[ SECRET POST #3393 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3393 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 052 secrets from Secret Submission Post #485.
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

Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

What are some types of arguments that you find annoying for whatever reason, or just illogical? I'm thinking more of methods of arguing that can show up in discussions on all kinds of topics and less about specific arguments about one topic - but if you see an illogical or annoying argument on a specific topic often, of course you can include it.

Re: Arguments you hate

[kallanda_lee]

"You'll understand when you're older".

It's utter bullshit, because

- you can't refute it it, because you don't know the future.

- even if it's the future, and you've proven to still have a different opinion, it's way too late to unearth that discussion again.

So it's a de facto conversation stopper.

Re: Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

Any argument that beings with or invokes the word technically. It means they are abandoning all common usage in order to work with as narrow and antiquated definition as possible in order to ignore inconvenient facts. It also means they know they are spouting bullshit too, but don't have the balls to admit it.

Re: Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

I really hate "you got mad/cried/otherwise showed emotion, therefore you lose!"

I guess the basis for this COULD be that you shouldn't form opinions based on emotion rather than logic, but this argument still doesn't make sense because expressing emotion isn't the same thing as making an argument based on emotion. You can make an argument based on your emotions and stay perfectly calm while arguing it or get upset while arguing something totally logical.

But usually, I get the impression that the people using this argument are just operating according to some "rule" that if someone "gets to you" you lose. Like a staring contest with emotions. And it doesn't make sense, because whether you can make someone mad or make someone cry has nothing to do with whether or not you are right.

Re: Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

Arguments that attempt to invalidate someone's opinion by hypothetically changing some variable about the topic and proposing that their opinion would be different if that variable were true.

Fandom example: "You say you hate her because she cries too much, but if she were a man she'd be your precious woobie baby!" (Therefore your hate is based in sexism and is invalid.)

Doesn't work because you can't prove a hypothetical and because sometimes changing the variable changes the situation completely so of course their opinion would be different.

Re: Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

-you can't have an opinion unless you're part of a group. Now, I agree there's some basis - if you are an outsider to an issue, you're not going to know everything there is to know about an issue. And obviously you can be talking out of your ass. But you can be informed without being part of a group. (examples I've heard: "You can't criticize racism/homophobia/sexism in Japan because you are not from Japan!"; "You can't speak about mental illness because you are not mentally ill!"; "You can't criticize that religion because you weren't raised in it!")

Re: Arguments you hate

[greenvelvetcake]

People who point out one logical fallacy in an opposing argument (disregarding any other part of the comment) like it makes them the winner. Bonus points if they don't use the term correctly and triple points if they themselves used one.

Re: Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

Anymore?

All of them.

Re: Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

If X is worse than Y, and X is still happening, then you should give up trying to stop Y.

It is the most stupid and infuriating fucking argument/derailing attempt ever. Especially because the person making it never gives a shit about whatever X is, they only want to be allowed to keep on doing Y (which they obviously cannot defend on its own merits).

Re: Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

I also dislike the current favorite smug, annoying response to people with negative or pessimistic opinions that someone doesn't agree with: showing false, mocking, sympathy to the person for how supposedly miserable their opinion must make them.

Like in the rape thread: "I'm sorry you're so petrified of the world. I hope you find the help you need."

Or in response to a negative movie review "I'm sorry you're so offended by everything. It must be exhausting/it must suck to be you."

A person does is not either constantly positive and never bothered by any minor thing OR constantly miserable/petrified/exhausted. When did it become impossible to experience a normal range of emotions?

And of course, being bothered or offended by one thing, (even if it is minor and insignificant!) does not mean that the person is "offended by everything" or "constantly" offended. I find it hard to believe that anybody has never been bothered by some minor thing at least once. It's totally normal.

But the only point of this argument is to dismiss the person's opinion by making them look like a crazy, obsessive wingnut (and maybe annoy them with condescending sarcasm at the same time).

Re: Arguments you hate

[sparrow_lately]

"I don't personally see that in my day to day life/see things the way you do, therefore I will utterly refuse to take anything you say into account."

Re: Arguments you hate

[sarillia]

"My wife/boyfriend/whoever is a [person who works in a relevant field]."

Great. Can I talk to them then? Apparently they're the one who knows what they're talking about on this topic. Or am I just supposed to assume you've picked up their knowledge through osmosis?

Re: Arguments you hate

[mrs_don_draper]

Any argument that is meant to convince me that I'll want children some day.

Re: Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

I hate when you make a statement for or against something and are then accused of being a stan either for the thing or for the thing's opposite. Or if you dislike or like something that is different from source material, you are instantly accused of either only disliking it because it wasn't exactly like the source material or disliking the source material because you like the new thing, and it's assumed you're incapable of telling the difference between the mediums and their needs.

Basically, I hate how much baggage people drop on other people's arguments, so instead of talking about the initial thing that is liked/disliked, you end up in a huge wank defending yourself against accusations or getting an endless barrage of insults and derogatory language as people try to belittle each other.

