In the aftermath of my big post about censorship, multiple people have left comments that boil down to, "it's okay to show heavy topics in fiction as long as they're portrayed as bad."
Let's take a quick look at an excerpt from the full ext of the Hays Code, shall we?
No picture should lower the moral standards of those who see it. This is done:
(a) When evil is made to appear attractive, and good is made to appear unattractive.
(b) When the sympathy of the audience is thrown on the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil, sin.The same thing is true of a film that would throw sympathy against goodness, honor, innocence, purity, honesty.
note: Sympathy with a person who sins, is not the same as sympathy with the sin or crime of which he is guilty. We may feel sorry for the plight of the murderer or even understand the circumstances which led him to his crime; we may not feel sympathy with the wrong which he has done.
The presentation of evil is often essential for art, or fiction, or drama. This in itself is not wrong, provided:
(a) That evil is not presented alluringly. Even if later on the evil is condemned or punished, it must not be allowed to appear so attractive that the emotions are drawn to desire or approve so strongly that later they forget the condemnation and remember only the apparent joy of the sin.
(b) That thruout the presentation, evil and good are never confused and that evil is always recognized clearly as evil.
(c) That in the end the audience feels that evil is wrong and good is right
This is the same Hays Code that supported Nazis. This is the same Hays Code that forced Jewish artists out of Hollywood. This is the same Hays Code that targeted artists of color, queer artists, female artists, any artist who deviated from the white American Catholic ideal. And it was explicitly Catholic, which I explained in further depth here.
The idea that art has to have a clear moral, which lines up with the dominant morals of white American Christianity, is foundational to the Hays Code. If you sound like the Hays Code, you need to re-evaluate.
Censorship and moral codes enforced on art are never used for anything other than oppression. The second you try to dictate what is and isn't allowable in art, you side with people who will enforce those rules on marginalized people with no mercy and no hesitation.
Censorship does not create healthy relationships with media, even the censorship you might be tempted to think of as "good censorship."
(And, as usual, being an independent censorship researcher does very little to pay my bills. Kick me a tip on Ko-Fi or pledge to me on Patreon if you want to support my work! <3)
rb this and tell me what ur accent is. this has no purpose except the fact i just realized i could have like... mutuals with cockney accents or newfoundland accents or something and thats just wild
category of blorbo called "technically i like them but fanons obsession with them to the exclusion of other characters pavloved me into having a negative reaction whenever i see them"
We honestly just need to stop trying to make criteria for what being nonbinary is point blank. I really don't give a shit if people think this would obscure the term into uselessness because right now the concept of a nonbinary person is a skinny person who transitions into elfish androgyny, typically thought to also be white and afab by default. Which excludes, like, the vast majority of people who are nonbinary to serve some imagined ideal of a third gender