BlackHeart Biohazards

dead-pidove-do-not-eat:

blackheart-biohazards:

offul-83:

blackheart-biohazards:

offul-83:

blackheart-biohazards:

offul-83:

Idk how to begin this but here we go!

The reason why I think people participate it proshipping mainly isn’t for coping (at least mostly).

I think the real reason why people do it is the thrill they get from it. Most proships are dangerous or “scary” in nature so when they ship it they get some kind of adrenaline or strong feeling, whether it’s guilt, fear, anger, excitement, or otherwise.

Like watching a horror movie.

Another reason is probably due to the intrigue and conflict that it can bring if they are incorporated to a story.

So, you tagged this proship, and you don’t have a DNI so I can only conclude you’re looking for interaction.

You compare being proship to someone who watches horror movies here.

Do you also disapprove of people watching horror movies?

Yes, I’m looking for a fair discussion. I think the topic is interesting.

The comparison I made between proshipping and watching horror movies was based on how people feel while they’re watching them, not the content of horror movies itself. I don’t think watching a chucky movie will negatively affect people.

Also I’m not an antishipper either. I’m a neutralshipper. I think people can change aspects of a ship (ages or rewriting events) to make it not problematic.

And I won’t send direct hate to people who are proshippers.

Let’s continue the horror movie comparison.

I assume that you’re using the term ‘proship’ here to refer to people who actively create and consume content for ships that would be considered problematic. That’s not what proship means, but assuming that’s what we’re discussing…

What do you feel is more harmful about consuming and creating problematic romantic and sexual fiction, vs creating and consuming violent fiction?

To start off, sorry for possibly misusing the term. What I ment by proshipping is making dead dove do not eat type content, stuff that could cause trauma in a story, I don’t know what the people who specifically ship that kind of stuff are called.

Now to your questions (which I’m glad you’re asking, thank you! This topic is interesting to me and I have many opinions!)

Hroni feelings are arguably more stronger that feeling like harming someone. We evolved to procreate so, naturally those kind of feelings are stronger and can affect people more.

As for violent fiction, it depends on how it’s portrayed. Same goes for any kind really, themeing, messages, tone, and even wording can cause someone to think about or influence someone to do something. Thats how ads work after all! Although this is more subtle and not immediate (hence why people aren’t just murdering eachother on the streets) it can still influence people or just cause someone to not take the subject seriously. I personally believe that you’re environment affects your mind, anything around or involved in your daily life, including fiction.

Generally, I really don’t want people to romanticize harming others, otherwise I wouldn’t care about this kind of content.

I think this is a really interesting conversation, and we are putting a pin in it to answer later because we are really distracted right now, and your thoughts here deserves an answer with full attention.

(In the meantime our followers might have some thoughts for you as well.)

Hope you don’t mind that I jump in and gave some of my thoughts,

I find the idea that sexual fiction has to have strict rules for its depiction that doesn’t apply to violent fiction because our evolutionary instincts to procreate are stronger, very interesting. Because I’d argue that we evolved to survive in whatever way possible. And that violence is just as “instinctual” as sexual arousal. Our response to a perceived threat is “fight or flight” and our ancestors faced a lot of threats. But I don’t actually think that this conversation of trying to argue whether sexual arousal or violent instincts are stronger or more innate, very productive. Because we live in a civilized society with rules and expectations regarding how we deal with those instincts. It doesn’t matter how stressed somebody is, committing violence against somebody else will result in negative consequences with the legal system. The same with sexual arousal, not abiding by the rules of consent is generally looked down upon. (Of course, the legal system is not an ethical system by any means, often failing to deliver in terms of justice because of systemic bigotry. But that segues into an entirely different conversation.)

While I agree with the idea that the environment that you surround yourself with definitively has an effect on your worldview. I don’t think, regardless of the themes, messages and tones can cause anybody to do something. That doesn’t mean there can’t be a correlation or a relationship between somebodies worldview and what fiction they consume. But correlation does not imply causation. Banning transverse fiction does not stop people from using fiction as a way of radicalization. I mean, Star Wars is a perfect example. Often used to radicalize people into fascism despite the villains literally being called “Stormtroopers.” Advertisements and by extension, fiction are great at influencing emotional reactions. The advertisement works by appealing to somebodies sense of “likeability.” And they are more likely to buy something. Propaganda also works like this, appealing to a strong sense of emotion such as fear or anger as a way to try and shape somebodies opinions. However, propaganda does not work very well on its own. It is nothing but a tool to try and shape people’s opinions. There need to be systems, a complex network of people and other tactics in order to influence somebodies worldview. As I’ve said, banning people’s tools for radicalization doesn’t do anything. Fascists and the alt-right don’t care about misinterpretation. 

So with that in mind, we go to the last point, about the romanticization of certain themes. Romanticism is a word that is entirely butchered in terms of this discourse. The literary definition of romanticism is focusing on the inner life and emotions of the writer. That’s it :3 But I’m assuming that you are speaking about framing and glorifying of something in fiction. So let’s talk about that. “You are not Immune to propaganda” Is a wonderful meme! Because it’s true. The way propaganda works is by worming its way past your defences as something familiar and agreeable. The agenda is trying to sell you on something by presenting another thing you agree with. If you can recognize something as propaganda, right away, it wasn’t targeted at you. It wasn’t for you. And it’s not trying to sell YOU its agenda. If you believe you can recognize propaganda right away, you are more likely to blindly accept certain things. And propaganda made for you? Is going to work well to radicalize you into reactionary politics. What does this have to do with the framing and glorification of something in fiction? Well, promoting critical thinking, especially the aspect of scepticism even if you agree with something. Is a much better tool against propaganda, and the possible negative effects that fiction can have on reality. Than censoring and banning something. Framing and glorification of things that are morally reprehensible in real-life can be used in a very deliberate way; in fiction to make a point. Or used as a social commentary. But even if it decides not to, there still maybe a reason for that specific framing. That isn’t necessarily wrong or a bad thing. Fiction’s point is not to dispense morality or teach it. It is to entertain. There are feelings of pleasure and excitement in the taboo, so we should be promoting critical thinking, literary analysis and openly engaging in criticisms of our media instead of advocating for ostracisation and censorship.