Ok as someone who’s heard more than I’d like about it; here’s the gist, pro and anti ship are both pretty black and white in how they view ships. A pro shipper believes people should be able to ship anything no matter how problematic it may be and even if that ship is potentially kinda illegal and they tend to think no matter how something is portrayed it’s never problematic. Anti shippers are the complete opposite of this, believing any problematic ship is bad no matter what kind of problematic it is or even if it’s being portrayed as bad in the media and usually take the stance that the portrayal of something problematic is always endorsement of that problematic thing.
Here’s where I’m going to say why these are both complete bullshit at least to me, someone who is incredibly anti censorship. No, portrayal does not equal endorsement, just because a problematic ship or thing is portrayed doesn’t mean it’s encouraging it. Are we gonna freak out over kids cartoons because they portray a bully most of the time? No! Because they portray that bully as bad, and the bullying they do as bad! You can show something problematic including a relationship and show that it is bad. You can have an abusive relationship in a story and show that it’s unhealthy and not something to be sought after and in fact, something to be avoided. Now the extent to which the creator of the media communicates that is up to audience interpretation but it still rings true. However, not all portrayals of problematic ships or other problematic things are going to show it as bad or even intend to show it as bad. Sometimes this is merely suspension of disbelief which in that case it’s for an older audience who have a developed moral compass and viewpoints that they are much more unlikely to stray from, meaning they can process the media knowing in real life that problematic thing is wrong but that the story is absurd and/or incredibly fantastical so your not supposed to take it as seriously. Obviously there are limits to what kinds of problematic things they can get away with showing more lightly depending on the heaviness of the topic. They can have comedic violence however it’s generally a rule that you shouldn’t say, take s/a lightly, but I wouldn’t say that requires censorship since censorship is a slippery slope that we don’t wanna go down with art (and again as I’ve stated I am very anti censorship) what can be done in these instances is use trigger warnings and age ratings, yeah, sorry to everyone who’s all like “ohhh trigger warnings are stupid and make you weak!” They exist for a reason, and technically age ratings are trigger warnings. Are you gonna take your complaints to the government and media producers because you think it’s weak that they rated something PG-13 for mild violence? Another argument we’ve all seen is “well it’s fiction it doesn’t affect reality!” Well, fiction does affect reality. It’s complicated in how it does, but it does. Yes if a mentally and emotionally healthy adult sees an abusive relationship on screen wether it’s romanticized or not, they’re not suddenly going to become an abuser or seek out abusive people, they know that the dynamic is wrong and shouldn’t be imitated in real life. However, if it romanticizes the abuse it portrays, abusers might see it as a justification of the abuse they inflict on others, and a victim in an abusive relationship might see it as a way to convince themselves that their situation is healthy and normal. Children are also liable here as they are basically sponges for ideas, again, look at why we have age ratings. If a child, especially a young one, sees abuse being romanticized in media they are likely to think it’s ok, and imitate it. Children imitate what they see to learn and haven’t had the experience or brain development for that matter to register what things in media are bad in real life without that media telling them. This gets better as they get older but again, this is why we have age ratings. This is in a way, similar to the “video games cause violence” argument. It’s a black and white take on a nuanced phenomenon. Video games do not cause violence, violent people seek out violent video games, and very small children may be desensitized to violence when exposed to it, again, age ratings. So in conclusion what do I think? I think that we should obviously consume media critically yes. Acknowledge what’s problematic in it but don’t use it as justification for censorship. Do something like, warn people when recommending it to them so they know what’s in store for them. Trigger warnings, again are useful as a way to warn vulnerable people of things that might upset them. Now on the topic that I’m sure anyone reading this has been asking, what about ships between adult characters and child characters. Well, personally, I think that’s gross and you shouldn’t do it, leave the kids alone ffs it’s not that hard. Again look at the rest of this if you want to know why romanticizing those ships is a terrible idea. Now it’s a bit hard to say on content that shows the ship but not in a sexual manner. Like all content that romanticizes something problematic I believe it deserves to be criticized, now obviously don’t harass or attack anyone, that never does anything good and your just making yourself look like an asshole. Criticism, not harassment. I will say non-sexual content of those ships is not quite censor-worthy, but I’d say highly discourage and criticize. Now obviously, there is a limit to my anti-censorship view like with a lot of people and that is illegal content and by illegal content I’m sure you know what I mean but in case you don’t, I mean CP. obviously if the portrayal of the ship between an adult and a child character includes sexual content then yeah, report, take it down, that is CP and it’s not only illegal, but absolutely disgusting. This includes the 1,000 year old Lolis who act and are built like 6 year olds by the way, no the fact that she’s “technically 1,000 years old” doesn’t excuse this shit, she acts and looks like a 6 year old, that is a 6 year old, shut up. So that’s my tangent that could probably be a commentary video script on pro and anti ship and why I think they’re both wrong.
basically smn who's. anti harassment and supports fiction freedom. NOT necessarily enjoys any ships or dynamics. there are already separate terms for those that actually ship smth
Yes and no, a pro shipper is just someone that doesn’t have any limits or just someone that doesn’t judge other people for their own ships I’m pretty sure that’s already called smth idk tho
Report Blog Entry
Comments
Displaying 5 of 5 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
DemonAngelCat
Ok as someone who’s heard more than I’d like about it; here’s the gist, pro and anti ship are both pretty black and white in how they view ships. A pro shipper believes people should be able to ship anything no matter how problematic it may be and even if that ship is potentially kinda illegal and they tend to think no matter how something is portrayed it’s never problematic. Anti shippers are the complete opposite of this, believing any problematic ship is bad no matter what kind of problematic it is or even if it’s being portrayed as bad in the media and usually take the stance that the portrayal of something problematic is always endorsement of that problematic thing.
