[ SECRET POST #3450 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3450 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Cracked After Hours]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Disney's Sword in the Stone]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Pokémon Sun and Moon]


__________________________________________________



05.
(Charlie Hunnam)


__________________________________________________



06.
[Jodie Foster]


__________________________________________________



07.
[New Blood]


__________________________________________________



08.
[DC Rebirth]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Jane the virgin / Juana la virgen]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 29 secrets from Secret Submission Post #493.
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

[blitzwing]

You don't get to decide how other people interpret your comments...wow


No, but I get to be the judge of whether they're misreading my intent or not. Who else could be? Could you? You're not me, you (afaik) have no way of knowing for sure what my thoughts and intentions are. I do.

So why would you be better at deciding whether someone misread my intent or not? Would you like to explain that?

How do people know there's no malice? Humans can't read minds.

This was my entire point? How do you not connect that with my statement of "Only I can know my intent and judge whether someone has misread it or not"?

[diet_poison]

I kinda hate to be that "intent is not magic!" person, but...it's not.

Words have an impact on people that is sometimes different from what you intended and it's up to you to own up to the stuff you've said. You can apologize and explain you didn't mean it that way, but getting super defensive and saying "but I didn't mean that, why did you have to read it that way?" is dismissive of the person whose feelings you may have hurt, and is evasive of all responsibility you should be taking for communicating more clearly to avoid misunderstandings.

Generally saying something like "what, so you have no friends?" is done with bad intent (which I already explained) and is therefore hurtful. Nobody has to jump through a bunch of hoops to say "well, it's Blitzwing, so even though they're often kind of a jerk, and they're saying something that bullies and assholes say in a very flippant manner, I should just assume they mean that in the best way possible and not be hurt at all". YOU are responsible for what you say.

[blitzwing]

It ain't magic, but it is a thing.

is dismissive of the person whose feelings you may have hurt

No one has came forward claiming to be the OP (the person my words were directed at).

Generally saying something like "what, so you have no friends?" is done with bad intent (which I already explained) and is therefore hurtful.

Sure, and I've already explained the specific factors in this case (generally applying to generally, not to every set of circumstances) that I think would make it illogical to assume I was saying that with cruel/mocking intent.

Nobody has to jump through a bunch of hoops to say

But you claimed that people should "you know, use all the context clues they have and draw the likeliest conclusion?"

Should people examine the context clues ("Jump through hoops" as you say) or not? Which is it?

[diet_poison]

but it is a thing

Yeah, and it can help to know what intent is especially if there's a misunderstanding - but it's not always evident what it is, and it means fuckall anyway if you say something hurtful and then act like people don't have the right to be upset.

No one has came forward claiming to be the OP (the person my words were directed at)

This isn't really about OP anymore; several other people took offense at your statement.

Sure, and I've already explained the specific factors in this case (generally applying to generally, not to every set of circumstances) that I think would make it illogical to assume I was saying that with cruel/mocking intent.

And I disagree that it's illogical. I've already explained why. The numbers are also not in your favor here.

Should people examine the context clues ("Jump through hoops" as you say)

Those are not the same thing and I don't know why you are conflating them. Examining the context clues and coming to the likeliest conclusion has led several people to react to your first comment as though it were malicious because that's what it looked like. It's another thing entirely to extrapolate beyond the information given, using information that the readers of your comment do not have, and come up with the conclusion you seem to think people should have done even though you are the only person who thinks that's the logical assumption.