thuviaptarth | Fantasy and safe space

Entry tags:

Fantasy and safe space

Preamble
I'd like to emphasize that I'm ... noodling, sort of; trying to work out what I think as I say it. And what I'm trying to do here is to not to declare a particular set of fantasies or generic conventions wrong or right, but to consider how we can communicate better about these fantasies, conventions, and responsibilities to other fans, rather than perpetually ending up with hurt feelings, pre-set opinions and prejudices, and the rather frustrating sense that other people are not hearing what we're trying to say.

And whenever I say "we" above, I definitely do include myself.

Fantasy and safe space
I've been trying to niggle out some connections I feel but cannot easily articulate among recent fandom brangles about the harshing of squee, incest in Supernatural, race in SGA, fandom as a safe space, and what I see as the fairly complicated relationship of fantasy and reality. My predominant impression, as someone has friends and respected acquaintances on all sides of most of these debates, is that we--media fans--have a lot of trouble not interpreting disagreement as disapproval, or disapproval as insult, and that we have some difficulty separating out disapproval or criticism of our beloved objects (whether canon or fandom) from disapproval or criticism of ourselves. And as someone who finds criticism (both in the analytical and the negative connotations) an important mode of fannish engagement, I personally plan on working on that.

I've seen a lot of discussions of fandom as a "safe space," and I think that's a lovely idea with some very problematic implications, not least of which is that different people want and need spaces safe from different and sometimes mutually exclusive things. Some people need a safe space for fantasy and play, and some people need a safe space from the oppressions (of race, of gender, of sexual violence) that are an inescapable fact of their daily life, that are not simply toys for fantasy for them. Fandom can be very valuable as a free space for fantasy -- but there's a reason we don't let the id out to play in the streets with children, and that's because, unrestrained, it can hurt people. Sometimes our pleasure does hurt other people. Sometimes that hurt is our responsibility, and sometimes it's not -- I really do not have a blanket statement of permission or refusal here, I do not think that repression of the fantasy is value-neutral or unproblematic, either; the repression of fantasy is one of the world's most basic means of social control.

I told you I was having trouble articulating these connections.

I guess if I had to boil it down into a few sentences, I would say that fantasy is inevitable and it can be reactionary or it can be revolutionary and it can be other things entirely; that sometimes fantasy is entirely divorced from the real world, but sometimes it is not; and that, as responsible adults who seek to behave rightly by other people, when we publish our fantasies, our thoughts, our opinions, it behooves us to consider their impact on other people, even if we decide that the positive impact of expression for us outweighs the negative impact of the expression on other people. What I feel like I'm seeing, a lot of the time, is an automatic defensiveness and fear at being asked to consider how we or what we've said appears to other people, a defensiveness that comes out of the fear that we're wrong, or the inherited shame and discomfort we feel about our positions of relative privilege or fantasies we ourselves may find problematic, or out of the startlement at being called on a sense of entitlement we didn't know we had and may not be ready to confront.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

my pleasure :) and great post!

Thank you!

even if we decide that the positive impact of expression for us outweighs the negative impact of the expression on other people

I've been trying to restrain myself from speaking publicly about any of this, because my thoughts don't closely align with a lot of my friends' thoughts (i.e., people closer to me than just my flist, so people whose opinions I really, really do care about). But I would just like to say that, you know, I do a lot of weighing on my own time, in my own personal head, which there would be no way for anyone to know that I'm doing unless I, I dunno, posted constant updates to my LJ or something. "This is how I feel about Wincest today. This is how I feel about race in fandom today." I'm not trying to be flippant: it's just that I don't think I'm the only one who does that balancing, despite the arguably defiant and defensive tone in some of the comments I've seen around, and this idea of people telling or recommending or suggesting to anyone they should be evaluating themselves wrt their fantasies automatically makes me go, "Stop assuming I'm not."

This should all be implicit in what you're saying, and I'm not saying you in particular are assuming, and I'm not even saying I don't do it myself. But it's the very topmost layer of my extremely layered reaction.