Re: Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't say at the start of the conversation, but I am [insert suspiciously exact example of whatever is under discussion] and therefore my assertion wins.

Re: Arguments you hate

[ill_omened]

You criticize group/idea X, but what about similar Y which I don't know your opinion about?

Bet you didn't think of that smart guy.

Re: Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

Gender arguments where horrible stuff happening to men that frankly shouldn't happen to anyone (rape, violence, abuse etc) happening to them is A-OK and if you think its fucked up you're a dirty evil man-sympathizer and should die, or get cancer or whatever.

Sorry I'm not a fucking psychopath, or an overgrown baby who needs revenge to happen to icky boys to feel happy.

Re: Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, this is super specific but it's migrated from the internet to posters at my uni and it drives me insane.

'Racism is white people having trouble pronouncing my name but pronouncing Tchaikovsky no problem,'

Tchaikovsky was a composer in the 1800's and is still one of the most popular classical composers today. I've been hearing his name regularly since primary school. You have not had his impact yet in your life.

Of course, people not making an effort is shitty, but that's not a problem exclusively to POC (See - Felix Kjellberg at the Nickelodeon Kid's Choice Awards (I think that was it)). People have trouble pronouncing names that don't originate from their native language.

Obviously, racism to do with names happens a lot and is shitty. But just having trouble with pronunciation in itself is not racism.

Re: Arguments you hate

[feotakahari]

If you don't hate this person I hate, you must be on their side.

Also, I know more about this subject than you, so it's pointless to explain why your opinion is ignorant. I understand it can be the only response when someone is trying to needle you, but I'd like to get at least some explanation of why I'm wrong.

Re: Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

The petty comeback, mostly. Especially stuff that has zero to do with the actual topic, and the person saying it has likely never formed an opinion before the other party said/did something they found objectionable.

Re: Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

Not necessarily an argument but, if you can't disagree with someone without calling them a "retard" at some point, I'm not going to waste breath on you. I'd rather talk with an adult.

Re: Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

"I have an emotional connection to this, therefore I cannot be wrong!"

Seen in versions like "How can those doctors tell me what's right for my child, they didn't sit with her all night when she was sick as a baby, holding her little hand until her fever broke. So what gives them the right to say they should inject her with some chemicals I can't even pronounce? They haven't loved her like I have!"

Or "I don't think people in the Pacific Northwest, who know about earthquakes firsthand, need to read some article by a New Yorker to get educated about our own state." (Not, unbelievably, a hypothetical example.)

Or "Don't you tell me that most human trafficking is for domestic service positions, I was raped once!"

Re: Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

...damn, I thought this was going to be a more fannish thread.

I'll say mine anyway.

The argument that Vulcans are probably against homosexual relationships because they're "not logical". Because the only logical relationships are ones that can make babies. I get what they're saying but I don't like the implication that reproduction is the only reason for a relationship, and it feels like they're projecting their hangups on a fictional alien culture. I just wish people could be more creative with this.

It's not quite as stupid as the "Bajorans are probably homophobic because they're so religious" argument. Like if you paid any attention to what we see of Bajoran religion you'd know it's nothing like right-wing Christianity or other really strict religions. It's all about love and acceptance and following your own path.

Ferengi are homophobic af though and I really want some fic about closeted Ferengi visiting seedy establishments and paying high prices for discretion I mean wait what were we talking about

More serious answer, I hate it whenever someone accuses X group of "whining". I see this all the time now in fandom discussions and real political discussions and I think it's a really great way to close yourself to any new perspective while completely devaluing entire groups of people. Also, at the risk of being called a hypocrite, it makes you sound like the whiney one. If I see "__ are just whining" in any discussion that's my cue to disengage. At that point there's just no getting through to the other side--they've made up their minds and they're not going to hear it.

Re: Arguments you hate

[(Anonymous)]

I am a law student, so we've gotten the fact that I'm insufferable out of the way.

I hate most arguments where people talk about the legal system in the United States. They have no idea about the basics and absolutely refuse to learn. It's not that hard! Saying that the legal system is "broken" because YOU don't understand it is not a good argument!

The most recent one that got to me was the verdict about Kesha's contract. People were saying the legal system was "broken" because the court didn't let her out of the contract. Okay, if EVERYONE could get out of their contracts by accusing someone of a crime - not even a crime that has been proven yet - that would be absolute chaos. Not that I'm saying I didn't want her out of the contract, but put the blame where it belongs. On Sony. Not on the legal system, which operates based on federal and state statutes, years of legal precedent, and a basic understanding on the effect one verdict will have on thousands.

Despite what people say, the law is not that hard. If you don't understand it, either Google it or shut up. I'm tired of guilty until proven innocent on here.

Re: Arguments you hate

[caerbannog]

Dismissing someone's comments because they're anon. Don't really get it, but jumping to the "coward grey face" or whatever rather than addressing the comment always strikes me as a cop out.