odds are, you won't like what it is

[reflectedeve]

I'm sincerely sorry, flist, for continuing to rant at you, but I guess I have a few more things to say about the warnings mess. I'll probably be stopping after this, though.

I've been catching up on some of the discussion from last night, and I just get more and more confused. I still don't understand where most of the anti-warnings objections are coming from. Sometimes I get the impression that the people who hold that stance are conducting an entirely separate conversation, oblivious to the points pro-warnings fans are making. This post is mostly me trying to work through some of that confusion.

In my previous post, I said that I think of fandom as a community, and that something communities do is try and take care of each other. airgiodslv has a post on the topic which goes into this a bit more thoroughly: We have a responsibility, to ourselves and to each other, to do no harm. (I would personally draw a distinction between "harm" and "hurt" in some cases--sometimes this community is here to shake up our preconceptions, which can be hurtful but nevertheless important--but overall I agree.) "Your triggers are not my problem" implies an attitude that is essentially anti-community. I actually do get this one, but I find it appalling. No, you're not responsible for someone else's mental health, but if you know you've written something that could very likely have an adverse effect on it, and you refuse to take any small step in order to prevent that harm? Particularly later, when someone you've (inadvertently) harmed asks you to take that step? You don't deserve to be part of this community.

Also, for gods' sakes, haven't we had this "it's my personal journal" bullshit enough? Yes, it is. Yes, you are the boss. Yes, you are still responsible for what you say in public there. You have the right to say it, but if the community reacts--if there are social consequences--you're going to have to own it.

I've been seeing comments that people on the anti-warnings side are feeling hurt, even "attacked." It's true that this is an extremely emotional discussion; given the personal nature and the rather severe stakes involved, I don't think this should come as much of a surprise. However, there's also this: the argument was going on within bandom for days before wider fandom got ahold of it, and there were people saying some truly vicious things about survivors. It's all blurring together for me now, a little, but I remember a comment that survivors should "use the bad thing that happened to them to become better people" (paraphrased), with the implication that survivors who were asking for warnings had failed to, I don't know, properly LEARN from their experience (as evidenced by the way they were attacking poor defenseless fanfic authors). If you came into this wank yesterday and are shocked--shocked--at the cursing and hyperbole some fans have resorted to, you might want to consider how angry and hurt they were already feeling.

Of course, the attitude that the survivors and other pro-warning folk are perpetrating an attack of some kind on ficcers seems to be a major theme throughout this discussion, and here is where the boggling truly starts, because no. For the most part, this is just not happening. (I've seen at least one vicious, personal, anonymous comment, but that was immediately dogpiled by both sides.) There is a difference between asking for something (for help, essentially) and attacking someone. The incident that began this mess involved a few fans asking arsenicjade to add a warning to her fic, which she was pretty classy about doing. (There was one latecoming commenter who made a total tl;dr ass of herself about the lack of warning after it had already been applied, but I'm pretty sure nobody in the current discussion is trying to back her behavior.) I see nothing wrong with this exchange; it would have been nice if arsenicjade had included a warning to begin with, but there was a difference of definition, and that sort of thing happens. The point is, people told her that something in her fic could be hurtful, and she was willing to add a warning as a courtesy to her community. Where is the problem with that? Where is the attack?

Throughout this discussion, pro-warnings fans have reiterated that they are talking about asking ficcers for a very important courtesy. They ask that warnings be applied in advance, and if this doesn't happen, they'll ask that warnings be applied (when the triggery material is noticed). Sure, now that there's wank, pro-warnings fans are condemning anti-warning arguments, which they--we--find to be deeply problematic and upsetting. I am amazed that people who apparently see no moral imperative whatsoever in helping abuse survivors protect their mental and emotional health are accusing those very survivors and their allies of causing such great harm via requests and arguments.