I'm sorry if I sounded condescending. But that's an expression of regret rather than an apology, because if the weighing is entirely internal, and it is not discussed in the comments or obvous in the stories, then there's no way for anyone else to know that that weighing is going on. It's not condescending to judge someone by what they actually say.

I'd also like to clarify that I don't think anyone has the right to evaluate or ask others to evaluate private fantasies; what you do in your head is your own business. I am specifically concerned with public fantasy, with what happens when the fantasy becomes part of communication.

I get what you're saying, but while I agree that it's logical to judge based on the evidence in front of you, I think where we differ is: I find the condescension not in the judging, but in the expectation or suggestion that writers/artists/people in general should supplement their creative work with, what?, notes or explanations to demonstrate they're appropriately conflicted about what they're doing -- simply because the story contains content that is objectionable under some normative social standard.

Yes, I will be judged if I publish Wincest or Ronon as a barista without explanation. Got it, and I'll deal with that (probably by alternately laughing at you and weeping into my keyboard). But I don't want or need other people to tell me this will happen as if I didn't already know I was doing something controversial, or to suggest that I open my head to fandom's scrutiny just to head off the assumption that I really am incestuous or racist in RL. Because 1) it smacks of making the normative standard an objective one, and I would rather not accommodate that, and 2) because I'm pretty damn sure there are people who'd still think I came down on the wrong side of the weighing, and it wouldn't at all be mitigated by the fact that I did the weighing, and so I'd have just invited them into my own personal neuroses to be, hey, judged all over again! And I'd just prefer to only unlock the door to my brain when I'm ready, not in response to other people's potential opinions of me and/or what I'm writing and/or the perceived consequences of my writing.

But stronger emphasis on #1 and everything before it.

I do not know if I'm making any sense with this, because I've been writing and re-writing this comment so as not to rehash the whole "it's just fiction!" argument, or any others. I think we're drawing very fine lines here, and that's hard to do even when people aren't already firmly entrenched in their own camps. Perhaps when I next see you, I'll have figured out how to do it. Or, you know, we'll just drink. A lot. :-D

in the expectation or suggestion that writers/artists/people in general should supplement their creative work with, what?, notes or explanations to demonstrate they're appropriately conflicted about what they're doing -- simply because the story contains content that is objectionable under some normative social standard.

I've actually been thinking more about the comments people make in the meta discussions than the fiction themselves, and it's also linked, for me, to the discussions of cultural appropriation a while back. I don't think people are required to explain their fiction, and where I see friction, honestly, is a lot less in the presence of the fiction than in the later discussions of fiction or show canon.

I feel like we're arguing at cross purposes, possibly because I didn't get across in the original post exactly how valuable I think unfettered fantasy is, and exactly how gingerly I approach the distinction between criticism and censorship. Because I do think it's important to examine what fantasies are doing, but I don't think they can always be read simplistically, or that trying to suppress them is any kind of solution.

(One of the weirder things about the current confluence of discussions is that I suspect a lot of people coming in cold think I'm anti-Wincest or anti-incest-kink, which ... well, *you* know.)

*snerk* Don't discount my lack of reading comprehension skills, either!

I think I'd apply my arguments just as much to the fact that I read Wincest and discussions of same, since I don't (currently) write it. Hmm, this is the point where I wish it weren't considered wanky or bad form to single out individual posts/comments to demonstrate what you're talking about (which is a rant I've been sort of compiling in my head, waiting until my judgment is sufficiently impaired...). But I'm also not suggesting you go back and try to find such instances, because I would imagine if there were a lot or if you were just getting a general impression from things, it wouldn't be productive.

I've been thinking of the cultural appropriation debate too, because I didn't really weigh in on that beyond one post which was more to do with people's self-imposed guilt about their own internalized racism, and I think that's because I didn't want to get into judging their fiction. The only other topic where I potentially judge is misogyny in slash, and it's been a while since I've ranted on that topic. I hope that when I last did it, I took a suitably nuanced stance.

