fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3047 ]

[ SECRET POST #3047 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3047 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

[Suzanne from Orange is the New Black]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Soul Caliber V]

__________________________________________________

05.

(Rick and Morty)

__________________________________________________

06.

[Love The Way You Lie - Eminem feat. Rihanna]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Bones]

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11. [SPOILERS for Grimm]
[WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

12. [WARNING for rape]

[Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby]

__________________________________________________

13. [WARNING for incest/underage]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #435.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

This is a really weird perspective. Obviously, the staff of any website is made up of real live humans making decisions about the operation of the website and the features available on that website. The question of tags, though, is about how to use the features that staff of real live humans provided.

For a lot of tumblr communities, what we might call the "staff-sanctioned" approach makes most sense. You post the thing, you tag it for organizational purposes/ease of searching, done. It's neat and logical.

But in fandom communities, the needs of users have led to a different consensus on how to use the website's features. Tags help fans to communicate and find each other on a website that's really not designed for connecting people to people so much as people to things.

That's why people get up in arms about using tags "correctly": if you're tagging hate with the tag adopted by the people who love that Thing (rather than, say, a tag that would help people who hate the thing to find your hate and share/glory in it), you may think that you're just identifying the subject of your post/providing an organizational tool or marker, but you're also, like it or not, effectively shoving hate in the face of people who follow that tag specifically because they like the thing. In DW terms, it's the equivalent of joining a comm just to post about how much you hate the thing it's devoted to.

Is this a universal consensus? Of course not; you disagree, clearly, and it's been known to generate some small amount of friction elsewhere. But it is, in my experience, agreed upon by the majority of tumblr users (in fandom, at least), and choosing to aggressively defend your minority opinion seems unnecessarily stubborn. What's gained, other than a sense of superiority and the chance to piss people off?

but why is ALL OF TUMBLR considered "a fandom community"

anyone random who is a Tumblr user and not part of "the fandom" could post and tag something "Pokemon"

AYRT

True, and as you might note I did acknowledge in my earlier comment that of course, not all of tumblr is a fandom community. But fandom communities DO exist on tumblr, and I guess I'm assuming, considering the context this discussion is happening in, that we're talking about tagging within fandoms (that is, people posting negative opinions about a fandom they're active in).

Obviously, there are going to be posts in a tag from people outside the fandom. It's not a super regimented system, by any means. Nobody's really going to police every use of a fandom tag to make sure it ~meets the standards of the fandom (alert: sarcasm.)

What we're talking about is actually a much more straightforward issue. If you're making a post containing hate for a particular thing or character, if you KNOW that people who like that thing would rather people posting hate about it not use a particular tag......why do you need to use that tag? Surely, surely, that's just common courtesy.

considering the context this discussion is happening in, that we're talking about tagging within fandoms (that is, people posting negative opinions about a fandom they're active in).

You assumed incorrectly. People that are not in the fandom but are tagging hate will get as much ire as a person in fandom tagging hate; unless you're in a very small fandom people aren't going to go "Oh yeah that's Jean I know she's not in this fandom, I'll let it pass."

I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue for exceptions to the "do not hate!" argument.

Edited 2015-05-09 00:39 (UTC)

da

In my fandoms, people who are obviously just n00bs who don't know any better usually just get zero notes on their tagged hate. It's the people who are doing it to stir shit or ~make a statement~ about the evil fandom hivemind silencing free speech who get people telling them to chill. And even then, people are caring less and less as the website ages. Most tagged hate doesn't even net a derisive gif anymore.

ayrt

because it's relevant and not all tags come with explicit rules and no one has the right to enforce rules on a tag that isn't a community and able to be used by anyone???

you can't even compare it to posting hate on a dw community because dw communities don't have rules against hate, if you love the show but hated an episode you ARE allowed to post rants in most general communities about it unless it's bashing a character on a character-fan community or something

are you being purposely obtuse?? i cant even tell

are you being purposely obtuse?? i cant even tell

They might be trolling. After all, they did deliberately pretend I was talking about "an inanimate website's feelings" when they knew very well that people commonly refer to staff's decisions by the website's name.

Well, maybe we're understanding "hate" differently. When I hear "hate," I'm not thinking "criticism of an episode I didn't like" or "rant about something that bugs me about the show," I'm thinking straight up unapologetically rude hate like in OP's example. And while obviously there aren't explicit rules for tags and nobody has a right to enforce this stuff, people do, I think, have a responsibility to be civil, and in my mind the civil thing is not to put your hate into the generic tag, because that's neither reasonable nor civil.

There are plenty of stans who will scream and flail about "hate" at any criticism, no matter how measured.

This was one of the main reasons I left a recent fandom. It's hard to be a fan when you can't even breath about an adaption-created plot hole or a literal two-frame animation looking silly without people calling "hater".

if you're tagging hate with the tag adopted by the people who love that Thing

And that's my point. A generic series/character tag is not created or "adopted" by fans. That implies that they made that tag to communicate with other fans. A "pokemon fans" tag would fit that description. "Pokemon" does not.

There is nothing stopping anyone from making a fan tag or a positive tag. #steven galaxy exists and it's a fan-created tag for keeping porn away from minor's eyes. #positive asexual and #actuallyasexual were created to make spaces for asexuals, and to make spaces for positive posts so people could avoid seeing hate/criticism of asexuality.

In DW terms, it's the equivalent of joining a comm just to post about how much you hate the thing it's devoted to.

