Have any of these antis considered that maybe it’s a good thing to show relationships where one half wields a considerable amount of power and influence over the other as coercive and unhealthy? Especially if the first half is a literal slaveowner who has bought the other half’s brother? Like if you want to write a soft version you go and do that, but why is this interpretation so under fire?

loxxxlay:

foundlingmother replied to your post “ahhhhh they deleted it, niiiiiceeee”

soft!frostmaster shippers who are antis are so weird to me. Like, one of your favs is a despotic slave master who happily executes their family and threatened Loki’s, if not Loki himself. That ship is canonically a dumpster fire, and it’s far more concerning that some people can’t recognize that and think it’s weird that people get dubcon or noncon vibes.

Adding @foundlingmother‘s response too because it’s the similar topic and now I can respond to both at once.

(Also behind a cut because my anxiety med makes me ramble lol T_T)

Keep reading

“Ship and let ship” doesn’t have to mean you like or approve of all ships; it just means you don’t harass people for shipping things you don’t like and you don’t go around making unsupported claims about the real-life sexual morality of the shippers. Some ships are nOTPs just because I don’t think they make sense (*cough*ThorxBruce*cough*), but there are also some I side-eye real hard because of the in-canon dynamics of the characters. Killgrave x Jessica Jones is one of those (only shipped by fans of the Tenth Doctor because they can’t see David Tennant any other way, I’m pretty sure). Tony Stark x Peter Parker is another (though I can’t say I have the moral high ground on this one, given some of the Thorki AUs I read). And soft!Frostmaster also falls into this category for me. I’m not going to go crashing their party because I’m not that kind of asshole, but yeah, I’m giving it some serious side-eye.

challahchic:

just-antithings:

yellowbloods:

just-antithings:

yellowbloods:

oh my god, antis are fucking reporting ao3 to the fbi apparently?? these people really just have no concept of how much they’re not helping do they, holy SHIT

WHAT

:)))))))))))))))))))

People who don’t understand the history of fandom, take 10934857637290

(If you hate AO3, make your own site. That’s literally how it works. Tearing down the Thing You Hate isn’t going to make The Thing You Want, it will just fuck up everyone in fandom.)

obinopekenobi:

18th century Discourse: Women, especially young ones, are ruled by affect and lack critical thinking. Their minds are so soft and their sense of self so permeable that they identify with any fictional characters they come across, and must be shielded from sexual and morally ambiguous tales. The fictional stories they consume will effect the way they view the world (in particular their ideals of romantic relationships), which will effect the way they raise their offspring, which will in the long run poison the minds of our children and destroy our nation. We must socially regulate women’s tastes, making sure that all women are shamed into consuming only what we deem pure and morally didactic fiction.

Tumblr antis 2018: same

hi ! is the anti phenomena (by that i specifically mean “telling people/thinking that shipping abusive/underage ship makes you a bad person”) only a fairly recent thing, appearing bc of the voltron fandom, or did it happened in the past, like ten years ago or more ?

freedom-of-fanfic:

Kinda
depends.

In
regards to the moralist stance of fandom anti-shippers
– the stance that
anything smut-related, kink-related, or addressing sex in any way, with
particular objection and/or attention paid to LGBT+/queer sex, will ‘harm the
children’ and must be eradicated and/or hidden from sight – it’s at least as
old as Christianity as an organized religion
.

Such
moralists have gone after transformative fandom in the past, particularly
targeting sexually explicit content and especially
LGBT+/queer content.  MLM-friendly
(slash-friendly) transformative fandom’s run-in with such a group, calling
themselves the Warriors for Innocence (you can’t make this stuff up), led to
Strikethrough and Boldthrough on LJ, which helped galvanize the creation of the Archive of Our Own.

In
regards to intracommunity violence with words, threats, and more over what
people choose to ship: that’s definitely as old as fandom itself
. Shipping wank
(as we called it back then; now we would say ‘discourse’) forms the backdrop of
the wild and entertaining story of con artist Miss Scribe, who expertly played each faction of the Harry/Ginny, Harry/Draco, and
Harry/Hermione ship war off each other to push herself to fandom fame. HP
fandom was wild: fandom is wild, and has been for a long, long time. being
truly cruel and nasty to one another in personally devastating ways over fandom
is not an anti-exclusive phenomenon in any way.

In
regards to using social justice language to bully other fandom members:
the
first instance of widespread damage being inflicted on a creative online
community specifically by calling everything they hated ‘problematic’ (that I
am aware of) is the case of
RequiresHate/Winterfox/Benjanun Sriduangkaew.
The devastating and chilling
effect WF singlehandedly inflicted on the SFF community – particularly on other
authors of color – was detailed by The Mixon Report ( http://laurajmixon.com/2014/11/a-report-on-damage-done-by-one-individual-under-several-names/
).