(I suspect people might assume I'm all, Wincest yay! But having now read pretty widely in that pairing, and figured out more how I view their characterizations on the show, I'm really not as yay! as one might think. Although it's still, of course, different from thinking Wincest is morally wrong.)

Hmm, this is the point where I wish it weren't considered wanky or bad form to single out individual posts/comments to demonstrate what you're talking about (which is a rant I've been sort of compiling in my head, waiting until my judgment is sufficiently impaired...). But I'm also not suggesting you go back and try to find such instances, because I would imagine if there were a lot or if you were just getting a general impression from things, it wouldn't be productive.

I agree with you on this (and

cereta just posted on it as well! Clearly we are in some kind of more positive fannish confluence) and have happily broken this "rule" in the past. It is the laziness of noodling that kept me from it in this post, and ... I possibly shouldn't have posted at all if I weren't ready to be more formal about it. A lot of it is personal impressions, and a lot of it is drawn from something I've been thinking about since IBARW, about the political assumptions underlying the celebration of fandom as a fantasy space.

(I suspect people might assume I'm all, Wincest yay! But having now read pretty widely in that pairing, and figured out more how I view their characterizations on the show, I'm really not as yay! as one might think. Although it's still, of course, different from thinking Wincest is morally wrong.)

Hee. I just spent this weekend talking a lot offline about how I've started to take issue with SPN characterizations I once accepted in fic (non-Wincest-related) and also how I do not morally object to Wincest (and often enjoy reading it), but need to take it as several additional steps from canon because I am increasingly unable to see it as anything but a tragedy.

... Boy am I not ready to post on that, and feeling unsure about putting it even in a comment thread.

well, *you* know

heh. Indeed.

This post, and Jintian's response, need some chewing by me before I reply.

I would say that fantasy is inevitable and it can be reactionary or it can be revolutionary and it can be other things entirely; that sometimes fantasy is entirely divorced from the real world, but sometimes it is not
This is so gracefully phrased that I can only nod along and thank you repeatedly. "Fantasy" as a defense for any number of fannish enterprises has interested me for a while, in part because before fandom, I was unfamiliar with it as a justification.

as responsible adults who seek to behave rightly by other people, when we publish our fantasies, our thoughts, our opinions, it behooves us to consider their impact
Thank you, *so much*, for opening up the space to talk about public communication. Publication, generally defined, is a stage, an area, that isn't discussed all that much in fandom. In locked posts and private discussions, I've found that I'm not the only one who wants to think about what *happens* to fantasy when it passes from the id to the page to someone else's screen, but I've never quite been able to figure out how to pose the question as well as you have here.

Just - thanks very much for this post and for your noodling. I'm both grateful and inspired.

I think your emphasis on the publication is an important one (which we often ridicule when authors tell us that we can fantasize about their characters but shouldn't make those stories publicly available but one we also often oblige when we flock RPS, for example).

the other thing I'm still battling for myself mostly comes up with chan as permissible fantasy: whereas the story itself is purely within the fantasy space, me reading it/enjoying it/getting off on it isn't. In other words, even as the objects of my desire may be fully virtual and fictional (and when I see pics of young nearly nude HP actors it's much less fictional...), the response remains that of the adult (me) to the sexualized child...which is why I've really stopped reading underage for the most part...

Actually Im' just realizing that my WNG and rape guilty pleasure post and umbo's latest one and this are all sketching out these fantasy spaces, aren't they?

even as the objects of my desire may be fully virtual and fictional...the response remains that of the adult (me) to the sexualized child
*nod nod* On the immediate level, one-to-one/author-to-reader level of social comuncation, there are already problematic issues arising. In the past, and to some extent still, I've tried to work around the sexualization of children as a fantasy/metaphor-ization of polarized power, where the child and the adult occupy the different poles, but even then, the metaphor's power depends on literal details like smallness, lack of hair, &c. (I've been thinking about this in the context of comics, where there *aren't* bodies, however remotely, as there are in, say, HP, thanks to the movieverse; even there, the fantexts are postulating literal physical details in order to power the overall fantasy.) And when we move past the immediate level, into a public space (an interpretive community, even *g*) where these fantasies-become-texts are circulated among a group of readers, yet more issues arise.

