“I don’t want to read this because it is disgusting to me” is totally valid.
“I don’t think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me” is authoritarian.
“I don’t think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me” is authoritarian.
Bro, blocking someone and then using their tag like this is, all offence, weak as fuck. Like all you had to say was, na bro I don’t promote pedo protags on this here blog, because I wholly agree with the premise of your argument given contexts (i.e., writing abusive relationships to show the evils, great; writing abusive relationships to show the romance, yikes).
This response is so, so comically shitty within the context of that tag, oh my god.
“I don’t think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me” is authoritarian.
“I don’t think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me” is authoritarian.
“Censorship of some topics in fiction and art is good and I would be happy if it were to be enacted in a way I approved of”
and
“some things should be banned from ever being written or read about in fiction”
are both authoritarian viewpoints to hold and express, even if you don’t have the power to enact them.
If you hold these viewpoints you are holding authoritarian viewpoints.
Something being nasty is not a good reason to ban fiction about it.
If we accept that “something being nasty is a good reason to bad fiction about it” then we give a foot in the door for all the people who truly, genuinely believe that queer people are nasty to ban all queer literature.
This is not about defending bad people this is about defending the freedom of good people from tyranny, you moron.
I think if you take it to its logical extreme. Say, banning people from writing stories of sexual abuse. That could then be said “well ANY talk about sexual abuse is bad.”
And from that, you could ban books that talk about it irl. Or books like how to recover after being abuse. If its not something to be discussed AT ALL.
Oh my GOD yall are so embarrassing. “WE HAVE TO BAN THIS FICTION BECAUSE IT’S GROSS!!!” is the song of fascism. If you wanna lick fascist boot that badly, I guess you can if you want to, but just know what would happen if we allowed anyone to ban fiction on the basis of offense.
Like, seriously, please just think about it for two fucking seconds; Who are the people normally banning fiction on the basis of offense? Take all the time you need.
And who are you to tell other people what they SHOULD be disgusted by? I’m WAY more concerned about the real children being abused in real life who now can’t be helped because you won’t allow them to talk about their abuse realistically. You are using fiction about abuse as a weapon against real abuse survivors.
THAT is what’s disgusting to me. 💀💀
The two questions that I find shut down practically every pro-censorship argument are:
Who gets to decide what is banned?
and
What happens when the power to decide what is banned falls into the hands of people whose ideals are opposed to your own?
Those censorship advocates who aren’t halted by the above questions are typically the sorts of people who refuse to engage with any opposing argument and simply scream “pedo” over and over as if abusing serious accusations somehow makes their arguments stronger.
And to those whose reply is something like “we only want to ban [bad thing] fiction” then consider the fact that you don’t have to look very far to find people calling relationships between two consenting adults “pedophilia,” or relationships between two unrelated people “incest,” and so on. And if you start censoring content, inevitably the power to censor will fall into the hands of someone like that.
Content-based censorship standards always creep and expand. No exceptions. That’s why the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently rejected the legality of all manner of censorship laws that are based strictly on the content of the targeted material. CSEM can be legally banned in the U.S. because it is defined by the means of its creation (abusing children and creating/distributing visual documentation of such), or as materials visually indistinguishable to actual CSEM that might otherwise provide a legal cover for such acts, and specifically what is banned is creation and participation in the distribution of CSEM, which includes possession, because doing so credibly constitutes further harm to the actual minor(s) involved. It’s not so much censorship as a system of laws predicated on stopping unacceptable acts of abuse, rather than the content per se.
Remember that your sense of disgust is not your moral compass, and it’s fine to avoid media that squicks you out or triggers PTSD. People who create/consume fiction involving imaginary characters cannot be considered pedophiles based on that alone any more that people who like gore-based erotica can therefore be considered murderers, or people who enjoy NC/CNC fiction can be considered rapists, or people into furry or monster content can be considered zoophiles.
Anybody who tells you anything else basically just wants to wield power over you. Don’t let yourself become a slave.
Discussion ¬