[ SECRET POST #3045 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3045 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 028 secrets from Secret Submission Post #435.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

The person letting them speak is just allowing free speech.

No. That person, by not challenging them, is allowing that intolerance to spread.

[blitzwing]

No. That person, by not challenging them, is allowing that intolerance to spread.

You don't defeat ignorance by silencing people. You defeat ignorance with education and spreading awareness.

If we're in a group discussing homosexuality, I do more to spread tolerance and knowledge by engaging in a discussion than by shouting over a homophobe to prevent people from being able to hear their words.

[(Anonymous)]

I never said shouting over them. I said challenging them. Yes, a discussion counts, but so does letting them speak, then presenting a more tolderant viewpoint. Anything but remaining silent. Silence is unspoken consent to their viewpoint.

[(Anonymous)]

Urgh, I hate this whole concept of silent consent, because not everyone is equipped to challenge hate speech or hateful behavior or whatever. If you're cripplingly shy, socially anxious, or bad with words, or you don't know the person and what they're capable of. There are obvious ones like language barriers, but sometimes.. you just can't do it. I'm fine in text, but I am terrible at expressing myself vocally, and the idea of telling off a stranger no matter how much of a piece of shit I think they are-- that makes my blood run cold just thinking about it. I have only recently progressed to a point that I can order for myself at a restaurant. But if I don't tell a co-worker/neighbor/stranger on the bus that what they said or did just now was offensive, I am part of the problem and consenting to their hate? It is just not that simple. I burn with the need to stand up for what I believe in, but I fear challenging someone's world view as strongly as I fear spiders, airplanes, heights. The silent consent thing is bullshit, because I'm not the only one who isn't capable of even gently admonishing a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend. Yeah, if some guy at a party is telling sexist jokes, or balking at racism, there are bound to be a few people who just don't care, or even agree with him. And there are people who disagree, but don't feel like making waves. But there are a TON of people who absolutely freeze up when it comes to confrontation, and I don't think they should be lumped into the same category as the selfish and bigoted.

[blitzwing]

It sounds like you've come along way, anon. You should be proud. Standing up to opinionated people can be tough for anyone. I hope you'll one day get to the point where it's a breeze for you. If not, well, I think most people understand that there are always some people who can't do casual conflict, and it's not a moral failing.

[blitzwing]

I never said shouting over them. I said challenging them.

We must have crossed wires with the meaning of "tolerate hate speech". To me, tolerating speech is allowing someone to have their say. That doesn't mean letting them have their ideas go criticized. So I think we actually agree on that subject?

[(Anonymous)]

Only if you mistyped this sentence: That doesn't mean letting them have their ideas go criticized. and instead meant uncriticized. Because somehow those ideas that are against a group of people for being different from some arbitrary 'normal' – those ideas need to DIAF.

[blitzwing]

Yes, I did mean "uncriticized", haha, sorry. For some reason Firefox flags uncriticized as misspelled (maybe it's not an actual word?) and I must have just clicked it to correct it, not paying attention to what it was changed to. My bad.