Some Dora 'Anime' Based On Something I Wrote At The Back Of My Early 2000's Sketchbook

"anti-kink" is so funny to me. ohhh you're scared of sexy make-believe? ok. lol

"Beware Fran Bow"

Inoktober

Nightmare

People seem to have forgotten that "proship" was the Fandom norm for the longest time.

Only, it wasn't called proship. It was called ship and let ship. Or minding your own buisness.

If someone had a ship you didn't like or thought was gross, you would avoid them. If they drew art or wrote stories you didn't agree with or like, you would ignore them.

There were tags like smut, whump, and angst to tell people about things they might not want to read. And then dead dove: do not eat for taboo subjects and especially gritty fic.

Then people started to ignore that. Younger fans started to bully people because they disagreed with shipping certain characters. Whether it be because it "wasn't canon", they thought it was gross, or they just didn't like it.

These people began calling themselves "anti-ship"

Pro-ship became a label to show that someone was against anti-ship.

Eventually, the anti-ship movement began to die down. So do you know what they did? They started accusing people. Of being pedophiles, groomers, rape supporters, and more. All because they wrote or drew things that these people didn't like.

They began claiming that THEY were the Fandom norm, and that these "proshippers" were the bad people. They started claiming that proship stood for "problematic shipping"

Due to this, the term "pro-ship" is often misconstrued as to what it means. Many people don't even KNOW what it means.

It means "anti-censorship".

It means that we support someone's right to produce art, no matter how gross, no matter how taboo, no matter how "problematic"

Because it's not hurting anyone.

If it's something you don't want to see? Block the person. Block the tag. Say in your bio that you don't like it. That's what they're FOR!

This was discussed in earlier days of fandom.

"I wonder why people would read a story in a genre they don't care for, then take the time to let the writer know that sure enough, they didn't care for it. That would be like me going to a restaurant, ordering a slice of cherry pie, then asking that the chef be brought out so I can say "I don't like cherry pie, and I didn't like yours either." To continue this analogy into its usual fannish outcome, the chef would say "Well gee, lady, why did you order it?" And I'd say, "Are you questioning my right to order cherry pie?"

-Unknown 2002

Except now, it would be like the person who didn't like the cherry pie and ordered it anyways then demanded that no restaurant serve cherry pie because it was poison. Not only is it a ridiculous request, it's blatantly untrue.

How do you play the Naughty dog Crash games and think Cortex is straight???

“He never got laid, but ever since highschool he was living with his male best friend, N.Brio”

how do you play any post naughty dog crash game and think yeah cortex is straight

HUGEASS ARCHIE SONIC ARTDUMP i read the entire series recently and i had so many thoughts

Fooooooooood!!

In the aftermath of my big post about censorship, multiple people have left comments that boil down to, "it's okay to show heavy topics in fiction as long as they're portrayed as bad."

Let's take a quick look at an excerpt from the full ext of the Hays Code, shall we?

No picture should lower the moral standards of those who see it. This is done: (a) When evil is made to appear attractive, and good is made to appear unattractive. (b) When the sympathy of the audience is thrown on the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil, sin.The same thing is true of a film that would throw sympathy against goodness, honor, innocence, purity, honesty. note: Sympathy with a person who sins, is not the same as sympathy with the sin or crime of which he is guilty. We may feel sorry for the plight of the murderer or even understand the circumstances which led him to his crime; we may not feel sympathy with the wrong which he has done. The presentation of evil is often essential for art, or fiction, or drama. This in itself is not wrong, provided: (a) That evil is not presented alluringly. Even if later on the evil is condemned or punished, it must not be allowed to appear so attractive that the emotions are drawn to desire or approve so strongly that later they forget the condemnation and remember only the apparent joy of the sin. (b) That thruout the presentation, evil and good are never confused and that evil is always recognized clearly as evil. (c) That in the end the audience feels that evil is wrong and good is right

This is the same Hays Code that supported Nazis. This is the same Hays Code that forced Jewish artists out of Hollywood. This is the same Hays Code that targeted artists of color, queer artists, female artists, any artist who deviated from the white American Catholic ideal. And it was explicitly Catholic, which I explained in further depth here.

The idea that art has to have a clear moral, which lines up with the dominant morals of white American Christianity, is foundational to the Hays Code. If you sound like the Hays Code, you need to re-evaluate.

Censorship and moral codes enforced on art are never used for anything other than oppression. The second you try to dictate what is and isn't allowable in art, you side with people who will enforce those rules on marginalized people with no mercy and no hesitation.

Censorship does not create healthy relationships with media, even the censorship you might be tempted to think of as "good censorship."

(And, as usual, being an independent censorship researcher does very little to pay my bills. Kick me a tip on Ko-Fi or pledge to me on Patreon if you want to support my work! <3)

a littly contradictory, aren’t we, illu?

i can’t seem to figure out how to reblog with an image, but it’s a reference to this

uh…look what i did when i found it hard to listen to my prof without falling asleep~ she later asked me what i’d been drawing… i couldn’t really tell her about my favourite killer clown and his assassin friend, could i.

Keep reading

I'm going to be fully honest, I hate the use of problematic as a coined term for fictional ships. I feel like problematic has just become one of those terms tossed around at anything and everything and often used as a gotcha net.

"I don't care about your ships as long as they're not problematic."

Okay. Are we talking about incest or just a ship where they have clashing political opinions?

Am I not allowed to ship the sentient wolf creature with the twink or am I not allowed to ship the two middle aged store clerks who have different views on wanting children?

What if one half of my canon ship gets de-aged to eighteen? Is it suddenly problematic to ship them for as long as that character remains de-aged?

What kind of age brackets are we defining as problematic these days? What are the cut-off points for when its not problematic for two people to fall in love? What if one person has a birthday before the other one and for a few months they're not part of that acceptable bracket anymore?

Problematic is just being used as a one-word way to shut people down and force them to comply with your own expectations and boundaries. Problematic is thrown around as a way to box people into behaving and existing in ways that make you comfortable.

"I don't like the way that you exist so I'm going to brand you as this negative word that forces you to change to suit my preferences or be shunned by society."

Problematic means to constitute as or to present a problem. It is not the shiny new term for 'if you ship this thing you're a terrible person.'