Since It Is Literally A Fireable Offence To Attempt To Coerce, Force, Bribe Or Bully Your Patient Into

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.

If buying anything related to Harry Potter can be harmful because the creator can use the money to support bad things, why is it still famous? Why people still like it?

Because people are selfish and don't like being told what to do or being told they're making a bad choice.

When it first started coming out that JK Rowling was a bigot, people immediately began to use their own comfort and happiness as a defense for her actions and supporting her.

"Well Harry Potter made my childhood happy so I don't care what she does!" was a prominent argument.

People still like it because they can't separate their enjoyment of it from the reality of what Harry Potter is and who JK Rowling is. Its still famous because in its prime it was a fucking massive franchise. It held a monopoly on the movie market. It boomed. You can't just erase that kind of fame, especially when people still cling to it.

I can tell people until they're blue in the face that the money they give JK Rowling by purchasing licensed Harry Potter merch or streaming Harry Potter on official platforms or attending Harry Potter world or any of the other 38474 ways she's milked that cow for money that they're directly allowing her to keep funding these anti-trans movements and giving her a platform to spread hate but I can't actually make people do anything.

People have to stop being selfish enough to recognise that the issues and bigotry JK Rowling is perpetrating are far more important than the cozy little feelings they get from Harry Potter. People have to make the choice between their own feelings and the literal rights of human beings to exist and receive medical care, jobs, legal rights, ect.

By the way, censorship won't stop at extreme smut and icky kinks and big bad gays.

Because, that's the problem in kicking a few rocks down the mountainside. Once you trigger a landslide, you can't stop it.

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.

My favorite thing is when I say something like;

"You do not owe people justifying why you consume a certain type of media."

And inevitably I'll get a hundred pissed off antis in the comments launching into accusations about defending pedophilia or defending 'beating it to kiddie porn.'

And its like. 90% of the time I'm thinking about about interspecies relationships or gory Hannigram murder fucking or omegaverse.

You're allowed to feel sad, disappointed or lose some interest in a character because its no longer played by a specific actor or character.

(Obviously not talking about blatant racism here. Derail this and I'll scream.)

But I mean like. I see people shitting all over anyone who is losing interest in The Witcher because Henry Cavill is no longer Geralt, but at the same time actors will all have very unique ways of portraying the same character, and its perfectly fine to not feel the same way about how a different actor portrays or visualises the same character.

If you prefer the story and portrayal of Steve Rogers' Captain America over Sam Wilson's Captain America, that's fine! They're two completely different stories under the same mantle. You can absolutely respect the story and message of Sam Wilson's Captain America while still preferring the one Steve Rogers' Captain America told.

If you're in love with the way Henry Cavill depicts Geralt, you're not a bad person who holding onto that and choosing not to devalue Liam Hemsworth's interpretation by forcing yourself to consume media you no longer have a vested interest in.

Spider-Man is another prime example. While the core values and details of the Spider-Men stay the same, the specific stories and characters of each Spider-Man are supposed to be different. They're supposed to fit the narrative being told and the larger framework of the universe they are set in.

So many people hated on Tom Holland's Spider-Man because he wasn't the 'OG gutter rat broke bitch' but like. For one, we do actually see those aspects in the story still (Peter taking dumped items off the sidewalk, his small room, stressing about money and replacing things, ect) and for another, he's meant to be different because Spider-Man with The Avengers is different to Spider-Man alone.

Its meant to be a different depiction of the same character.

Its fine not to like one or to prefer the other but it doesn't make it bad media or a bad thing either way.