WF was –
is – the Fandom Anti precursor case, complete with terrifying threats of
violence and exposure towards people who dared to disagree with her cutting,
cruel ‘reviews’ of SFF works. She couched her cruelty in terms of social
justice to make it much harder for people to call her out and found it very
effective at protecting her for a long, long time. And in the years since her
reign of terror was partially checked by Mixon’s callout, social media has only
become more ripe for abusive bullying via progressive language.

Using
social justice language and moralist purity culture together – our own members torching
fandom creativity and freedom from the inside in order to win ship wars and
drive out social enemies – is the latest remix on all of the above.

The
landscape of the internet changed a lot between 2007, when Strikethrough happened,
and the mid-2010’s, when the Mixon Report was issued and fandom-as-activism
started to really get wings. Also, a lot of LGBT+/queer strides were made in
the US & across the western world in terms of improving visibility,
awareness, and legislative protection. (Not as much as one might hope, but still.)
shipping The Gay Ships in fandom is still relatively weird (believe it or not,
mlm shipping is still a minority of shipping activity), but not seen in such a
destructive, deviant light as it had been before. There’s a lot more open
acknowledgement of being not-straight or not-cis than there used to be, and
fandom spaces are no exception.

Nonetheless,
fandom antis picked up the torch that groups like Warriors of Innocence
dropped. While many antis ship mlm ships themselves, they take rival mlm ships
and scrutinize them under the scorching rays of purity culture, find them
wanting, and call everything touched by that ship tainted. They even echo the
WoI cry that everything they hate is secretly pedophilia and only loved by
pedophiles, perhaps unaware of how devastatingly dangerous this narrative is to
push in LGBT+/queer spaces.

Like
Winterfox, their only goal is self-advancement (or advancement of what they
like over what they hate), and they have no scruple about causing harm to
others in the name of getting what they want for themselves. In their
worldview, they are the protagonists in a story with protagonist-centric
morality
. fandom antis are warriors for innocence! They are, of course, Always Right.

Everyone who is against them must be evil and dangerous and harmful; everyone
who slows their progress or questions their actions is against justice, fair
play, and protecting the marginalized. No attack on the character of a
dissenter can be too strong, because it’s impossible to be against antis and a
good person at the same time.

But in reality: it’s just a shipwar, and purity/sj language is just the newest ammunition.

Moral
panic isn’t new; people being cruel to each other with whatever tools they have
at their disposal isn’t new. transformative fandom being considered weird and
socially unacceptable isn’t new. Fandom policing fandom on a large scale is
somewhat new. But the only thing that I think is truly, completely ‘new’ about fandom
anti-shipping is that where we used to argue ship wars based on what was more
canon, now we argue ship wars based on what is ‘more pure’ or ‘more progressive’.

Incredibly,
this is even more subjective than interpreting canon!  In fandom, no ship is more pure or moral than
another: the ‘rules’ of shipping are all artificial in an environment built for
infinite imagination. It’s literally arbitrary. Imaginary. Absurd.

Antis
impose these rules, loosely based on morality and progressiveness, because without
them, they have no power
. And many of us ‘buy’ into anti-shipper ‘rules’
because if we don’t, anti-shippers will do whatever is necessary to traumatize
or intimidate us into submission or silence
.

I wanted to touch base with you about an interesting thing I’ve noticed now that I am the victim of a viral dogpiling harassment thread going on on twitter – at this point I’ve had about 100 different antis message me directly telling me I have to block them for them since I am a horrible person. They won’t block someone they supposedly hate themselves and expect that person to be the one to take care of their wellbeing by following their demands. It’s the height of entitlement.

freedom-of-fanfic:

luckyladylily:

freedom-of-fanfic:

luckyladylily:

freedom-of-fanfic:

freedom-of-fanfic:

First of all: wow, I’m so sorry!? That’s incredibly fucked up. Hang in there, anon. If there’s anything that would help you out don’t hesitate to mention.

Second: im so fascinated!? By this choice…??? Entitled is right.

I’d be curious to know: are they telling you to block them based on your relative ages? Or are all of the antis attacking you with this demand 21 and younger? Because I can see that fitting a certain ‘adults (that is: anyone older than me) have to look out for my safety even if they’ve never met me’ attitude that I find lines up with the increase in ‘trust authorities to protect you’ culture shift that followed 9/11 in the US.

