Don't Quote Me On That

Cool, so you want natural fiber costumes with no/nuanced corset slander, people wearing colors, historical hairstyles, people wearing hats or headcoverings and long sleeves outside during the day, no potatoes or pumpkins in pre-columbian Europe, actors with textured skin and wrinkles, minimal makeup, consulting HEMA groups and weapons scholars for all the weapons and fight scenes, a good soundtrack that includes traditional instruments?

Dr. Ryland Grace was arguably the perfect backup candidate for his mission. Stratt got that right. He had no children, no life partner, no family, not even a dog. All he had was his students and that was enough for him, but that made him replaceable.

Right?

Not only were Grace’s wishes completely ignored, his life and his value as a person was undermined. Simply because he had no one but his students to care for his wellbeing, because he wouldn’t have someone at home waiting for him to come back.

Aroace people deal with similar treatment simply because romance and sex are seen as essential to the human experience, completely disregarding any and all other types of connection. One’s inherent value as a person is not lost when they choose to live life without romantic or sexual relationships. One’s value is simply in existing.

Aroace people know this well, which is why so many have become so attached to Ryland as a character. Many of us see his way of life as the end goal for ourselves, so any one of us would have been seen as just as dispensable, by Stratt and by society as a whole.

Mir geht es dabei vor allem um die unterschiedliche Behandlung von generativer KI. Viele kreative Praktiken werden akzeptiert, aber sobald jemand ChatGPT oder ähnliche Tools nutzt, wird das oft deutlich kritischer gesehen.

Sollten Fans in Fiktion und Fanart grundsätzlich frei sein, die Inhalte zu erstellen und zu konsumieren, die sie möchten, auch wenn andere diese ablehnen?

Ja.

Nein. Wenn ich es nicht mag, dann sollen es auch die anderen nicht tun dürfen.

Zur Einordnung der Begriffe: Kritische Betrachtung von KI in Fandom Spaces ist per Definition keine Zensur. Deshalb formuliere ich die Frage auf die Kernbotschaft um.

So some fanartist drew a “sexy” (read: booby) version of a (cartoon) character who is traditionally very non-sexualised. Fans of the character got mad about it because it’s kind of groundbreaking how that character is written and portrayed and this art totally ignores the entire point of the character. They demanded the art be deleted. In response to that other people said, well what the fanartist did may be distateful but they have every right to draw what they’re into. The two sides fight for days and each starts a harassment campaign and even report their “opponents’” accounts.

So far so typical. But things eventually come to a head and they decide that this will be settled by votes - not through a poll. Through donations to a children’s education charity via each side’s portal. Whoever can get the highest amount of donation wins.