The cries of "censorship" are also entirely ludicrous. Censorship is something that is practiced by an authority (such as a government or editorial body) with power over the text and the person writing it. The pro-warnings people have no such power, and they are not attempting to force anyone to do anything. They certainly aren't asking anyone to change or edit their writing--nobody is asking that you rewrite, or not write whatever stories you like--only to add one tiny framing device, in as small or optional a manner as desired, so that people have the tools to make an informed choice about reading. (As others have noted in posts I have lost track of--argh--most professional media has all kinds of screening options that just aren't there in fandom. Not that comparing fandom to pro literature makes any kind of sense; the way we operate is entirely different.) And as I've noted, nobody has ANY power to enforce the use of this device! Advocating for a community standard is not censorship. People in fandom have advocated for far more significant changes to texts in the past, for social reasons. And people in fandom have erroneously been accused of censorship before. I always hope that fans are able to comprehend the difference between social advocacy and censorship.

Finally, there are all these demands for precise (and limited) lists of triggers that should be warned for. While I understand the desire for guidelines, this is not going to be possible, nor is it the point. As I've tried to explain above, nobody is trying to enforce rules on anybody else; they are asking for a courtesy, and applying that courtesy will of course be at the author's own discretion. There is some measure of common consensus over what triggers may be the most common and thus the most important to warn for (to help the broadest number of readers): these tend to include any sexual consent issues (from rape to dubious under-the-influence situations), child abuse, self-injury, and suicide, etc. However, complete consensus is going to be impossible, and covering all possible triggers even moreso. This does not invalidate the importance of using warnings.

There is supposed to be give-and-take here (another community thing). What I think most pro-warning folks are hoping is that ficcers will, out of the goodness of their hearts, warn for what they judge to be triggery content. As I've mentioned, if a reader is triggered by something unwarned for, that reader may choose to request that the ficcer add a warning. At this point, the classy thing to do would be to apologize for the unintended harm (seriously, nobody is accusing you of intentionally triggering them) and add the warning. Even if you don't entirely agree with the warning, adding it to that one particular fic is just a nice thing to do. For the most part, I don't think people will blame you for not thinking of it (and will hopefully be polite); and again, what harm does it do you? If you don't want to "spoil" your other readers, you can use spoiler-text or one of the other 'optional warning' suggestions that is going around.

Far from attacking, I don't think most pro-warning people have been trying to change things in fandom quite as much as they've been trying to raise awareness of an important issue (hoping, of course, that people will then understand and choose to change their non-warning practices). Hell, in my experience, this practice is pretty widespread; these are just reasons why it should remain so. I don't think this enormous fuss was particularly necessary.

Whew, okay, that was much longer than I expected. Briefly, I discussed: "your triggers are not my problem"/community sensibilities, the anger of pro-warning fans, survivors and pro-warning advocates "attacking" ficcers, censorship, and demands for consensus on a list of triggers to warn for. With lots of attempts to explain what I think the pro-warnings camp is attempting to say and to accomplish. (My understanding of the situation ultimately represents nobody's opinions but my own. Obviously.)

I think I'm done now--shit, I have so much to do that is NOT THIS--but here are a few more links. While I think that the analogies being thrown around are inherently problematic (fandom is neither a bookstore nor a supermarket), vassilissa's take on the food allergy analogy is at least better, IMO: "You'll have to find that out for yourself. You can always leave if you smell peanuts. It's your responsibility, not mine." kalpurna has a handy list of ways to make your warnings optional by hiding them. And lastly, the unfunnybusiness write-up has lots more links, including to a lot of the posts where the wank started and was primarily continued.

[ETA:] quettaser does the math. *_*

[ETA 2:] As usual, have not been able to pull myself away from haphazardly reading more posts on this subject. /o\ The more I do (and the calmer I am; I fully admit that my previous post in particular was written in a haze of rage), the more things seem to boil down to one simple issue. People don't like to be told what to do. Duh, I know. (And: a simplification, I know. But significant.) I don't have a lot of respect for that reaction (in this case), but I get it. However, this is not about people telling other people what to do: it's about people asking for help. I wish some people out there would read impertinence's post about triggers (again, if need be), and try to re-focus their perspective a little. In context, that contrary reaction is fucking selfish.