Either way: isn’t it interesting how antis are insisting you are dangerous to them, and yet trusting you to block them instead of try to harm them if they put themselves in contact with you?

It’s almost like they know you’re not actually dangerous to them and this is all performative outrage and playing at activism.

Wild.

[image ID: anonymous says:

  • I’m the DMMD thread person who said the very controversial statement that kids shouldn’t be playing DMMD since it’s meant for adults. That really rustled their jimmies. I’ve honestly not looked at their profiles, just reported the really offensive ones and muted the others. But everyone demands I block them, and from friends who been curious, apparently there is an anti culture precedent of refusing to block people they consider bad because they think that means they lose.

End ID] (emphasis mine)

Blocking people who ship things they hate means they lose?

Well that’s the most 4chan thing I’ve ever heard.

I’ve said before that I think anti-shipper circles have learned their argument style by watching people from the alt-right argue on YouTube comments and twitter chains, b/c their ‘argument’ method is an extremely effective trolling and harassment style. This seems to reinforce it.

Bless you for your maturity in dealing with them.

The reason why this precedent exists is because internet bullies need a way to declare victory when people ignore them. Here is the thing: Bullies need a rise out of their target in order to get their satisfaction from bullying, proof that they have hurt their target. If the immediate response to a bully is block and ignore then the bully has usually put effort into their bullying and gotten nothing out of it – objectively, at best, they can hope that they hurt their target, but they will never get the actual satisfaction of knowing they did.

So they have redefined blocking people is a sign of deficiency – cowardice, moral inferiority, and most importantly trying to equate it to admitting defeat. This way they can still get their violence thrill when someone ignores them. They know they won, they know they hurt their target, because they have defined blocking to be irrefutable proof of such.

But it only works if they believe it. They have to convince themselves, not their target. Which is why people go in other’s inbox and demand that they be blocked. They have built up their world view so that they are unable to block or it is actively admitting that they are cowards, morally deficient, and are and always were wrong.

And, unfortunately, because anti culture is based on bullying and abuse they have managed to convinced a lot of younger people that this is the case, so now lots of people are unable to block people because it makes them feel that they are cowards and morally deficient.

This is yet another way in which anti culture actively harms minors. It has rendered many minors incapable of using the tools that allow them to protect themselves in online spaces.

This is an incredible analysis! Thank you.

Unfortunately it is not just analysis. I know a girl who is being stalked and harassed by a man on social media but she refuses to block him because “blocking is cowardly”.

I figured out all this by talking to her, trying to address her concerns about blocking people, and trying to convince her it is ok to block this guy. This has been going on for 4 months and still she refuses because people have drilled it into her head so much that blocking people makes her a bad person. I finally got her to turn off anon asks though, so progress is being made.

I’m really glad you went to that effort. You’re a good friend. Unfortunately, I know it’s not just theory to think over … it’s seriously screwing up a lot of lives. That’s why I think it’s so important to understand the mindsets of the people doing it, so you can see it in yourself and others before you hurt yourself or anyone else, and before you get tangled up with people who are spouting that rhetoric before you meet them.

Also: thinking back to when I was younger, blocking was considered the ‘cowardly’ thing to do even before antis were shitting things up in a particular way. On LJ, on FB, on MySpace … only assholes blocked people, at least in the geeky spaces I hung out in. Which makes me think that maybe the Geek Social Fallacies also play a part in this? ‘If you exclude people you’re a dick.’ ‘You’re a coward who won’t confront people. You just avoid them.’ Which of course, feeds into an environment where even people who don’t buy into anti-shipper rhetoric are set up to be afraid of blocking people, lest they be seen as the ‘real’ problem for failing to negotiate a ceasefire and excluding other nerds from their nerd experience.

It’s all just conveniently feeding into a space where abusers have full time access to victims and denying that access makes the victim equally abusive. 😦 I hate it.

I hope your friend ends up okay.

Huh. I recently had an encounter with a couple of trolls who turned out to be antis. I tried trolling them back, which sometimes gets people to block me first, but I got bored before they did and I ended up blocking them – for which they then mocked me (in separate posts, of course). It seems that I as well as they have somehow absorbed the idea that blocking is admitting defeat… but that’s only the case if I decide to return-troll rather than blocking after the first salvo from them. 

To be clear: I never initiate trolling, except inasmuch as some people seem to consider counterargument, however civil, to constitute trolling. Some of my aversion to blocking comes from the fact that I’ve been blocked for expressing reasoned disagreement, or even preemptively blocked by people who have seen from commentary posts that I disagree with them about something, and I don’t like the way this approach to disagreement tends to partition fandoms into echo chambers. Or maybe it’s just the old Geek Social Fallacy about exclusion rearing its head.