Obviously I don't have any solutions; I'm just raising points that have been swimming around my head.

Actually Im' just realizing that my WNG and rape guilty pleasure post and umbo's latest one and this are all sketching out these fantasy spaces, aren't they?
I think so? I haven't read Umbo's, and I admit I had to skim your WNG post, because it hit a great many of my politico-squicks. But I *do* think what you're calling fantasy spaces, where fantasies become fannish touchstones or tropes, come close to what I'm trying to look at in terms of group-response, certainly.

Well, in my WNG post I was musing about why the guilty pleasure of that trope (which in my world is simply a shorthand for a love transcending bodies, boundaries, space and time...) is politicized in a way in which the rape fantasy, clearly a guilty pleasure on some level isn't. And it comes back, I think, to the public vs. private, the political/social vs. psychological that we were debating in umbo's post () (you might like...lots of invoking of queer and psychoanalytic theory :).

And yes, I was fascinated by the obsession on the infantilizing in underage story when I looked at it a couple of years back, esp. when the content of the story worked on equalizing the relationship (i.e., how mature Harry is) whereas the imagery fetishized the child!

http://umbo.livejournal.com/743096.html?style=mine

Thank you for the link to

umbo's post! I hadn't seen it, and it expresses a lot of what I've been thinking more clearly.

I think your emphasis on the publication is an important one (which we often ridicule when authors tell us that we can fantasize about their characters but shouldn't make those stories publicly available but one we also often oblige when we flock RPS, for example).

Questions about publication also get at distinctions of law, ethics, and courtesy, which I am afraid often tend to blur in the heat of discussion.

the other thing I'm still battling for myself mostly comes up with chan as permissible fantasy:

I have similar issues with a lot of manga about underaged characters, in particular the underaged characters in relationships with much older characters.

I have similar issues with a lot of manga about underaged characters, in particular the underaged characters in relationships with much older characters. Yep, yep, yep. Loveless is the most obvious one for me. It squicks me on a feminist level, but it hits so many of my story kink buttons I can't seem to stop reading it. Emotionally, I ship Ritsuka/Soubi and very much Ritsuka slash Soubi where the pairing order matters, even though I sure as hell wish my id didn't. Everything I've ever written for that one has gone straight to the recycle bin, even though when I reread it I felt it had some deep reactionary elements that I liked.

I think there's a lot of wonderful stuff that would never *get* examined if we didn't let the id out to play, and even out to play with other people in an interactive fashion. But, it's not always safe, good, beneficial. I dunno. I've been pondering this a lot lately.

Yep! Loveless, my new manga of Deep Feminist Shame.

"Fantasy" as a defense for any number of fannish enterprises has interested me for a while, in part because before fandom, I was unfamiliar with it as a justification.

It's not just fandom, though. I see a general disinclination to examine the gender, race, and class politics of fiction "because it's just fiction"; the fannish spin about the positive aspects of fantasy (which I want to emphasize I do think is true, just not the whole truth) strikes me as an elaboration/parallel of academic theories about the subversiveness of fantasy, or, hell, the whole Romantic notion of art as rebellion. People in general have a lot of complex and contradictory notions about the power of art and imagination; fans, readers, artists, and academics just talk about it more. :)

In locked posts and private discussions, I've found that I'm not the only one who wants to think about what *happens* to fantasy when it passes from the id to the page to someone else's screen, but I've never quite been able to figure out how to pose the question as well as you have here.

It is hard to talk about without being censorious, I think. I find a lot of the feminist criticism of the romance genre an interesting and sometimes problematic model: it examines a lot of fantasies that appear to be politically reactionary, sometimes for criticism, sometimes for laudatory counter-readings.

Fan fiction can be a resistant reading of canon; but it's not always.

we--media fans--have a lot of trouble not interpreting disagreement as disapproval, or disapproval as insult, and that we have some difficulty separating out disapproval or criticism of our beloved objects (whether canon or fandom) from disapproval or criticism of ourselves.

