“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.
p*dophilia and similar things are both illegal and immoral, so unless it is done to show a character is evil it is shitty. stfu with this “"i dont think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me” is authorigarian" ballshit. it is straight up disgusting to be a p*do, r*pist or similar thing. please, do not die on the hill you are currently on.
“I don’t think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me” is authoritarian.
i am saying the complete oppisite, let it be read and written, but as the bad thing it is, just do not let a bad thing be sexualised so you can feel right for bad thoughts. also think of a better argument than the same copy-pasted responce
“I don’t think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me” is authoritarian.
are you a bot, or are you just not reading anything i wrote?
There’s nothing worth saying to you.
If you want to read arguments to understand why you’re wrong and why what you’re saying is authoritarian censorship then you can read through the comments already in the notes of this post.
But here, I’ll leave this for you, too:
☝️ Writing in fiction about an evil, disgusting, immoral or illegal act does not mean that you believe it is good or should be allowed in real life.
☝️ Reading in fiction about an evil, disgusting, immoral or illegal act does not mean that you believe it is good or should be allowed in real life.
☝️ Writing in fiction about a character who enjoys or approves of an evil, disgusting, immoral or illegal act does not mean that you enjoy it or approve of it.
☝️ Reading in fiction about a character who enjoys or approves of an evil, disgusting, immoral or illegal act does not mean that you enjoy it or approve of it.
☝️ Fiction does not brainwash a person or retrain the morals of someone who already knows right from wrong.
☝️ Blaming a person’s immoral actions on the fiction they enjoy excuses them of their actions and denies their agency in their own wrong- doing.
☝️ People write, read, enjoy, and appreciate fiction for reasons other than agreeing with the characters or desiring the events to happen.
–
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.
my point is that stuff like that SHOULD be allowed in books, but to not sexualise the actions and to outright say it is bad. by sexualising or justifying the acts you are creating a breeding ground for people to do awful actions (like the people on this saying pedophilia is okay) and get away with it. let the action in the media, but say or show the action is bad, damaging and is not ok to believe is good. spread the morals of this stuff being wrong, not just the stuff by itself.
You are literally parroting the Hayes code.
Here’s the thing about the argument that fiction the argument that “fiction that portrays bad evil wrong things as good will result in the audience believing that bad evil wrong thing is good in real life.”
When fiction impacts us, it’s not because it has flipped our morality like a switch.
It’s because that the fiction, like anything else, has presented us with an idea. It has made a moral argument.
When someone makes a moral argument you don’t just automatically agree with them even when they’re persuasive.
You–instinctively, even, not just consciously– compare the moral argument to your current morality. You weight it against the rules you know, and how you were raised, and your current feelings about harming another person.
Fiction that says “murder is good” doesn’t flip a “murder is good” switch in people.
The only people you can convince that “murder is good” with a piece of fiction, is people who were already ready to believe that murder is good.
–
“You shouldn’t write that because readers might think that it was okay to do in real life.”
A person with secure morals will never be convinced to do harm by a mere piece of fiction.
“Okay but mentally ill people might–”
Are you implying that mentally ill people are morally weak? Think carefully now.
Discussion ¬