Here’s where I’m going to say why these are both complete bullshit at least to me, someone who is incredibly anti censorship. No, portrayal does not equal endorsement, just because a problematic ship or thing is portrayed doesn’t mean it’s encouraging it. Are we gonna freak out over kids cartoons because they portray a bully most of the time? No! Because they portray that bully as bad, and the bullying they do as bad! You can show something problematic including a relationship and show that it is bad. You can have an abusive relationship in a story and show that it’s unhealthy and not something to be sought after and in fact, something to be avoided. Now the extent to which the creator of the media communicates that is up to audience interpretation but it still rings true. However, not all portrayals of problematic ships or other problematic things are going to show it as bad or even intend to show it as bad. Sometimes this is merely suspension of disbelief which in that case it’s for an older audience who have a developed moral compass and viewpoints that they are much more unlikely to stray from, meaning they can process the media knowing in real life that problematic thing is wrong but that the story is absurd and/or incredibly fantastical so your not supposed to take it as seriously. Obviously there are limits to what kinds of problematic things they can get away with showing more lightly depending on the heaviness of the topic. They can have comedic violence however it’s generally a rule that you shouldn’t say, take s/a lightly, but I wouldn’t say that requires censorship since censorship is a slippery slope that we don’t wanna go down with art (and again as I’ve stated I am very anti censorship) what can be done in these instances is use trigger warnings and age ratings, yeah, sorry to everyone who’s all like “ohhh trigger warnings are stupid and make you weak!” They exist for a reason, and technically age ratings are trigger warnings. Are you gonna take your complaints to the government and media producers because you think it’s weak that they rated something PG-13 for mild violence? Another argument we’ve all seen is “well it’s fiction it doesn’t affect reality!” Well, fiction does affect reality. It’s complicated in how it does, but it does. Yes if a mentally and emotionally healthy adult sees an abusive relationship on screen wether it’s romanticized or not, they’re not suddenly going to become an abuser or seek out abusive people, they know that the dynamic is wrong and shouldn’t be imitated in real life. However, if it romanticizes the abuse it portrays, abusers might see it as a justification of the abuse they inflict on others, and a victim in an abusive relationship might see it as a way to convince themselves that their situation is healthy and normal. Children are also liable here as they are basically sponges for ideas, again, look at why we have age ratings. If a child, especially a young one, sees abuse being romanticized in media they are likely to think it’s ok, and imitate it. Children imitate what they see to learn and haven’t had the experience or brain development for that matter to register what things in media are bad in real life without that media telling them. This gets better as they get older but again, this is why we have age ratings. This is in a way, similar to the “video games cause violence” argument. It’s a black and white take on a nuanced phenomenon. Video games do not cause violence, violent people seek out violent video games, and very small children may be desensitized to violence when exposed to it, again, age ratings. So in conclusion what do I think? I think that we should obviously consume media critically yes. Acknowledge what’s problematic in it but don’t use it as justification for censorship. Do something like, warn people when recommending it to them so they know what’s in store for them. Trigger warnings, again are useful as a way to warn vulnerable people of things that might upset them. Now on the topic that I’m sure anyone reading this has been asking, what about ships between adult characters and child characters. Well, personally, I think that’s gross and you shouldn’t do it, leave the kids alone ffs it’s not that hard. Again look at the rest of this if you want to know why romanticizing those ships is a terrible idea. Now it’s a bit hard to say on content that shows the ship but not in a sexual manner. Like all content that romanticizes something problematic I believe it deserves to be criticized, now obviously don’t harass or attack anyone, that never does anything good and your just making yourself look like an asshole. Criticism, not harassment. I will say non-sexual content of those ships is not quite censor-worthy, but I’d say highly discourage and criticize. Now obviously, there is a limit to my anti-censorship view like with a lot of people and that is illegal content and by illegal content I’m sure you know what I mean but in case you don’t, I mean CP. obviously if the portrayal of the ship between an adult and a child character includes sexual content then yeah, report, take it down, that is CP and it’s not only illegal, but absolutely disgusting. This includes the 1,000 year old Lolis who act and are built like 6 year olds by the way, no the fact that she’s “technically 1,000 years old” doesn’t excuse this shit, she acts and looks like a 6 year old, that is a 6 year old, shut up. So that’s my tangent that could probably be a commentary video script on pro and anti ship and why I think they’re both wrong.
Uhh yeah. Enjoy this
bl33dy
basically smn who's. anti harassment and supports fiction freedom. NOT necessarily enjoys any ships or dynamics. there are already separate terms for those that actually ship smth
Anon3469
means its a pro-blematic ship
bro cooked
by Yoyo; ; Report
for reals
by Anon3469; ; Report
hell yeagh brother
by KO/TKO 🍉; ; Report
Bill Liam East
https://www.google.com/search?q=proshipper+definition&rlz=1C1KYPA_enUS670US670&oq=proshipper+defini&aqs=chrome.0.0i512j69i57j0i390i512i650l4j0i512i546l3.3713j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
thank u
by Yoyo; ; Report
Lol, couldn't resist. Had to look it up myself, this is the first I've ever seen it.
by Bill Liam East; ; Report
maisie
somebody who ships adults with minors (sexually) so basically p3dos
what the heck..
thank u for explaining it to me
by Yoyo; ; Report
no problem
by maisie; ; Report
Yes and no, a pro shipper is just someone that doesn’t have any limits or just someone that doesn’t judge other people for their own ships
I’m pretty sure that’s already called smth idk tho
by SillyMaka; ; Report
that is NOT what that means. it means you dont harass people over ships no matter how gross they might be.
by SATURN RAZORBLADE; ; Report
Ohh! My fault! Yeah that ^^
by SillyMaka; ; Report
Ohh! My fault! Yeah that ^^
by SillyMaka; ; Report