Going off on a tangent here, because I've been thinking about why some fans often seem to be glad or almost eager to be in the position of victim - seemingly able to take some general criticism and read it as a personal attack.

I think some of that is because many fans come to fandom after having been criticized and (often) attacked in social situations in "real life." In other words, fans are quite often the stereotypical geek/nerd/social outcast, and when they criticized, especially in fandom, a place that they felt was a "safe space" for their geekiness, and by fellow fans, who should understand how they feel, they default to a defensive mode and perceive themselves (again) in the victim/outcast role, even in the face of mild, not at all personal, criticism.

So when the criticism does take a turn to the personal, as in both the SGA and SPN wanks, they are justified in their defensiveness, and have a hard time responding without resorting to personal criticism and attacks themselves.

And. Yeah. Good stuff in this post. :-)

I don't think that's a tangent! It was a really important part of the post to me.

I think there's a gender component to the reaction as well; women are socialized to minimize disagreement and discord, especially in groups that are all women, or at least socialized not to express disagreement directly--which can put people into paranoid paroxysms of disapproval search, even when it's not warranted. (Or maybe that's just me?) The social interactions in media fandom remind me A LOT of social interactions in romance fandom/the romance writers' circuit; they have some similarities neither shares with sf lit fandom, which has a much bigger mix of men interacting.

Although, of course, sometimes fandom wank is just fandom wank. :)

The social interactions in media fandom remind me A LOT of social interactions in romance fandom/the romance writers' circuit; they have some similarities neither shares with sf lit fandom, which has a much bigger mix of men interacting.

I was wondering if you could expand on some examples of that?

Both fanfic writers and romance writers are very focused on the idea of building a community through public mutual support; there is a strong and recurring resistance to public critique of work (although also a strong and recurring series of objections to this and the creation of spaces devoted to critique).

I've seen a lot of discussions of fandom as a "safe space," and I think that's a lovely idea with some very problematic implications, not least of which is that different people want and need spaces safe from different and sometimes mutually exclusive things.

Yes, THIS. (though I would quibble on the "need" part)

I have been very, very tired for YEARS of the "safe space" idea.

Because "safe space" immediately begs the questions - safe for who? and safe from what?

And then you get into all the practical problems of who gets to define the space. Who is kicked out of the space.

And also what is it safe FROM?

Because, in fandom, it usually means "safe from people who disagree with me". or "safe from ideas I don't like." NOT "a safe place where any ideas are welcomed and debated."

I have always been of the opinion that "safe space" is not a reflection of the real world where there is great diversity. By elminating diversity of opinion in your space, you are not making it "safe". You're eliminating any chance you have to learn anything new by interacting with people of diverse opinion. You are creating stagnation. But you are, also, creating privilage for your own ideas, whatever they may be. And people like having privilage.

Also, I would think that by now we've seen enough flamewars, trolls, socks, liars and other bad internet behavior within so-called "safe spaces" to realize just how false that distinction is anywhere. And how totally unenforcable.

Yet it still comes up all the time and is usually used as a weapon to remove someone from somewhere, rather than as an invitation to safety for all.

So, yeah, problematic all right.

Because, in fandom, it usually means "safe from people who disagree with me". or "safe from ideas I don't like." NOT "a safe place where any ideas are welcomed and debated."
I have always been of the opinion that "safe space" is not a reflection of the real world where there is great diversity. By elminating diversity of opinion in your space, you are not making it "safe". You're eliminating any chance you have to learn anything new by interacting with people of diverse opinion. You are creating stagnation.

As someone who has been evicted from several mailing-lists, mobbed and de-friended etc. in several variations of my internet-personality for the crime of disagreeing or flinging some controversial opinion (which even might not be mine, just something offered for discussion) to the ruling majority, I can only agree. Those cozy little cliques and friends-circles are not about discussion or development, they're about wallowing in the tepid mud of complacency. Like sows.

