stuff out on their own and many of them made it work even without the rigid or codified structures of the world of BDSM (and some of those people went on to invent the world of BDSM that we take for granted today).

It's the kinks that make you kinky, not the knowledge of an acronym or the world it engenders.

There's also no reason to think that Sebastian has access to a healthy education about BDSM there, it's not like Elliott was practicing much healthy BDSM in my other Stardew fic, The Wind that Cuts the Night, :D Elliott knew all about safe practices, negotiation, and BDSM, and chose to ignore a lot of the safe stuff over messing around more dangerously.

The fumbling around is the point, basically. Growing up is messy, and dubious consent is hot (for some of us), and there are many ways we communicate with the people around us, especially when it's two guys in a town the valourises machismo and stoicism over emotional openness, and one of those guys was beaten by his father over not being macho and strong enough which makes him exceptionally resistant to communicating clearly even about basic subjects and needs.

That's the part I actually really love about this story.

[themyscirah]

This is how this went right?

Parallax!Hal: I miss being a hero... wish I had my ring back

Kyle: oh well you can have mine then! That way you can have a second chance : )

Parallax!Hal: YES!!! A SECOND CHANCE TO PLAY GOD AND RESHAPE THE WORLD AS I WILL IT MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Kyle, now ringless: .................huh. im gonna be honest here I really didn't see that coming

[guiltyidealist]

I cannot STAND the shipcourse label terms.

Rant.

"Anti-ship". "Pro-ship".

They're such fucking misnomers for what they're actually referring to that it's not even CLEAR what they're actually referring to.

I struggle to even apply any of this shit to myself. Labels serve as a concise way to communicate something. A label has failed to function as a concise descriptor when it does not describe what you want it to.

Put the shipcourse connotations to these words aside for a second. Just take them for their literal, face-value translation.

I'm not """anti-ship""". I'm not fucking against shipping. Nor am I """pro-ship""" per se?? I'm shipping-positive and shipping-favorable -- like sex-positive and sex-favorable, I'm good with other people doing it and I like doing it -- but not indiscriminately???

There are ships I dislike and there's nothing about it related to ethics. "Anti-ship" and "pro-ship" are such absolutist fucking terms, black-and-white and binary and un-nuanced, "this or that".

But here's the thing: these words don't just mean "how you feel about shipping". Shipping is hardly the tip of the fucking iceberg. A small, singular, surface-level facet to a deep and complex issue related to art, reality, human relationships, and responsibility.

(And that's problem #2 with the labels: encompassing a fraction's fraction's fraction of what this is really about and making it sound like petty fandom bullshit instead.)

What it's really about is portrayal of sensitive and fucked up matters in fiction, and of how to engage with it. It's about what's healthy and what's not. It's about what's ethical and what's not.

It's about boundaries; the line between fiction and reality, the line between artists and their works, the line between creator and audience.

It's about the nature of art, the nature of the relationship between an artist and their artwork, the nature of the relationship between artwork and those who view it. It's about art as a medium through which interaction occurs simply by one person creating it and another perceiving it.

It's about responsibility and accountability. It's about the placement of responsibility and accountability in the artist-viewer relationship. Who is accountable for what. Where does the artist's due diligence end, and where do the viewer's discretion and critical thinking begin. Who takes credit or blame for what.

It's about consequences and who receives them. It's about how art reflects upon the artist, and how it doesn't. It's about what it means to create, to bring something forth to the world and to put it out there to be perceived and judged and acted upon.

I ran out of spoons but. TLDR: shipcourse labels suck so much -- dysfunctional and counterproductive, misleading, wildly failing to capture stances in the real issue at hand -- and we should stop using them actually