How would you reconcile enjoying “problematic” media with a belief that media largely impacts our perception of the world, sometimes negatively? For instance, media has reinforced sexist tropes that influence how men view and treat women today, and I’d prefer that these portrayals be avoided or clearly presented as incorrect. However, I also enjoy unhealthy relationship dynamics that I wouldn’t support in real life (not incest, I don’t think that’s inherently wrong, but underage is more iffy).

philosopherking1887:

Because philosophers are all about making distinctions, I’d like to talk about a distinction that a lot of people on this hellsite seem to have trouble with: the distinction between the events depicted in a work of art and the work’s stance toward those events. (I’m saying “the work’s stance” and not “the artist’s stance” because those can come apart for a variety of reasons. The artist’s failure to effectively convey their personal stance in the work due to incompetence is the most common one, but the work can also become skewed away from the artist’s intentions through censorship, or the artist might experiment with a perspective different from their own… Anyway, the important thing is the implied stance of the postulated author of the work, who is not identical with the real-world creator, but is the hypothetical agent who could have intended all of the features of the work.)

I should hope it would be obvious that depicting events of a certain type is not equivalent to endorsing them. A simple example: both The Birth of a Nation and 12 Years a Slave depict violence by white people against Black people, but the first portrays it as just and necessary, while the second portrays it as cruel and unjust. Gone with the Wind portrays the defeat of the Confederacy as the tragic loss of a beautiful way of life, while Lincoln portrays it as a just and hard-won triumph for humanity. Different war movies can convey different attitudes toward the violence of war. Films like Rambo (presumably; I’ve never seen it) and Inglourious Basterds revel in it; films like Saving Private Ryan and Dunkirk may portray it in great detail, but in a way that aims to sadden and disgust rather than thrill the viewer, to emphasize the horror and waste of war rather than the excitement and heroism.

With sexism and sexual violence, the typical way of depicting it without condemning it is not to acknowledge it as such. If jokes about nagging wives, vapid blondes, women being bad drivers, etc. are presented without comment or challenge as invitations for the audience’s laughter, the work is sexist. But the work can also portray those things in a way that condemns them, either by having a character explicitly criticize another’s sexism, or by dwelling on the discomfort of women who are subjected to these stereotypes. The work can acknowledge the stereotypes while challenging them, as does Legally Blonde, which shows just how intelligent and resourceful the supposedly stereotypical “vapid blonde” can be. [I’m putting the rest under a cut because this is getting really long.]

Keep reading

Somebody dug this up and liked it and I still like my answer, so here it is again.

an unfunny joke about antis

freedom-of-fanfic:

the funny thing about bullies – especially self-righteous bullies that travel in packs, such as antis – is that 99.8% of the time they come out on top of any conflict they get into. 

and holy hell, it’s fucking infuriating when it’s not completely exhausting.

we all like to see clapback at people who don’t play fair and treat others like shit. when someone is really nasty and abusive – when they’re chronically mean and dangerous and seemingly untouchable – it’s easy to yearn for their comeuppance and want to see them know they’re beat. we want the fear and shame and guilt bullies and abusers spread around revisited on their own head so they understand how awful a person they’ve been.

but realistically: you’ll never see a bully/abuser/anti doubt or question themselves. you’ll never see them backtrack with sincerity. you’ll never successfully shame them out of their behavior or devastate their confidence with your logic and consistency, because successful bullies – by definition – will always be less empathetic, more shameless, and more self-serving than anyone they have the power to abuse.

you will never beat a bully at the shame game. bullies live that game. shaming others is the source of their social power; they know (at least subconsciously) that flinching is game over. when someone points out their behavior is something shameful, they have to excuse or deflect or dismiss it: else, they lose. They deserved it. they hurt me first. who cares what you have to say? 

and if you don’t have the direct authority to punish a bully, why should they care? abusers thrive in this world because they’ve decided the ethics and empathy that guide social rules don’t apply to them. Ethical people have lines they cannot cross without violating their sense of what’s right: abusers trample those lines, doing whatever serves them best, because they’re not obligated to care.

maybe it seems unthinkable they’d get away with it … but in general, our social networks have an inbuilt ‘get out of jail free’ card for abusers. we have to trust others are following the same social rules we are. when we don’t trust that, it’s actually worse. (we get … well, present-day tumblr, probably.) but that very trust makes society blind to behavior that crosses lines – it’s too unthinkable that anyone would do that. innocent until proven guilty. and that doubt protects abusers who are willing to pretend they too are trusting, caring people who follow the rules.

in fact, bullies care more about setting down social rules than anyone because they limit the behavior of everyone other than themselves.

