And . . . I hit post before replying to the second half. It's certainly intellectually honest and coherent to recognize that we as human creatures might hold moral theories which are subject to error, and that is as such necessary to allow for the freedom of fen to write fic which may be verboten under any individ ual fan's ethical system. (Of course, this allowance is more or less built into the structure of the internet and can, I think, be safely taken for granted.) Clearly, the person behind the eyeballs must follow her own conscience and make decisions for herself; relying on an oppressed Other to tell her what was okay or not would constitute an abdication of her moral responsibility, not to mention her faculty of reason, and be something which is totally not the oppressed person's job.
This does not mean we have to abandon any sense of a quasi-objective ideal of right and wrong being bigger than any individual fan's prejudices, however. (Quasi-objective because it's not necessary to write it metaphysically into reality. It's perfectly okay for this standard to be contingent upon the historical moment, as long as its not radically relativistic on an individual level.) Acknowledging that we are often wrong doesn't mean there isn't a right answer out there.
If "write what you like, but be ready to face the consequences" were replaced with "Follow your own conscience in posting what you think appropriate, but be aware you will be subject to the criticism of those who (perhaps erroneously, perhaps not) disagree with you," I think I'd be much more comfortable with the sentiment. For me, however, the original implied that the only ethical calculus one's writing need go through prior to writing/posting was whether one was willing to weather the wankstorm it might provoke--a sentiment I found problematic to say the least.
no subject
ual fan's ethical system. (Of course, this allowance is more or less built into the structure of the internet and can, I think, be safely taken for granted.) Clearly, the person behind the eyeballs must follow her own conscience and make decisions for herself; relying on an oppressed Other to tell her what was okay or not would constitute an abdication of her moral responsibility, not to mention her faculty of reason, and be something which is totally not the oppressed person's job.
This does not mean we have to abandon any sense of a quasi-objective ideal of right and wrong being bigger than any individual fan's prejudices, however. (Quasi-objective because it's not necessary to write it metaphysically into reality. It's perfectly okay for this standard to be contingent upon the historical moment, as long as its not radically relativistic on an individual level.) Acknowledging that we are often wrong doesn't mean there isn't a right answer out there.
If "write what you like, but be ready to face the consequences" were replaced with "Follow your own conscience in posting what you think appropriate, but be aware you will be subject to the criticism of those who (perhaps erroneously, perhaps not) disagree with you," I think I'd be much more comfortable with the sentiment. For me, however, the original implied that the only ethical calculus one's writing need go through prior to writing/posting was whether one was willing to weather the wankstorm it might provoke--a sentiment I found problematic to say the least.