You're eliminating any chance you have to learn anything new by interacting with people of diverse opinion. You are creating stagnation. But you are, also, creating privilage for your own ideas, whatever they may be.

...Which is not, in and of itself, entirely without merit, I think. I think that even you and I could come up with a short list of ideas we want priviledged - ideas whose contra-argument we don't even want in the building. Ideas that we don't want at all, ideas we don't want to give the impression that they are safe - ideas that both you and I want stamped out.

The issue, for me, isn't precisely "passing judgment on ideas" and "inclusiveness of all povs", but on the process of making the decision to approve or disapprove, to include or exclude. I am not after a perfect decision by fandom, just a more perfect process.

Mileage, obviously, varies.

- hg

ideas that both you and I want stamped out.

It'll make you feel better to know I disagree. I'd rather people aired the ideas I find truly dangerous and unconscionable in public, rather than keep them to themselves; otherwise, I have no opportunity to put forward my arguments and demonstrate why this idea might be dangerous, and reach other people that might be undecided or simply not know or have always harbored this idea without thinking much about it. That's the problem with censure. All you get is silence.

I can't think of an idea that I'd rather just suppress. I disapprove of French laws criminalizing negationism, though sociologically I understand them. I'd rather we were given a public history lesson each time it came up, rather than a trial. But its my experience and understanding that deterrence does very little to tackle social problems.

It'll make you feel better to know I disagree.

It actually does me no end of good. And Mely disagrees too! *the world rights itself on its axis yet again*

More seriously - I see that idea - I would rather not suppress ideas, but confront them when I see them - as an excellent ideal, with significant problems in implementation.

Firstly, how does the line go: You can not reason a man out of an idea he was never reasoned into. Debate and argument work best on me in the things which I approach rationally. But there is a huge chunk of things which hit at the gut level, and cause gut level reactions. My concern is those reactions, which is where refusal to consider harmful actions would serve society best.

People might take this as a "what about the childern" argument, but I think that all ages of people confront those situations, and that we all need re-enforcment as to what is not permitted.

Secondly - in my experience, society in any form is not a medium through which ideas diffuse to uniform effect. There are pockets where different ideas congregate, and rarely come up against "more correct" arguments. In these cases, the knowledge that such an idea is out there can be enough to give credence to the belief. (As the internet is famous for letting people find associates who also share their passion for a rare joy, it is also famous for letting people find associates who share - and so legitimize - rare perversions.)

Finally, as you mention in passing, it takes a heck of a lot of effort to constantly combat certain ideas. No matter how righteous people are, I think they grow weary and jaded to the ideas that they are combating.

I'm not completely sold on the idea of selecting ideas to supress. For me, the worst part of the argument is the taint of elitism and "we know better than you", which, frankly, any discussion of social norms is going to include.

I do think that many people on all sides of the discussion are far more comfortable with drawing lines than you are, and are going to any way, so the best bet, imo, is to find lines that the most people agree with.

YM, obviously, MV.

- hg

It actually does me no end of good. And Mely disagrees too! *the world rights itself on its axis yet again*

FWIW, I agree with you. One of the things I love about fandom is the fact that we can start from certain shared assumptions about gender and about sex. And even as a heterosexual white male with privilege sometimes the sexism of the world I encounter every day is so appalling that it's a relief to get away from it--I can't even imagine how much worse it must be for those who get the short end of that stick.

I think that even you and I could come up with a short list of ideas we want priviledged - ideas whose contra-argument we don't even want in the building. Ideas that we don't want at all, ideas we don't want to give the impression that they are safe - ideas that both you and I want stamped out.

You were talking to SEP and not to me, but I find this idea incredibly repulsive -- unworkable, as well, for reasons

samdonne mentions below, but my initial reaction is an absolute refusal of the idea of eradicating ideas, the feeling that this is completely antithetical to many of my most cherished ideals and beliefs.

So no. We can't come up with a short list.

The issue, for me, isn't precisely "passing judgment on ideas" and "inclusiveness of all povs", but on the process of making the decision to approve or disapprove, to include or exclude. I am not after a perfect decision by fandom, just a more perfect process.

