Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2015-05-08 06:43 pm
[ 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.

Re: Anons need not apply
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.
Re: Anons need not apply
(Anonymous) 2015-05-09 01:00 am (UTC)(link)"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?
Re: Anons need not apply
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.
Re: Anons need not apply
(Anonymous) 2015-05-09 01:21 am (UTC)(link)Re: Anons need not apply
Casual observations of people's understanding of how the tag/search function works has revealed lower than expected levels of knowledge.
Re: Anons need not apply
(Anonymous) 2015-05-09 01:31 am (UTC)(link)Re: Anons need not apply
Re: Anons need not apply
(Anonymous) 2015-05-09 01:22 am (UTC)(link)Re: Anons need not apply