Rules set boundaries for ethical people. trust that those rules will be followed blinds people to all but the most blatant rule-breaking behavior. and when bullies lay down the rules, the rules themselves are often designed to encourage and shelter abusers.

I believe this is why the worst abusers so often turn out to be the most vocal activist, the most upright churchgoer, the politician with the anti-abuse platform. Such bullies do, in fact, truly advocate for everyone following the standards of behavior they support … except themselves.* These abusers are free to jump in and out of bounds whenever it suits their needs, making them all but impossible to call out.

They harass and threaten and torment their targets, exploiting the victims’ trust and sense of obligation to protect the bully from exposure. but the moment a target retaliates, abusers are the first to call them out for bad behavior, damaging the victim’s reputation and improving their own without compunction, sympathy, or remorse.**

Perhaps the most ironic part is that the higher the standard of behavior the bully advocates for, gatekeeps, and regularly violates, the more powerful and invulnerable they become and the more blatant and open their two-faced behavior can be.  Their hypocrisy is only remarkable to people who know what standards they supposedly uphold and demand of others. To everyone else the standards themselves are absurd. so what if a person falls short sometimes? why do you care? why are you surprised?

This is the social loophole that bullies and abusers in the anti-shipping movement exploit – and there are a lot of abusive anti-shippers. As the self-declared fandom/shipping police, tasking themselves with creating rules of conduct and aiming to enforce them by shaming, guilting, and threatening dissenters, anti culture by nature attracts the best shame game players – bullies and abusers – and draws them into its ranks. 

unhampered by social obligation or a need to play fair, abusers rapidly rise to the top of policing communities like anti-shipping. already governed only by their own convenience, an abuser will never suffer from concerns of going ‘too far’; therefore, the loyalty of an abuser to a cause that gives them licence to abuse will never come into question. their gleeful eagerness to punish, lack of sympathy for their targets, and their willingness to come down hard even on other antis is both admired and feared. everyone wants to be their friend to insure their inevitable slip-ups due to self-conflicting rules are forgiven, unwittingly putting themselves in debt to a person who will never let them forget it.

so who’s left to call a hypocrite out, even when their hypocrisy is open and blatant? at least subconsciously aware that the the only real tethers on behavior in spaces where authority is nonexistent – tumblr, twitter, etc – are empathy and shame, abusers do their level best to evoke those feelings in everyone around them while being completely free of those feelings themselves. they cannot be shamed by anyone; they don’t play fair and they don’t show sympathy if it doesn’t serve their needs.

In short: as long as a bully’s opponent gives even the slightest fuck about playing fair, being kind, and giving the benefit of the doubt, they will never out-bully a bully.

the point of this long-winded post is this: 

if you’re hoping for some creator to smack antis down; if you’re sitting in front of your computer, jaw dropped, as antis flock to the dmcb fandom and set up their absurd rules despite the source material being in conflict with everything antis supposedly stand for; if you see anti-shipper victims sharing how they were driven to suicide attempts and think ‘surely this time antis will be conscience-striken’: the reality is that anti-shippers will never apologize, will never admit to hypocrisy, and will never take ownership of the consequences of their actions. 

bullies always come up smelling like roses because they know social rules are actually nigh-unenforceable. They only apply to the abuser if the abuser chooses to abide by the rules, and why would they limit themselves like that?

and if you don’t like it, there’s nothing you can do about it. 

that’s the joke. (i’m not laughing either.)

*and the louder bullies support the cause of vulnerable people, the more unthinkable it is that they would ever exploit vulnerability themselves. 

**this is a wildly successful technique abusers use for self-protection. it accomplishes many things at once:

  • it feeds the abuser’s deluded worldview wherein their target is the badguy and the abuser is their hapless victim. (this is how abusers justify abuse most of the time: they have to act outside the rules to protect themselves!)
  • puts the spotlight on the victim, magnifying their errors and minimizing/erasing the effect of the abuser’s provocation
  • the victim feels ashamed for their behavior; even if they realize they wer provoked, they are ethically bound to acknowledge what they did was wrong (and the abuser will hold it against them for eternity)
  • the victim may be successfully gaslighted into doubting that their actions were provoked or warranted
  • if the victim attempts to act against their abuser’s interest in the future, their credibility is now damaged/doubtful
  • if the abuser can’t pull off looking squeaky-clean to others, tarnishing their target’s reputation makes outsiders less likely to come to their aid, excusing the abusive dynamic as ‘mutual.’