Talk:Anti-anti
Anti-Anti References
I checked dememe for references to anti-anti. The earliest is in late 2015, but it is spelled out as anti-anti-shipper[1]. Same in early 2016 [2][3] Just a guess, but it looks like the name anti-anti gained traction because people were naming their discourse blogs with urls like anti-anti-wincest, etc.[4] I'd say the term started gaining traction in early 2016[5] (though I'm surprised it's that early because I didn't see it until 2018.)--aethel (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Ushas42, please explain here why you deleted information from this page. In the meantime, I restored the most recent edit. --MPH (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I reverted the edit because comparing anti-antis to those who defend actual child molesters is inflammatory and incorrect. I will leave the entry about ZADR, but I am deleting the references to Walter Breen and Ed Kramer. Ushas42 (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Good point, I can see how that would seem inflammatory since pro-shippers usually just defend fictional content. However I do see some merit in including their cases here somewhere (maybe under history?), specifically for the ones who don't believe those men actually did what they were convicted of. To them, those men aren't child molesters, they were convicted due to ulterior motives. There is a reference linked from a proshipper blog that compares antishippers to the alt-right, and that seems similar to the way some of the defendants of Ed Kramer believe he was only targeted due to anti-semitism, not because of anything he was accused of. Perhaps if we include some info about those men somewhere, we can leave out the details and just include the response from those who believed they didn't actually do what they were convicted of? Patchlamb (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- While I agree it's a good idea to discuss any major removals on the Talk page first, I will say that I am confused as to the link to Walter Breen et al. If the term "anti-anti" wasn't in use at the time, who can say whether there is any link to be drawn? Is this an opinion that has been raised in fandom? Because if not, that makes it an original idea put forth on a Fanlore page of the type that seems more suited to an article. I would confine the page to talking about the use of the term "anti-anti" and not speculating about any precursor movements unless we have sources/fan opinions to document about that. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hmmm, you mean like if there were more sources to cover the variability of the ideology through time outside of just the "anti-anti" labels, it would be better suited to a separate article? Like the timeline of the anti-anti label and any accompanying, similar movements, and how they've changed and morphed into one another? That could be pretty interesting to try and do a wider scope of research on, especially in relation to specific fandoms/websites. It does feel like there are a lot of similar movements that have slight differences between them, like the Hannibal fandom's rainbow meaties are "proshippers" and meat knives are "antishippers," but also they're not quite the same thing because of the context of the show they're based on. So a larger, seperate article that covers all these very similar, yet slightly different, movements through time and fandom and how they bleed into one another would be really interesting and fun to work on without messing with their individual articles too much. Patchlamb (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, when I say "article", in this context I mean for a publication, not in the sense of a Fanlore page. That kind of original analysis - drawing connections between fannish movements - is really outside of Fanlore's scope. Someone could definitely write a blog article or a piece for a publication about it but on Fanlore, we're here to document. So my point was that unless someone draws that connection externally, we shouldn't be drawing it on the page, because essentially it boils down to our/the editor's individual speculation and is very subjective. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Buzzly
Something seems to have happened with a new art site recently, called Buzzly, that might be of interest for editors to take a look at for the proshipper + antishipper pages. Looks like the site admins held an official poll that asked questions that sound related to topics proshippers and antishippers discuss. If there are any pages on censorship within art websites, might be a good bit of info to use for that as well. The poll had a large respondent pool. Here's a Twitter thread that archived the poll questions and all the responses. Patchlamb (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Patchlamb I decided to keep an archived link to this thread and consequently I researched more about the site and found a post on Reddit about the poll and the events following it. I'll leave the links below -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- r/internetdrama Original Link Archive.today Link Wayback Machine Link || Twitter Thread Original Link Part1 Archive.today Link Part1 Wayback Machine Link Part1 // Original Link Part2 Archive.today Link Part2 Wayback Machine Link Part2 -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
"Pro" Standing for "Problematic" & Proshipper Gatekeeping
I noticed an unusual uptick in arguing among proshippers + antishippers on Twitter this month, which introduced me to proshipper and antishipper ideas I had never heard before.
It seems that some antishippers consider the "pro" in the word "proshipper" to be referring to the word "problematic" instead of "pro" as in "positive," and some proshippers disagree. source 1 source 2 I have a hard time finding sources for antishippers who attribute "pro" to "problematic" outside of those Tweets, though. But if some believe that, it's probably worth mentioning here or on the antishipper page.
The other thing, about potential gatekeeping within the proshipper community. I also discovered some proshippers believe that if someone uses the label proshipper, but engages in actions considered to be harassment, that some other proshippers say that "they are not real proshippers." This sounds like it could be a case of gatekeeping, where some proshippers will not acknowledge other proshippers due to their actions, but indeed they all otherwise still use the label and adhere to the same ideology. There's many more sources for this than the other one. It seems like the gatekeeping extends beyond harassment claims. Though, this could also be a case of proshippers just being unable to come to an agreement on what being a proshipper really means, whereas some think it just means anti-harassment but not necessarily ship-positive, and others believe it means both anti-harassment and ship-positive but also have looser ideas of what counts as harassment. Unsure...source 1 source 2 source 3 source 4
I just wanted to take note of those and include a few sources in case anyone wanted to use them or look more into it. I can see proshipper gatekeeping having enough information for it's own section. I would not be surprised if there is a similar gatekeeping for antishippers, but I have not looked into that. Patchlamb (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- The "pro is short for problematic" idea is already mentioned in the History section (I added it in March). It has one cite that is usage by an anti, and I just added one from curiouscat I found. I also checked twitter and found a few more cites, but most of them are from proshippers reacting to antis mischaracterizing what proshipping means:[6][7][8][9]--aethel (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC) ETA: I added one twitter cite from an anti after searching proshipper problematic until:2022-03-01 (date limited to rule out anyone being influenced by the Fanlore page).--aethel (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
anti vs pro worrisome fight
A mother posted on Reddit about how her daughter was manipulated by an anti-shipper into becoming a social justice, leading a classmate to attempt suicide and inciting several other people at the same. All because an anti adult got it into a 14-year-old girl's head that an 18 and 23-year-old couple would be considered pedophilia. The girl is currently undergoing medical treatment, as are the victims of her harassment and their families are reporting to the police the anti who sent pornography to children.saying that this way they would end pedophilia on Twitter. Worrying to say the least. An adult using children like that is scary. The thread is running on twitter and I think it would be nice if someone documented it to show how the fights between these groups are evolving in a rampant and frightening way. Here are links to tweets made by users: suspicious_birb, adybpt and pineskill about the case -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Reverted Edits
Regarding the content removed 18 March 2024 by Mozzarella with the summary: "Removed defamatory and biased statements lacking sources and citation".
I reverted this edit. Major changes to pages/concerns need to be discussed and explained on this talk page. Removing information without input and discussion is considered vandalism. Please see Fanlore:Plural Point of View and Hostile Editing Policy. Thank you. --MPH 23:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I originally removed a paragraph due to the lack of citation but accidentally removed a portion before that had relevant links. Apologies for the inconvenience. Mozzarella (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Maromi Ika 2023 post
Added a portion to the history about a post shared by mangaka such as the original creator of Trigun Nightow and gay erotic manganak Gengoroh Tagame as a relevant event. I've included relevant links in citation. Please let me know if there's anything I should add or edit. Mozzarella (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)