Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2016-04-15 06:40 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2016-04-15 06:40 pm
[ SECRET POST #3390 ]
⌈ Secret Post #3390 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02. http://i.imgur.com/TosMoCO.gif
[moving gif, Jensen Ackles]
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
[Animal Crossing]
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
[Amanda Palmer]
__________________________________________________
10.
__________________________________________________
11.
[Shadowhunters TV show]
__________________________________________________
12.
[Iggy Pop, David Bowie]
__________________________________________________
13.
[The Magicians]
__________________________________________________
14. [SPOILERS for Far Cry 4]
__________________________________________________
15. [SPOILERS for Friendship Is Magic, season 6's première]
__________________________________________________
16. [SPOILERS for Dangan Ronpa]
__________________________________________________
17. [WARNING for alleged assault and stuff]
[Trailer Park Boys]
__________________________________________________
18. [WARNING for non-con/rape/abuse]
[A Song of Ice and Fire, Outlast]
__________________________________________________
19. [WARNING for rape]
__________________________________________________
20. [WARNING for non-con/dub-con]
__________________________________________________
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #484.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
Re: Politics Thread
I guess it might not matter to you, but it basically just makes you look really non-reputable. It isn't a personal thing, just a thing where the points you so ardently defend won't be taken seriously if you can't back them up.
Re: Politics Thread
You talk about the "rules" and "basic principles of the thing" but I'd say saying things like "Specific quotes, with video, or shut the fuck up." violate pretty much every rule of decency and etiquette there is.
I really have to wonder at your priorities, where you completely ignore abuse heaped on someone, and focus on asking the person being abused, "Hey, why aren't you giving them sources? You must not have them!"
You bringing it up is especially weird, since in the same comment that you got angry at me for telling them they could do their own research, I had also told them I would go ahead and provide sources for them anyway.
"It isn't a personal thing, just a thing where the points you so ardently defend won't be taken seriously if you can't back them up."
You seem to think I care about being taken seriously. I don't. People can reflect on the points I make or dismiss them.
Another issue with what you're saying is that you mention "debate 101". I had already spoken of the fact that, typically, in academic writing, you aren't supposed to cite things that are well-known and that you can take it for granted your audience is already aware of them.
Clinton's various stances and quotes on LGBT issues should be well-known to those who seriously follow U.S politics. Not citing common knowledge does not make someone look "non-reputable". Most scholars follow this practice.
I don't remember what your field is (art?) but if you write a paper on impasto, you don't need to dig up a citation for "Van Gogh was an artist". Everybody in the art field already knows Van Gogh was an artist. It's common knowledge. You don't cite common knowledge for your field.
According to you though, if we don't provide citations for things like "Van Gogh was an artist" or "water is wet" we must not be able to find sources and are breaking the highschool debate team's rule (oh noes!).
Re: Politics Thread
Clinton's various stances and quotes on LGBT issues should be well-known to those who seriously follow U.S politics. Not citing common knowledge does not make someone look "non-reputable".
Two things about this.
Clearly it's not well-known, or perhaps you're not engaging with an academic crowd full of poly-sci majors/graduates - on other words, people who, in your words, "seriously follow U.S. politics". A good many people spoke up and said they didn't think this was common knowledge. You have to know your audience. I would assume among my co-workers that, say, if we see a requisition that says a patient had a cholecystectomy, then the part we have for them is probably a gallbladder. I wouldn't expect someone outside of my immediate field or one directly related to know that term. If you say Trump is xenophobic against Muslims that's pretty common knowledge because he talks about it all the time. But if you're going to talk about a Democratic candidates negative views on LGBT individuals which she obviously doesn't talk about out loud during her speeches or debates because she'd be shooting herself in the foot, it means digging up older stuff to find it. Not really common knowledge right now unless you're a politics buff.
