You'd Think It Would Be A Strawman Argument, But According To Some People Simply Witnessing A Fictional

You'd think it would be a strawman argument, but according to some people simply witnessing a fictional instance of something is enough to blindly convince or convert you to perceiving it as a positive. Often without consequence or regardless of consequence.

If you think the counter-argument sounds ridiculous, that's because the original argument is.

"But this piece of fiction romanticizes [insert bad thing here]!"

Okay. And?

If you aren't self-aware and educated enough to know something is bad regardless of how a tv show or movie or song portrays it, that's a you issue. I've never once watched Hannibal and thought that's a reasonable real life relationship. I've never once watched Game of Thrones and thought hey, maybe fucking your sister isn't such a bad thing.

Romanticizing is simply part of the narrative. If you can't separate the portrayal of something in fiction and how it should be approached in real life, you shouldn't be watching it.

I lost the ability to care about fandom discourse. As in actual discourse not doxing and harassment being framed as discourse obviously. “They only ship it because it’s gay!” Don’t care, they’re having fun. “That ship is problematic!” Everything is problematic if you try hard enough so loosen up bud. “But that character is canonically [insert sexuality]!” That sucks I guess but one person shipping a ship isn’t going to suddenly delete all queer rep. “But they only like it because they hate the main girl!” Kinda shitty I guess but also she isn’t real. Her feelings aren’t hurt because she is an object. “But the creator said no shipping is allowed!” Then why did they post it publicly? Don’t get mad when fish come near after you threw them a bait bucket. “It’s illegal!” Proof? Source? Evidence? If you got none, then go home and take a chill pill. Just saying “it is” is not a real source. “But it sexualizes my trauma!” You don’t own trauma, all you own is your own online space so protect yourself first before snapping at others.

The list goes on. I think it’s because I have too many big problems to worry about that silly shipcourse is just that; Silly. Obviously it’s not silly when you remember the real issues like death threats, doxxing, suicide baiting, unwanted gore being sent, and real illegal shit like the constant accusations of real life crimes but let’s be honest, that’s no longer discourse since it’s hurting real people.

For me, once actual discourse (in the blatant definition of it) starts becoming virtue signalling and morality showcasing, that's when I lose interest.

Discussing things is how we learn and shape our understanding and opinions. For example; in many discussions I've had with antis, they've walked away with at least a new understanding of the subject or a slightly altered perspective, even if their core stance on it hasn't changed.

Discourse in fandom spaces will always exist and there will always be points that are both subjective, valid and just plain stupid.

But certainly, the attitude of 'just co-exist with it' is definitely a valid one. And there's times where, such as recently, the literal only energy I can devote to a response is telling them to look elsewhere or eat shit.

I have the simultaneous belief that Taylor Swift does not deserve both the sheer level of defended fame she has and the sheer volume of disgusting hate she gets.

This post is about hypocrisy, ethics and censorship and is not nor will ever be anti-RPF.

We're entering this strange era of fannish existence where we are simultaneously trying to censor everything into oblivion and also be as invasive as we possibly can to celebrities and people of interest.

Like god forbid someone writes smut fic about Henry Cavill on their silly little Tumblr account, but its considered normal that "insider sources" are selling telling you all about his private relationships and paparazzi are photographing him buying groceries.

I can't say 'sex' on TikTok but Daily Mail can take photographs of female celebrities half-naked in their own backyards and talk about their weight and their breasts and how appealing they are or aren't.

We are obsessed with consuming real life, often invasive content about real people, but god forbid we start creating our own so we don't rely on exploiting them and their privacy.

“shipping an unhealthy ship isn't inherently a bad thing because maybe you just want to see themes of abuse and toxicity explored in media.”

i agree. but i feel like there's a difference between finding a toxic ship interesting and actively shipping it. shipping two characters means that you want them to end up together and you think that they're a good match.

for example, i find simon and grace from infinity train to be an interesting ship. granted, they weren't a canon ship but a one-sided romantic interest was hinted, at least. but even if they were canon, i wouldn't ship them.

similarly, i also find rose quartz and pearl to be an interesting ship, despite their relationship being really unhealthy. but i don't “ship them”. i don't make posts talking about how cute they are or trying to prove that they belong with each other.

i like these ships because it's complex and well-written, not because it's desirable or good for either of the characters.

so yeah, if you say you ship two characters, you should be prepared to hear people talk about it being unhealthy. if you merely like a ship that is unhealthy because it's an interesting thing to explore in fiction, you should phrase it that way.

a lot of c//a stans actively talk about their ship being the best or being really healthy and wholesome, but when someone disagrees with them, they immediately go “i like the ship because it's toxic, i'm not into boring vanilla ships”. then just say that? instead of trying to prove that your ship is meant to be?

It is actually so fucking insufferable that these days you can't make a statement about something without also having to have a mile-long footnote in which you acknowledge every single possible nuance to it because otherwise the reception will be full of indignant outrage-fuelled arguments and people forcibly expanding what you said to include things that are completely irrelevant to the scope of the original point.