fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2761 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2761 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05. [SPOILERS for Radio Free Roscoe]

__________________________________________________

06. [SPOILERS for Yu-Gi-Oh 5D's]

__________________________________________________

07. [SPOILERS for Puella Magi Madoka Magica]

__________________________________________________

08. [SPOILERS for The Burbs]

__________________________________________________

09. [SPOILERS for Maleficent]

__________________________________________________

10. [SPOILERS for Game of Thrones]

__________________________________________________

11. [SPOILERS for Legend of Korra]

12. [WARNING for incest]

__________________________________________________

13. [WARNING for rape]
http://i.imgur.com/JX1fY7K.jpg
[linked for porn/rape(?), live-action]

__________________________________________________

14. [WARNING for abuse, rape, etc]

__________________________________________________

15. [WARNING for dub-con, underage (?)]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #394.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - ships it ], [ 1 - more random image spam ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

A lot of people think that if you say something about yourself on the Internet, and that wouldn't be true off the Internet, it's automatically a false statement. I don't necessarily agree.

For instance, I think any person who claims convincingly enough to be a girl on the Internet can truthfully be said to occupy the "girl" role and have the experiences "girls" have within the space of the Internet. If they do so long enough, they'll have the same experiences "girls" have, come to the same conclusions "girls" come to from those experiences, and pretty much be a "girl," even if they're a "guy" offline.

I suspect this goes way deeper, although obviously that would require research to back up. We know that a person put in the role of a "prison guard" will gradually come to occupy that role, as will a person put in the role of a "prisoner," even if they previously shared the role of "college student." It's not such a stretch to think that, say, repeatedly playing a fool on the Internet will eventually make your thoughts simpler and less complex, or repeatedly expressing a fervent political position will eventually give you sympathy for that position.

They say they are trolling, but I think they legitimately believe some of the things they are saying.

This isn't about any one specific person. It's about most online identities. (The two big exceptions are probably life experience and training--claiming you're a police officer when you're not won't give you the experiences a police officer has when patrolling, nor will it give you police training. Claiming to be a girl may result in people being sexist against you, though.)

My Identity course in uni was the first exposure I had to the idea of gender as a fluid concept, rather than a rigid binary. It makes so much sense to me. I think it kind of applies here, too.

We know that a person put in the role of a "prison guard" will gradually come to occupy that role, as will a person put in the role of a "prisoner," even if they previously shared the role of "college student."

I disagree that that's a valid analogy given that the criticisms of the experiment point out valid flaws in the original study, not to mention the fact that popular culture tends to extenuate the negative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Criticism

I know, I know, wikipedia, but the citations listed are what I'm trying to point out.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4102

I think this would only be true for someone who constantly occupies whatever persona. So that person would have to be online (and constantly keep up that persona) more than they are offline.

Although, I think it's a stretch to say that someone who claims to be a girl online would eventually have the same experiences as a girl. Only because I feel like online is more or less a genderless zone. Rather, I don't think people really think about it as much online as they do offline. Assumptions are always made whether it's true or not, but somehow in the end it rarely makes a difference. As opposed to offline, someone's gender is a lot more visible and is often taken more into account.

As someone who has been posing as another gender and got wrapped up in it so much I needed psychiatric help, I agree. But I suspect that it largely depends on how closely their opinions reflect their real views.

For instance, if you're pretending to be a perosn of another gender, who has been on a trip to a country you've never been to, you probably won't identify with it that much, because it will be too far removed from your real experiences. But if you pretend to be another gender, while descibing your real experiences and changing only some tiny details about them to fit the other gender, it's easy to get confussed if you do it for a very long time.

[ SECRET POST #2761 ]

Re: unpopular opinions thread

Re: unpopular opinions thread

Re: unpopular opinions thread

Re: unpopular opinions thread

Re: unpopular opinions thread

Re: unpopular opinions thread

Re: unpopular opinions thread