[ SECRET POST #3173 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3173 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
[Detroit Metal City]


__________________________________________________



06.
(Gravity Falls, Criminal Minds)


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08. [SPOILERS for X-Files (new series)]



__________________________________________________



09. [SPOILERS for Sly Cooper 4: Thieves In Time]



__________________________________________________



10. [SPOILERS for Mass Effect 2]




__________________________________________________



11. [SPOILERS for Steven Universe]



__________________________________________________



12. [WARNING for sexual assault]

[Chrissie Hynde of The Pretenders]


__________________________________________________



13. [WARNING for rape and assault]

[Hockey RPF]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #453.
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

Stupid questions.

[(Anonymous)]

I got one.

Re: Stupid questions.

[(Anonymous)]

There is a post on Tumblr about how some of the world's tallest trees are bigger than the statue of liberty, etc. But, only a few scientists know where they are to protect them.

How do they keep people from just...seeing them? If they are bigger than everything else in the surrounding area, would'nt you be able to pick them out on google earth? Or flying a plan? Or looking at a mountain tree line?

Re: Stupid questions.

[cenobitic_anchorite]

Because being 'tallest' doesn't necessarily mean they stick out. The Statue of Liberty is out there to be looked at; you notice its height. The tallest trees in the world are not only mixed in with other trees, (and if you'll note, Google Earth is mostly top-down imagery that doesn't always give a good sense of perspective) but set on surfaces of variable heights.

Some of these trees are on slopes, and you might think 'hey, that might pop them out more,' but it also may not.

tl;dr, they're not set in places where you naturally go 'holy fuck, check out that tree.' They're in landscape situations where they naturally blend unless you're actually measuring.

http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/trees/coastredwood/tallest_tree_in_the_world/

http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2011/04/08/135206497/the-worlds-tallest-tree-is-hiding-somewhere-in-california

Re: Stupid questions.

[(Anonymous)]

Sometimes it's really not a good idea to be the tallest one in a group

http://new4.fjcdn.com/pictures/Win+win_6f0cb8_5486256.jpg

Re: Stupid questions.

[(Anonymous)]

They're probably surroundedby trees that are all nearly as tall, so they don't stick out.

Also, the statue of Liberty isn't that tall. Even with the pedestal included (305 feet total), it's less than a third the height of the Eiffel Tower.

The "only scientsts know about them" is BS, though. There's at least one Redwood in Armstrong Redwoods State Park that's known to be over 305 feet and it's right there on Wikipeia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Redwoods_State_Natural_Reserve#Notable_trees

Re: Stupid questions.

[(Anonymous)]

Not necessarily. Some of the redwoods/sequoias in question are in the middle of a dense forest, and they're not near accessible trails. Also don't forget that they're measuring from ground level to tip to get the height measurement, but that the ground isn't always level. If, for example, a 100ft tall tree is growing at the bottom of a hill, it will likely blend in with the hundreds of 78ft tall trees growing up the slope of that hill.

It's not impossible to find them, of course, but it'd be difficult. Difficult enough to discourage most people from even trying.

Eating disorder talk maybe?

[(Anonymous)]

Can you have orthorexia if you're fat?

Re: Eating disorder talk maybe?

[(Anonymous)]

I don't see why not. Eating ANY food excessively can increase your weigth.

Re: Eating disorder talk maybe?

[(Anonymous)]

*puts on serious hat*

Orthorexia, like other eating disorders, is a pattern of behavior and thought, not a measurement of weight. You can have orthorexia if you are fat. You can have anorexia if you are fat. You can have binge eating disorder if you are thin. If any doctor tells you it's not possible, then they're a terrible doctor, because with that kind of thinking, people who need help can't get it until they're in danger of dropping dead, and that's not how it's supposed to work.

Re: Eating disorder talk maybe?

[(Anonymous)]

Of course -- lots of foods that are healthy can make you fat if eaten in excess

For example, whole grain bread contains more calories than white bread

The whole grain bread is healthier but if someone changed their diet from all white to all whole grain (and kept eating the same amount) they'd gain weight.

