If Your Comfy Feelings And Nostalgia Are Still More Important The Rights Of Human Beings To Simply Exist,

If your comfy feelings and nostalgia are still more important the rights of human beings to simply exist, buy fanmade merch. Buy merch secondhand off resale sites. Stop buying directly from the source, stop buying licensed material which directly lines her pockets.

Pirate the fucking movies instead of streaming them directly and racking up numbers that keep her shit in profit.

another reminder to stop buying/watching/reading anything JK Rowling associated

The other post I made about it was pretty vent-y so I'm going to make another one on the same subject, but;

Going into spaces specifically intended for the positive appreciation or enjoyment of something with the intent to be negative or the attempt to convert it to a negative space is both a shitty thing to do and it Will Not get you the result you want.

As one reblogger on the post said; Reddit is appalling for this, but Tumblr is already hot on its heels.

People create spaces around the things they enjoy because, well, they enjoy them. They want a space to create and share that enjoyment. They want a space where they can cycle that positivity into content and community.

These spaces are founded on the enjoyment of the source and the belief that it is good. TV shows, movies, books, games. These spaces are based on the pure fact that the people within them, by majority, like what they are consuming.

And obviously, that doesn't mean you can't be critical of aspects of it, or not like parts of it, or be disappointed with things that have happened. But the point is that the good should vastly outweigh the bad.

And if you're trying to wedge yourself into those positive spaces with the bad outweighing the good, that is not the space for you. That is not the purpose of the space, nor is it fair to the people who created that space with the intent of being positive.

It is not, by any means, toxic positivity to have a specific place designed to revolve around the enjoyment of and positive perception of something.

That place is not for you and your voice. Your voice does not have the right to speak over theirs within that space. Positive spaces are not obligated to allow you to speak within them.

You're not going to change minds by being negative in those positive spaces. You're just going to make people avoid you and dislike you and be unwilling to listen to what you have to say.

Is there a difference between someone that writes rpf and someone else that has a parasocial relationship?

I really wanted to know, because I throught that they were the same

Well, yes, because you could write RPF about someone you know absolutely nothing about aside from a quick googling. A parasocial relationship is not intrinsically linked to writing RPF.

Parasocial relationships are just a state of relationship and existence. They are, by definition, one-sided relationships where one part is totally unaware or only peripherally aware of the other's existence.

In all honesty parasocial relationships are often being painted in a bad light by the media. They're often referred to when talking about obsessive fans, the inherent lack of privacy in the celebrity world, ect.

But, in reality, every single person who is a fan of a celebrity no matter how in-depth that goes, has a parasocial relationship with them.

For example, I am very much a fan of Henry Cavill. I don't actively try to seek out information on him—I follow his Instagram and I passively obtain information about his life from scrolling past some posts or articles here and there, but aside from admiring his talent and wanting to climb him like a tree, he and I exist on very separate planes of existence.

And yet, our relationship is parasocial. Because while I admire him and respect him and lust for him, he has literally no idea I exist. Absolutely buttfuck none.

In countries like China and Korea, parasocial relationships are often used to refer to stalkers and obsessive fans.

While writing fanfiction, particularly RPF, can certainly be a contributor to how you engage with your parasocial relationship and foster it, its entirely plausible to have a parasocial relationship and not write RPF.

Its also entirely possible for the reverse. Of course, in specific situations. Its not common, but its not impossible. That said, typically the people writing RPF are part of a parasocial relationship. They're writing the RPF because of their interest and investment in that person/those people.

Since it is literally a fireable offence to attempt to coerce, force, bribe or bully your patient into adopting your own values and views beyond the scope of law and ethics. Which, most ethics are covered by law regardless.

And on the basis of 'normal' and corrections, again, that depends on scope and how you are defining both.

E.g; if my client is unhealthily fixated on, say, BDSM as a means of self harm, my goal is not to try to 'normalify' them by villainising BDSM and attempting to steer them away from it and toward vanilla sex only.

My goal is to harmonise their relationship with BDSM and steer them towards healthier ways of engaging with it and using it as a means of safe outlet and catharsis over self harm. My goal is to get them to understand how and why they were using BDSM to self-harm and help them fix the root problem.

