Reminder that fictional characters cannot consent

reminder that fictional characters cannot consent

Attached: 1582691183986.png (714x570, 119.93K)

I dont think empowerment and consent are tied together. creators consent is the characters consent and if the viewer pulls death of the author (like with danny phantom ) it does not make the character any less. it being fiction, empowerment like many other aspects of a characterization is often a point of view

In other words I can do whatever the hell I want as long as they say 'yeah sure'

This is the first time I've actually read this and I'm so fucking confused
Characters can't consent cause people argue that they would if the were real, so people should write them as if the consent is in character?
Isn't that basically saying anything goes if you write it in character with whoever? Isn't that just how fucking writing a character you don't own works?

I mean, that's like your opinion, man.

All this just to write "stop drawing what I don't like!"

Not a fan of spamming memes, but that angry chess playing kid pic sums up their point better than this word salad.

We're reaching levels of mental illness that shouldn't be possible.

Attached: 1569744001326.gif (234x159, 314.5K)

This, but using mental gymnastics to make them sound like it's a serious and real world issue. It's a power move to make their pathetic childish whines sound like they have merit.

By this logic, everyone who killed a fictional character is a real murderer and needs to go to jail.

Attached: 1347407915171.jpg (283x323, 48.75K)

So when they say "The Creator" do they mean only Creator-owned comics or does DC Editorial have say in who Wonder Woman gets fucked by?

Whoever wrote this didn't think very hard about how their shitty little soapbox spew applies to the modern media landscape.

This is autisticly treating fictional characters like real people AND being the fun police. The worst of both worlds.

When did we hit this point where we went from rule34 is expected to, "Ummmmm she's 14, can you not???".

Attached: 1564084084609.jpg (2325x2043, 1.71M)

Since birth of Betty Boop

wooooow
these people have lost it.

Forget about consent then. For they deserve to be Dicked all abourt. Absolutely rough dogged.

Right!
Because they are not REAL!
Canon stuff can only happen if the creator makes it happen?
Ok!
Fan fiction is not canon then, and therefore does not affect the real character.

Not Yas Forums, fuck off

i could kill you so fucking easy

Fictional characters don't have rights. Someone should draw both of them getting raped and murdered.

What is the argument/intended message here?

I spent too much time on this

Attached: figroa.png (648x472, 70.46K)

It's just a drawing.

>It is the responsibility of the creator to portray active consent as if the character were flesh and blood.
I seriously can't decipher this. Are they saying fictional characters should be kept out of sexual situations where they don't give consent? There's much better ways to word that.

Intend to shame you from drawing female characters with skimpy clothes for ANY REASON. (I'm not kidding because even when the context is for the beach for example) Wanna bet this won't apply to make characters at all?

This is all moot point since there's no governing body that says you can't, even though they'd like you to think so. And last time I check, Saudi Arabia is not in charge of the internet.

You know they ARE talking about characters designed to tell fanciful stories and not real people, correct?

Jesus, at least religious prudes are more honest about their desire to ban sexy things. Maybe that's why stuff like the OP is insidious. They're dishonest and are intended to shame you into giving up what you like.

Attached: today I will remind them.jpg (473x480, 94.72K)

Because they don't need to. They're not people

The easiest retort I could think of is that while fictional characters cannot consent, they also do not have rights.

Wait, they even say it's the responsibility of the creator.
So doesn't that means if the creator is cool with it, it's cool?

They're saying it's the responsibility of the creator to make sure that THEY feel comfortable

Why in so many words?
Why not just put, "don't sexualize fictional characters."?

Because they don't want to be lumped with the religious puritans by being honest with what they really want.

Reminder that fags and feminists deserve only one thing

Attached: Neck.jpg (790x1000, 91.91K)

This reads like it was written by somebody who can't think straight.

>being "woke" now means thinking cartoon girls are flesh and blood

Waifu fags were the truly enlightened ones all along. Does this mean tulpa freaks are Level 2 Woke?

Counterpoint: fictional characters are also fucking fictional.

Creators have no "responsibility" to do anything, fuck the art police.
Anyone who claims to support artists but demands they represent a certain group of people or push a specific agenda is lying.
They don't give a damn about creative expression, they want to turn all storytelling into propaganda.

What the fuck do these people jack off to? I imagine if they think objectifying non-person cartoons is going to far, actual models and porn is out of the question.

You know the mark of a pseudointellectual is writing a paragraph for something that can be summed up in a sentence or phrase.

"Write characters realistically."

That's not even what they're saying though

I don't know. I'd say creators have a 'responsibility' to the character, to portray them as close to who they are and the world as organically as possible.
So, not to turn them into mouth pieces for your agi-prop bullshit.

There's a great piece called 'What shall we ask of writers' floating around that was written in 1945 about the responsibilities of the creator.

>What the fuck do these people jack off to?
It's sweet that you think these people are anything but the type of person who gets mad at their genitals for existing. I honestly doubt that the person who would unironically make OP's pic has ever had an orgasm.

Cause they need to trick you into thinking they have a point.

>"Write characters realistically."
Fuck realism, it's a meme.
Instead of writing realistic or relatable characters, write flawed and interesting ones. That's why SJW writing is so boring and paper-thin, because the only characters they know how to write are strawmen (if the character is a straight white man) or "role models" (if the character is anything other than a straight white man).

>Fictional characters cannot consent and that breaks the argument that they WOULD consent to X if they were real
Fine. That's reasonable. It's a shitty argument in the first place.

>it's an artist's responsibility to...
Fuck off retard no one owes you a god damned thing

the characters never consented to being drawn in the first place

Its what there trying to say, its a shaming polemic using implied rape as a way to convince people to write fictional characters as if they were real people
I agree 100%. at the end of the day there fictional. Fictions point is to be unrealistic. Write whatever the fuck you want.

>I don't know. I'd say creators have a 'responsibility' to the character, to portray them as close to who they are and the world as organically as possible.
>So, not to turn them into mouth pieces for your agi-prop bullshit.
I was thinking in terms of original fiction rather than work for hire but I get what you mean.

>Fictions point is to be unrealistic
Just stopped in to say how retarded this is. It's really retarded.

>Just stopped in to say how retarded this is. It's really retarded.

You do realize what fiction is? Its made up exaggerated/grandiose stories for the purpose of entertainment.

Obama got elected and the left got cocky

Yes, I do realize what fiction is, and that's not it.

>the point of writing not real thing is to write not real things
>retarded, really retarded

That's not what I said, but please don't stop being retarded on account of reality.

Ok sure, user

This reminds me of the moral philosophy that if you even think something immoral, you've committed an immoral act. Suffocating.

To think I used to care about fictional characters instead of treating them like the worthless cum socks they are.

They've been doing this for years, claiming people who mod sexy girls into video games are literal human traffickers and shit like that.

If women worked as hard as they do at mental gymnastics there wouldnt be a gender wage gap, and they wouldn't be so fat.

MR. BOOP, GET DOWN

The worst thing is that they're trying to ban sex robots and sex robot development because its rape because a not real robot cant consent lol.

They're clearly just coping with how they're going to be replaced by sexy Asian robots