Take it from someone who literally weighs and counts every calorie she puts in her body and consumes mountains of fruits and veggies every day (1 kg of green beans today along with 700 grams of salad and 800 grams of apples).

Re: Eating disorder talk maybe?

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. It's a mental thing. A way of looking at your food and how you eat. Contrary to popular notions, you can also be bulimic and (I think in smaller numbers) anorexic but still fat.

Re: Stupid questions.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm having such a bad reaction to secret 13 and I didn't want to derail their thread. "He hurts women, he hurts women," he hurts people, he hurts people. Isn't people enough? The phrasing of that just... bothers me so much, like women are helpless infants.

I don't know, am I being irrational?

Ftr I agree with the sentiment of the secret, the player in question is a gigantic asshole that shouldn't be celebrated. It's the phrasing

Re: Stupid questions.

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe the secret maker is a woman? Maybe they're thinking about it in the same way as a gay person would think "This person hurts gay people, he hurts gay people", as in he hurts people that are like them.

I could be wrong but it's just a thought.

Re: Stupid questions.

[sarillia]

I think the idea is that not only is he hurting people, which is always bad, but there's probably some prejudice mixed in there that adds to it. You're not obligated to find that argument compelling though. There's a big mess of conflicting negative ideas and reactions about and to women (like balancing acknowledging the dangers that are more common to women with not being condescending and acting like they're helpless here). Not everyone is going to be most bothered by the same ones.

Re: Stupid questions.

[(Anonymous)]

Usually specifying that a person hurts a certain group is also pointing out that the group is marginalized, therefor calling the context and motivation of the violence into the picture, which is important. A man who punches any random person he meets is one type of bad, a man who specifically seeks out one group of people to specifically punch is a different type of bad.

Re: Stupid questions.

[(Anonymous)]

this reads scarily like "but All Lives Matter, we all bleed red, we're all the same human race"

Trip to England! Tips.

[(Anonymous)]

My mother is taking a vacation to England in October. This has literally been her dream for decades. She has an itinerary planned out and all that.

But what are some tips I can give her for when she is there? She isn't an "obnoxious American" (that'd be her kids) and is fairly quiet/polite.

Re: Trip to England! Tips.

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly, as an American living in London, the city is not much different from any city. Nor is English etiquette vastly different from American, no matter what anyone might try to tell you. If your mom isn't from a big city, remember that one side of the elevator is for walking, and one is for standing. Don't walk really cluelessly in the sidewalk when other people are rushing to get somewhere - trust me, they can and will shove you if you're not keeping pace. Tipping is also really rare here. Mostly though I doubt there will be too much cultural difference.

Re: Trip to England! Tips.

[replicantangel]

I lived there for a summer abroad, and I think that if she's doing touristy things, she'll mostly be with other tourists and not have a lot of time to annoy actual Brits. I only remember confusing a few Londoners, not annoying them (I am also fairly quiet/polite, especially when traveling). Most of the issue was colloquialisms - I knew pound and even quid, but I had to convert American weights to "stone" a couple times in my head.

I do remember one thing that endlessly pissed off Londoners and that was tourists meandering down sidewalks at a slow pace (or god forbid, stopping!) during rush hour or lunch when everyone else is trying to get to work. I'm a fast walker and I still got yelled at a couple times for not moving fast enough.

I did tick off a couple waiters with wanting ice water and refills. Those things aren't common in England, even during heat waves (like when I was there). Forget free soda refills. If your mom drinks beer or wine though, she'll be fine, because they're happy to bring another round!

Re: Trip to England! Tips.

[(Anonymous)]

Pound coins are stupidly easy to spend, so tell her to watch that because they're worth about $1.50 and you can spend more than you intend because it feels like change. Look the other way when crossing the street - I mean look both ways, but be aware that traffic direction is opposite of what it is here and so you need to look the other way for the near and far lanes on a two-way street. The food is a little different - like, even fast food from a well-known chain can taste a little different. They don't put ice in a lot of drinks. The Tube is a really good way to get around and the trains are pretty good too.

Re: Stupid questions.

[(Anonymous)]

Reminded by the thread above but not directly related.

In what disaster/rescue scenarios is "women and children first" still a rule?

If a child had a single father, would the father be rescued so as to not orphan the kid?

Note: Not MRA stuff. Disaster fic plot bun stuff. :)

Re: Stupid questions.

[(Anonymous)]

Or did that rule sink with the Titanic era? Is it ever put into practice informally, if not formally? Etc.

Re: Stupid questions.

[(Anonymous)]

IIRC, was never actually a rule, but has been put into practice informally in some situations.

Re: Stupid questions.

[ariakas]

It's never actually been a rule; if you look at the overwhelming majority of transportation disasters, usually, the crew saves themselves first (because they're closest to the rescue equipment and know how to use it), then able bodied adult men out-fight everyone else for the next shot at it, then able-bodied adult women, and so on down the line. Kids, the elderly, and the disabled account for the majority of deaths.

The Titanic was a notable exception that's been utilized (when convenient) to mythologize the actual behavior in the era, which wasn't any different from today. "Women and children first" was an ideal because of the aforementioned grown men using their strength and size to make sure they get first crack at survival equipment/push others out of the way so that they're the first to leave/etc. It happened with the Titanic largely because the crew was under the impression that they had a lot more time before sinking, and many thought a nearby ship would arrive before it sank, and passed along that this was a "precaution" only to the passengers at first. Thus men and crew could make a grand gesture of letting women and children go first without serious repercussions... only that turned out not to be the case.

http://www.history.com/news/women-and-children-first-on-sinking-ships-its-every-man-for-himself

So, basically, no it's not a rule and never has been. If it is, it's abandoned immediately the moment the situation becomes dire. If there's some kind of (preferably armed) authority enforcing this rule, and they have the good of the people in mind, it depends largely on the values of the society.

They could be:
1) Full-on Victorian-style chauvinists: women and children first regardless of age or martial status because it's a man's duty to protect a woman and even if a child is orphaned because of it, it's better that the kid goes to live with relatives than that spot be taken by its father instead of somebody's nearly dead grandma.

2) Utilitarian (maybe the survival of the human race is at stake?): Children and women before menopause only. The reproductive capacity of a population is dependent on the number of breeding-aged females it has, it only needs a few males, and those male children who will be reproductively capable in a few years will have the longest breeding careers themselves, so to speak (also they can start right away, depending on how averse this society is to child rape).

3) Egalitarian: children and young men and women, from youngest to oldest, in that order, until there are no spots left. I.e. a 25-year-old man won't be kicked off the boat in favor of a 45-year-old woman, even if she has young kids, because he hasn't lived as long, and will (probably) have kids of his own.

4) Idealist/emotional: children, the sick, the elderly, and parents are saved first. I think this is the best case scenario for your single father. People least likely to help themselves, and most likely to be missed go first.

5) Realistic: as above. Crew --> grown men --> grown women --> children/the elderly/the disabled. Your single father could also possibly survive this scenario over a woman because he was able to rip the survival gear out of her hands and save himself/his kids? That could make for a really interesting story scenario, imo. It wouldn't make him an asshole necessarily, either, just someone who was trying to make sure his kid lived, and say two grown women refused to let the kid on/give up their seats for the kid/share survival equipment, so the father had to fight for it, and in doing so saved himself and his kid. Maybe he's still utterly wracked with guilt about it.

Just food for thought! 4,5, (and 3 if the father is very young) would probably work for him

Do I/how do I eat the giant shrimp head?

[(Anonymous)]

Do I/how do I eat the giant shrimp head?

I went to a sushi place recently and one of the things that I ordered was shrimp sushi and my plate came with a giant shrimp head. The neck end was deep fried, so I thought this probably wasn't just a garnsh, but I had no idea what to do with it. *flashes back to living in Boston and everyone expected me to know how to eat lobster* I just left it and when the waitress asked if I was done, clearly meaning "was I going to eat the shrimp head?' I just said yes.

So tell me FS, what does one do when served a giant shrimp head?