[ SECRET POST #3534 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3534 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Paget Brewster, Criminal Minds]


__________________________________________________



03.
(Orange is the New Black)


__________________________________________________



04.
[Lord of the Rings]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Misha Collins, Supernatural]


__________________________________________________



06.
(Breaking Bad)


__________________________________________________



07.
[Pokemon Fire Red/Leaf Green]
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 26 secrets from Secret Submission Post #505.
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

Re: Casual ableism

[(Anonymous)]

I understand your viewpoint. I don't agree. Well, I agree in the sense that certainly "not being able to read" is used as a mockery, but it isn't mocking someone's inherent ability verses the fact that they are have the ability but are not applying themselves. I'm sorry, I'm not going to lose any sleep over calling someone stupid, despite low IQ people actually existing. The point is that I know someone is capable, but their judgment/laziness/air-headedness is what's being mocked.

Re: Casual ableism

[diet_poison]

I get where you're coming from, but like, why can't you just call them lazy etc.?

Re: Casual ableism

[(Anonymous)]

Because stupid works fine, and I think it's a massive reach to try to be offended by that.

Re: Casual ableism

[diet_poison]

I'm not offended by "stupid" itself (though that wasn't the only example given), but I am puzzled by why you would choose a descriptor that doesn't actually fit the complaint you have about the descriptee.

Re: Casual ableism

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, let's write a dissertation to the person who couldn't be bothered to read whatever prompted the initial response. Surely, that will be just as effective as telling them that their reading comprehension sucks.

Re: Casual ableism

[diet_poison]

O...kay? That's not even close to the point my comment was trying (and apparently failing) to make

Re: Casual ableism

[(Anonymous)]

da
But you aren't saying "you're so lazy you didn't even read what I wrote" you're saying "you can't read". Why not say your intent, instead of relying on the engrained judgement of someone's ability?

Re: Casual ableism

[(Anonymous)]

The latter is a much better insult?

Re: Casual ableism

[(Anonymous)]

But why is that?

Re: Casual ableism

[(Anonymous)]

NA
Because no one wants to be lacking something. But I get the feeling this conversation will just go round and round until you boil it down to "but why insult people at all!"

Re: Casual ableism

[(Anonymous)]

No, I'm not saying why insult people at all, I am saying why be inaccurate with your insults - why not say what you mean?

But you know, whatever.

Re: Casual ableism

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

It's not inaccurate. If being lazy makes your reading comprehension suck, then both insults are saying the same thing. One's just saying it better.