Secondly, I'm still not convinced that your original assertion - that Hillary has said and will continue to say things that directly incite violence against LGBT individuals - is even true. All you came up with up there *points up several comments* is that she was once against legalizing SSM and then changed her mind, which doesn't exactly give her a shining reputation of LGBT support but it's also a really normal and common way for politicians to behave as well as something I think many of us already knew. That is a very flimsy basis on which to set up an assumption that she's inciting violence, and an even flimsier one on which to say she'll continue to do it in the future. And, of course, if it's not true, it definitely isn't common knowledge.
Basically, if you say "water is wet", nobody is going to argue with you. If you make a claim and lots of people ask you to back it up, you should probably do so and re-evaluate your assumption that they were "supposed" to know whatever it is that you claimed.
It's fine if you don't care if people take you seriously, but then why are you even arguing with me over this, if you don't care? It sort of confuses me what your goal even is in entering debates like this. o_O
Re: Politics Thread
I have no idea where you're getting that from. I'm just saying I found it strange, what rules of etiquette you find important, versus the ones you seemingly did not.
(And while some of them are way over-the-top, I can understand their frustration, to be honest.)
You can understand them telling me to fuck off. Wow, thanks. Seriously, think about the implications of what you just said.
"I think it was over the top the way he hit you, but I understand why he was angry."
Like gee, thanks, I'm glad you have so much empathy for the people that go around bullying users on here. I'm glad you took the time to sympathize with their feelings.
"Clearly it's not well-known, or perhaps you're not engaging with an academic crowd full of poly-sci majors/graduates - on other words, people who, in your words, "seriously follow U.S. politics"."
I would expect anyone who is interested in U.S politics, and goes into a discussion on U.S politics willing to attack other people over U.S politics, to know who Hillary Clinton is and her major political stances. She's not some no-name representative from Buttfuck, U.S. She's a major political player who is paid attention to even outside the U.S.
That is a very flimsy basis on which to set up an assumption that she's inciting violence,
I'm not claiming she's inciting violence, where did you get *that* idea? I'm claiming that her speaking about LGBT people as an inferior, second-class, dehumanizes them--and dehumanization of a people has been proven to make it psychologically easier to attack and harm those people.
It's fine if you don't care if people take you seriously, but then why are you even arguing with me over this, if you don't care? It sort of confuses me what your goal even is in entering debates like this. o_O
I find it enjoyable to write, whether that's essays, stories, or simple internet comments. If other people find my writing enjoyable, great! If not, it doesn't bother me. It's not going to stop me from writing and putting it out there for those who might enjoy it.
The goal is simply to write and get thoughts down in written form.
Re: Politics Thread
"I think it was over the top the way he hit you, but I understand why he was angry."
Did you really, ACTUALLY just compare someone saying "fuck off" to you on the internet to domestic violence?
...really? REALLY?
I am finding it hard to take anything else in this comment seriously right now. That's fucked up and actually makes me mad. Don't fucking put those on the same level, not only are you making a much bigger deal out of some internet "fuck off"s than you really should be but you're seriously lessening the gravity of actual violent abuse as a real issue.
Re: Politics Thread
Considering I'm a survivor of domestic violence, I see no problem with comparing the logic used in your harassment-apologism to the abuse apologism I've experienced. Both are victim blaming.
If they're similar enough that the comparison of them makes you uncomfortable, then you should be mad. At yourself.
Don't fucking put those on the same level
Are you a domestic violence survivor? If not, don't lecture me on the subject. You don't have the right. And if you ARE, you still don't have the right to tell me I can't compare one experience of mine to another experience of mine.
Re: Politics Thread
Someone telling you to fuck off because you made them mad doesn't constitute harassment however much you want it to.
Re: Politics Thread
You did a bad thing. You don't have to downplay or try to deny other people's experiences to assuage your conscience. Good people sometimes do bad things. The appropriate thing to do would be to recognize you were victim-blaming and try to avoid doing that in the future, not double down and deny victim's experiences to make yourself feel better.
Someone telling you to fuck off because you made them mad doesn't constitute harassment however much you want it to.
Uh huh. Sure thing. Users totally aren't harassed here, and Case has NEVER had to freeze threads because of the insults and harassment I (and other users) were getting. Sure. You new to this comm or something?