And this again is completely contrary to both my understanding of and desires for fandom, or indeed any locus of discussion.

[my original reply forgot a fairly important part, and asked a question in a way that might have led to confusing the issue instead of clarifiying it, so I am reposting this, my apologies for spamming your inbox]

Yes, I meant that post as a reply to SEP - I apologize for messing that up.

I find this idea incredibly repulsive -- unworkable, as well, for reasons samdonne mentions below, but my initial reaction is an absolute refusal of the idea of eradicating ideas, the feeling that this is completely antithetical to many of my most cherished ideals and beliefs.

So do you or do you not want this idea - that some things are best left off the table - under consideration, or not?

I'm getting the impression, from both you and

samdonne, that this is an idea that you really don't care for.

I'm not completely sold on the notion, either, which I'll expand on in my reply to M. But I am comfortable with drawing lines, and saying no, this is not an option. I can see how it is problematic, but not without its advantages.

(And to be very clear, I am talking social/community suppression, not government censorship or the legislative suppression that

samdonne spoke of.)

And this again is completely contrary to both my understanding of and desires for fandom, or indeed any locus of discussion.

If you would, please expand on what you disagree on in my comment.

[I originally thought your objection might have been to solution vs process, and gave an explaination as to why I privledge process over solution, but it occurs to me that your objections lie else where. So please consider that part of the question withdrawn, and just this - what do you object to there?

- hg

Exactly how are you going to "keep ideas off the table"? Who makes you the one to decide which ideas are kept off the table? Why is declaring ideas "off-limits" by fiat and force more persuasive in disproving them than examining them and debating them in rational argument?

I think your idea is impractical because telling people NOT to think of pink elephants, or get turned on by what turns them on, or NOT to believe what they believe, *does not ever work*. You can't control people's thoughts like that.

I think your idea is inethical because it assumes that there is some pre-determined and inarguable right and truth, beyond any dispute, even though the fact that there are ideas you want to suppress indicates that the dispute exists; it assumes that some person or group of people has a pre-determined higher access to right and truth, without them having to make any argument or effort to prove the rightness or truth of their actions; it assumes that some person or group of people has the right to control other people simply because they do not like their ideas.

But I am comfortable with drawing lines, and saying no, this is not an option. I can see how it is problematic, but not without its advantages.

What are the advantages?

What are the actions you take when you are "drawing lines"? How are you "eradicating ideas"? What does it mean, in practical terms, to say "no, this is not an option"? Why do you have the right to tell other people what their options are?

I'm getting the impression, from both you and [info]samdonne, that this is an idea that you really don't care for.

Not answering for Mely, but I've been debating this idea with you--not lobbying Mely to delete your comment or to boycott your LJ--aren't I? Though I disagree, I'm discussing it.

*slinks back to family breakfast*

I would say that fantasy is inevitable and it can be reactionary or it can be revolutionary and it can be other things entirely; that sometimes fantasy is entirely divorced from the real world, but sometimes it is not; and that, as responsible adults who seek to behave rightly by other people, when we publish our fantasies, our thoughts, our opinions, it behooves us to consider their impact on other people, even if we decide that the positive impact of expression for us outweighs the negative impact of the expression on other people.
So much agreement at the moment with this particular sentiment.
Do you mind if I quote it?

(Also, am here from

metafandom)

Sorry for the delay in responding -- sure, feel free to quote anything. It's public, after all. :)

This is a fascinating post. I've been thinking about how I justify writing any and everything to myself, about subcconscious biases and ideas that direct the paths of my conscious thought, and I'll definetely include this in my contemplations.

Thanks!

cathexys also pointed me to

umbo's post (http://umbo.livejournal.com/743096.html), which says a lot of what I wanted to say better.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Fantasy and safe space

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Here from metafandom

Re: Here from metafandom

safe space

Re: safe space

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Reposted to clarify

Re: Reposted to clarify

Re: Reposted to clarify

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject