“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.
OK see dude you’ve got to nuance your point some more because the longer this post goes on the longer you sound like you’re into pedo stuff (or at the very least considere it a genre like any other).
I see your point, and yeah we should keep writing about these things so we can educate ourselves and stuff, but then you’ve got comments like this:
Which, first off i guess good for you if your fics get attention, but yeah no romancising pedophilia is not something we should be doing.
I already see you coming at me with your one (1) argument, but you have to admit there is a line to draw somewhere.
There can be pedophilia in fiction / story books to showcase abuse / power, there can (and should) be pedophilia in psychology / ethic books to present the themes and get people to be aware / talk about it (and no i don’t mean to just spit on it, i mean actual awareness and behavorial studies).
What there should *not* be in books is the glorifying* of the practice as it would incite people to do it in real life because “Well i read it in a book and it looked cool”.
*(i have no fucking clue where the y and i go in this word, probably won’t correct it bc lazy)
“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.
someone said: “I don’t want to live in a world where people write nasty fiction about (insert horrible thing here, such as murder, rape, csa, etc)…”
☝️ Understandable, but we all live together in a world where all of these horrible things happen in the real world around us every day.
☝️ And wouldn’t it be a terrible injustice to ban people from writing about a real thing that happens to or around them?
☝️ And wouldn’t it be a terrible injustice to force survivors of those horrible things to disclose their trauma to the world in order to be permitted to write about them?
☝️ And wouldn’t it be a terrible injustice to police the tone and word choice that survivors of trauma, and the people who witness these traumas choose to use when writing fiction about these experiences?
☝️ And wouldn’t it be a horrific injustice to subject every person who wrote about these horrible events to intense scrutiny about whether they were writing about them in the ‘approved way’?
☝️ You might not want to live in a world where people write about these things, but it is easier and more just and ethical for you to avoid those pieces of fiction than it is to police how and why people write about those things.
OK dude you make some good points, but it would be cool it if they were related to what i was saying. Sorry for the sass but you still bring up “some things should be banned from ever being written or read about in fiction” when i honest to god literally said “i agree we should keep writing about this”. Make it make sense.
But you know what? Maybe i wasn’t clear or didn’t word my point right (despite 2 friends reading and comprehended it) so i will try to be clearer.
I do not want to erase the presence of pedophilia (or any other controversial subject) from any and all fiction. It exists and therefore deserves its place in stories of all kinds and genre.
What i do stand against is the glorification (nailed it this time) of such themes. As previously showcased, some people take pride in creating good* represenation of these themes.
*good in the sense of “beneficial” or “in a good light”, not good as in “accurate”, although i am sure they can coexist in certain cases.
And now on to your bullet points. They were more arguing against another quote (which you pulled from somewhere??) so i will try to answer with that in mind, instead of answering as if it was directed at my response (ngl i think i’ll fail at some point, sorry in advance about that).
That much i can agree with. It’s not ideal, but it remains true.
I am guessing that by “injustice” you mean how it would be unfair that other horrible things (like murder) don’t get the same treatment. I will also stand by your side on this one.
Now i’ll have to disagree. Wether it be me or your quote, it was never said that writers needed to be survivors to get a pass. Anyone can write about anything, but it is wiser to do some research beforehand, as any writer should for any given subject (controversial or not).
OK now you just don’t make sense anymore. Firstly, if the writer is a survivor then they know better than most how to tackle the matter, or at the very least which words to use. Secondly, in most cases a survivor would not put the situation that they survived in a good light. Most of the time when they write fiction of something like that, it is vent art (since litterature is an art form), so they might get a few haters for simply speaking out, but they won’t showcase the subject as anything good and/or enjoyable.
Now we could agree or not depending on the definition of “approved way”. There are the infamous SJW that think they know better than the victims themselves which is problematic. I also am very aware that there are a bajillon ways to talk about anything, and i firmly believe that any new idea should be brought up because everything creates something (like how we are debatting now). Any new concept and context can and should be talked about, even if some are disgusted by it, so we can all try to better understand said concept (again, like this debate).
Alright, last one. I recall the quote saying they don’t want the thing to exist at all, however i disagree with that, so i will agree with you that it is better to simply curate our own online experience and let the other people have their fun. I also agree that policing on why anyone makes anything is not the way to go. However. How someone presents something is very important. I feel a little out of my depth on this one so i’ll also ask a friend for help after my own attempt.
The way an author presents an information is key to setting the tone of the current situation, or to showcase whatever point the author wants to make / prove by writing their book. It is also important as it can sometimes make or break the entire project (perhaps not the best exemple, but i will say Mass Effect 3, in which the ending ruined everything because all the choices felt the same). In the case of sensitive topics, the importance of presentation resides in giving an accurate representation of the situation and, if the author is a survivor, to showcase what it’s like to be the victim of it. This helps better understand other victims (although no 2 cases are the same) and therefore makes it easier to help them through it. If the presentation is botched up, readers will have a flawed view of the situation and might just make the victims they want to help feel more alienated due to being misunderstood. Also, policing is not the way to go, but constructive criticism is a thing and it should be encouraged.
Now from my friend (and hoping i won’t botch the translation): “The thing is, it depends on how the subject is treated. It goes back to how it shouldn’t be glorified. Because that’s just horrible. Like yeah, if you’ve got a problem with that, like many other TW, you dodge it. But already, it’s very hard as very few books (physical) possess these kinds of warnings and even people who recommend them seldom talk about the TWs when it is primordial. Oh i also remembered of an author, Yvan Godbout, that got sued for pedophilia in a Conte Interdit (book series). Hansel and Gretel i think. Although i’m not sure if it’s a good or bad exemple. Since he was writing a horror scene in a horror story.
My point, and considering the amount of horror / ultra taboo stuff i read you have no idea, is that yes, we can write about anything as long as we don’t encourage doing what is written in it. As long as we point out that it is bad. It exists, it serves the story, but it is horrible.”
As you can tell he is more into published and physical books, but it is still relevant i think.
I’m not going to bother to go through point but point and refute your arguments (though it’s possible that some of my followers may do so)– because here’s the thing.
At no point have you argued against the original point of this post.
The point of this post is that censorship is authoritarian.
What you are arguing is that censorship is good for society.
It’s not my problem if you believe that authoritarian censorship is good for society.
You can go ahead and believe that authoritarian censorship is good for society.
But you need to accept that that is what you believe, and that it is an authoritarian viewpoint to hold.
Discussion ¬