You just read my post and immediately launched into a bad faith misinterpretation of it that completely disregards the actual purpose of therapy and my post.

You don't become a therapist to force your patients to have the same individual views as you do or the same values or the same beliefs. You don't become a therapist because you have a very specific approach to something that you believe is the Only/Right one and you want to force them to comply.

Also; antis getting into specific professions with the at least partial intent of such activity is not a new thing. I'll have to dig around for the post but one such anti did brag on Tumblr years ago about trying to convert her patients into adopting her views and mindset and she rightfully got ripped to shreds over it.

So I'll repeat. Anyone and especially antis who declare they are going into a profession specifically with the intent of causing harm to or manipulating people into adopting their views need a serious reality check and possibly also a prison cell.

It is unethical. It is dangerous.

Antis who proudly proclaim they're going to become a therapist so they can shut down and manipulate and unethically target all the 'nasty proshippers' make me laugh because they're going to get two months into any sort of qualifying course and be slapped in the face by the reality that therapists are obligated to remain objective and impartial and will lose their license if they're found to be using their position to be unfairly bias or negatively target clients based on their own personal beliefs and values.

"Objectivity helps counsellors avoid personal biases and allows them to focus on the client's needs without imposing their own beliefs or values." - American Counselling Association

"Therapy should feel like an inclusive and safe place for clients. Clients need to feel safe and supported in their work. And while all therapists have inherent biases and personal preferences, it is never appropriate for them to engage in discrimination, racism, sexism, or other forms of prejudice with clients." - Medcircle

You do not get into therapy to correct people. You get into therapy to help them. Therapy is not about the therapist.

Victims can be angry.

Victims can not want help for whatever reason.

Victims can be loud.

Victims can be aggressive.

Victims can be violent.

Victims can be emotional.

Victims can be stubborn.

This Hollywood perpetrated idea that victims can only be meek and silent and pitiful needs to be beaten to death with a hammer.

There is no such thing as the standard or typical victim. There is no such thing as a bad victim. Victimhood is not a one-size fits all.

If you believe victims shouldn't receive or are undeserving of compassion and help because they don't behave the way you think they should, you are no better than the person who made them a victim in the first place.

If you wish they died, or think they deserve what happened to them, or think they should have suffered more/should continue to suffer, you are no better than the person who made them a victim in the first place.

Would I be the asshole if I bought Harry Potter merch anyway or is it just antis or others shaming me? I'm not a fan of Harry Potter, I just want to buy what I want without being shamed into "supporting" bad things.

I don't want to be known as an Israeli supporter because I buy Starbucks.

The thing is, the issue with buying these things is that the money you give those companies then contributes to supporting something awful. Which means if you know that, and you're still willingly giving these companies money, you're either declaring you just don't care or you're declaring you support what they're doing.

Like I said; if you genuinely can't live without Harry Potter merch, buy it secondhand. Or buy fanmade merch where absolutely none of the money is being funnelled into anti-trans and anti-queer movements and goal corporations.

Here's a scenario for you:

I'm walking down the street and there are two stalls. Both are selling the same thing. One of the stalls has a notice saying all the money raised today will go into funding animal abuse. Dog fights, ect.

The other stall has a sign saying all the money raised today will go into funding the stall owner's ability to keep making products as an alternative to the other store, so you can get the same product without funding the horrific abuse of innocent animals.

Now again, remember: they sell the exact same thing. Exact same price.

So. Do you think I'm a bad person if I choose to buy from the stall that funds animal abuse? Even though I really, really love animals and have the option not even two feet away to make the same purchase knowing it means the other stall gets less money for their horrible goal?

Because that's what Starbucks and JK Rowling and Nestle and Chick-Fil-A do. When you buy their products, you're actually putting money in their pockets which then gives them the ability to fund things like anti-trans movements, conversation camps, child slavery and xenophobic wars.

JK Rowling can't donate 75k to anti-trans movements if she doesn't have 75k to donate.

You're not being "shamed into not supporting bad things." Frankly if you have to be shamed into not supporting those things I think that answers your question anyway. But you are being given facts to make choices with.

And you can't stop people from looking at the choice you made and deciding if that makes you a bad person or not.