No, a DW fan comm is usually made explicitly for fans. A generic tag is not. If someone makes a fan tags "Wincest fans" "Pokemon fans" and someone posted hate in it, then that would be comparable.

and choosing to aggressively defend your minority opinion seems unnecessarily stubborn. What's gained, other than a sense of superiority and the chance to piss people off?

This is a thread for controversial opinions. I'm not sure how you can criticize someone for posting a controversial opinion here, like it's a rude action. This is a thread explicitly asking for opinions that are controversial or piss people off.

This is a thread for controversial opinions. I'm not sure how you can criticize someone for posting a controversial opinion here, like it's a rude action. This is a thread explicitly asking for opinions that are controversial or piss people off.

NAYRT, but they're just...engaging? Controversy means people wanna talk about it!

Engaging it is fine. My response was responding to this part of their comment:

but it is, in my experience, agreed upon by the majority of tumblr users (in fandom, at least), and choosing to aggressively defend your minority opinion seems unnecessarily stubborn. What's gained, other than a sense of superiority and the chance to piss people off?

Saying that someone is "aggressively defending" their opinion, being "unnecessarily stubborn" by talking about it, and questioning why they're sharing their opinion (and speculating that only something bad could motivate sharing it)...reads like a criticism to me.

Well, ya are being a little stubborn by defending an action that, as has been pointed out, is 100% counterproductive, aren't you?

When the "stubborn" comment was made, I had made two comments on the matter (the initial post stating my controversial opinion, and the one clarifying the common meanings around referring to a site's name). If that's a stubborn defense, well...

To be clear: I'm not criticizing you for posting your opinion in this thread! That was a perfectly appropriate action. It's just that your opinion, as you rightly acknowledge, IS controversial, and I AM pissed off by it.

I agree that fan-made tags are a wonderful invention for circumventing this exact problem, and certainly there's some grey area. But it seems rather unfair to put the onus of creating new tags on the people who don't want to see hate for their Thing, rather than the people posting hate.

And that's the thing--we're not talking about posting generic discussion or harsh critiques; we're talking about hate. Why insist that hate has a place in the generic tag, whereas positive discussion/fanworks needs to establish a completely different tag (difficult to streamline on a website really, really not designed for communication)?

da

Yeah, I think it's so disingenuous when people (claim to) think that when people say "don't tag your hate", they mean "don't tag any discussion about this show ever."

Except people are greeted with "don't tag your hate!" all the time for being critical of shows/characters/ships in the tags.

Those people need some chill. There are obnoxious assholes on both sides of the issue.

Well, it IS Tumblr...

But it seems rather unfair to put the onus of creating new tags on the people who don't want to see hate for their Thing, rather than the people posting hate.

And to me it seems rather unfair to put the onus of creating new tags on the people who just want to post their opinions/thoughts on a series/character, all because some people do not want to see opinions/feelings that contrast with their own.

And that's the thing--we're not talking about posting generic discussion or harsh critiques; we're talking about hate.

Nope nope nope.jpg. If you've ever been on Tumblr, you should know what most people mean by tagged hate--and that often is, anything critical of any aspect of a show or character.

Why insist that hate has a place in the generic tag, whereas positive discussion/fanworks needs to establish a completely different tag (difficult to streamline on a website really, really not designed for communication)?

I don't insist that. I would prefer a generic tag be used for all kinds of posts--positive posts, bland posts, negative posts--all of it. All of it is relevent in a generic tag. But...if you can't stand to see anything critical of the generic tag subject matter, the onus is on you to create a safe space for you and like-minded people.

I think the disconnect here is our definition of "hate." Of course I'm not objecting to putting critical discussion into a generic tag. Thing is, your original example was this:

"I hate Pikachu he sucks dicks"

That's what I'd understand as "hate" in the context of tumblr: an undefended, strongly worded negative opinion on a character/thing. If the post in question was a serious consideration of Pikachu's flaws, I'd agree with you--that would be perfectly relevant and tagging it with the generic tag would be completely acceptable.

But it's not. It's hate. It's unproductive. It's fine to post, but why, oh why, do you need to defend its place in the generic tag?

I just picked that as an example because I'm lazy. Lots of decent criticism and critique gets blasted as "character hate" and the like.

As far as the actual "I hate Pikachu he sucks dicks" types posts...

. It's fine to post, but why, oh why, do you need to defend its place in the generic tag?

Because it has a right to be there, and some people (including fans) want to see it? Some of the stuff I see in the tags pisses me off. Some of it is utter bullshit. But I still like to know what people are thinking about about characters and shows I like. That includes the negative stuff.

It's not like it's easy to keep stuff out of the generic tag. Even if you make up your own tags ("blitzwing's pokemon posts"), since Tumblr changed their tag function to a search function, "blitzwing's pokemon posts" tagged posts will still show up in the "pokemon tag". You have to come up with some really unintuititive, undescriptive tag like "klevedorp112334" and hope that talking about Pikachu in the post wouldn't bring the post up in the generic tags.

What some people do is put hate/criticism under a Read More. I think that's a better thing to encourage than "don't tag your hate!", if someone absolutely insists that they can't stand seeing opinions that contradict their own.

Edited 2015-05-09 01:11 (UTC)

The kind of person who cares about hate in the tags prooooobably doesn't use the search function.

[ SECRET POST #3047 ]

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply

Re: Anons need not apply