[ SECRET POST #3547 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3547 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 32 secrets from Secret Submission Post #507.
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

[sparrow_lately]

It's a delicate balance--art or humanity? Can I say John Lennon was a piece of trash? Of course. Is "Strawberry Fields Forever" (or Lennon composition of your choice) still one hell of a song? Yes. But I can't lionize Lennon without acknowledging the harm he did.

Of COURSE it's okay to like problematic things, but it's imperative to name them for what they are as well. If that makes sense.

[(Anonymous)]

No, it's actually not imperative.

[(Anonymous)]

Serious question here: why is it imperative? Does it change anything he did? Does it actively help anyone that was harmed? Or is it just preaching to utterly unconnected people about something that has nothing to do with them?

In my experience, people only get defensive and dig their heels in further when someone comes in with the "well actually--"

[sparrow_lately]

ETA: This is a cultural imperative as much as an individual one.

It's imperative because in uncritically supporting, to use my above example, John Lennon, I am supporting his wifebeating, his racism, his shitty treatment of his family, his nasty jokes about the mentally disabled, etc., etc.

Take someone whose reach was more extensive than John Lennon. Thomas Jefferson was one hell of a writer, and many of his endeavors ultimately honorable--for example, I'm a big fan of public education, which was a cause he championed. But he was also an unrepentant racist, justifying chattel slavery with everything from pseudoscience to his own inertia, and he almost certainly (really, there is exceptionally little doubt, and rumors about this date as far back at the 1780/90s) raped his slave(s). So if I uncritically hold up Jefferson as a hero, I tell the world--everyone--that being a rich man, a good politician, and a bang-up writer renders appalling human rights abuses a nonissue. That's not just a historical shrug; that's participating in a system of dehumanization (of blacks and other racial minorities, of women, etc.) that has dominated for centuries.

So the short version is that it is, in fact, imperative, because historically injustice prevails when people ignore this impetus to critically examine creators and celebrities and people in power, and to draw attention to their flaws. This isn't passive; it's how injustice happens. This is on a big scale (Jefferson) and small ones--take a look at how many known sexual abusers of children continue to get jobs in Hollywood, and a million other examples.

I'm okay calling it imperative, even if it's just because one woman whose husband beat her doesn't have to see another abuser treated like like a king.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh yeah, you're a blast at parties.

[sparrow_lately]

Always.

[(Anonymous)]

ah yes, ye ole bully someone into shutting up by implying no one wants to hang with them

[(Anonymous)]

All that matters, right? FUN. Grow some empathy, you selfish little millenial.

[(Anonymous)]

His wife was Yoko though.

[(Anonymous)]

Second wife. Look things up.

[(Anonymous)]

Is that why he was problematic? He make Yoko and her awful fucking singing famous?

[(Anonymous)]

That would be reason enough on its own.

[arcadiaego]

They're suggesting it's ok to beat your wife if it's Yoko. They think they're edgy.

[(Anonymous)]

Couldn't you just say "I like x song" instead of "I like John Lennon"?

[(Anonymous)]

Oh boy citing the Depp case as if there's any evidence.

I find it really wild that Brown is only seen as an abuser of women, when he's got a history of violence with damn near everyone. Apparently the men he beat up before Beyoncé don't matter for some reason.

[sparrow_lately]

Imagine hating women this much.

[(Anonymous)]

I seriously don't get where you're going with this. Is this a fandom joke I'm not familiar with?

[sparrow_lately]

Imaging hating women so much you come into a days-old thread to dispute the idea that Hollywood has a problem with lionizing abusive men.

tw: for orson scott card and sick stuff that happens in his novel

[esteefee]

I don't think it's imperative. I do find it helpful to me personally to be a little wary when approaching the works of someone I know has views I think don't match my own for whatever reason. Like a water filter or something. So my brain doesn't get lead poisoning.

Again: trigger warning here for Orson Scott Card: I read OSC when I was too young to understand what I was drinking. I'm thinking specifically of The Songmaster, a story in which a perfectly awesome, brilliant prodigy of a child singer is chemically castrated for having same-sex desires during his first, burgeoning sexual encounter. Oh, and even worse stuff happens to his older teen boyfriend.

The first time I read it my heart was torn up. I didn't understand why Ansset had to be permanently damaged for such an innocent, sweet encounter. The punishment was...forgive me, but it was biblical, and nothing in universe supported it as a sin, at least in Ansset's mind.

Later, when I came to understand what a homophobe OSC is, it all became very clear. If I'd known before I approached the book, I could have read it through that critical lens. But I didn't.

Another example is Frank Sinatra. I adore Frank Sinatra. He had strong attachments to the mob, but it didn't really seem to affect his musical selections, more his venues and the whole casino angle, which happened long before I was born. He also was a supporter of racial equality, and that did affect his musical choices and whom he worked with and the careers he helped. He was also kind of a sexist, but so were a lot of people back then.

I love his music. I filter my enjoyment through the fact back then everybody sang songs about dames and even though the mob started up his career, his payback didn't appear to affect the message of his artistry. I still listen to, purchase, and enjoy his stuff.

Anyway, that's my own philosophy. Nobody else's.

Sorry for the screed. :)

Re: tw: for orson scott card and sick stuff that happens in his novel

[(Anonymous)]

Ole Blue Eyes support for and of the mob was helped him break down racial boundaries. It gave him the muscle to implement his desire to break racial taboos and it gave him the opportunity to develop creatively to the point where he could use money to break those taboos. Without the mob backing him, then he'd never have achieved squat.

[kallanda_lee]

I don't actually see it that way. If you specifically idolize him as a person - then I'd tend to agree.

But I think you can appreciate and admire the song without even knowing anything about the Beatles at all.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

There's a big difference between idolizing a person and admiring their writing/singing/any other artistic endeavor.

[(Anonymous)]

I completely agree. I personally don't care about 99% of artists in any medium - not actors, not musicians, not even writers most of the time. What matters to me is the characters and the story itself. I just have zero interest in peeking behind the curtain.

[(Anonymous)]

Not really? For one thing, I'm not going to look for the social justice receipts of the creator of every single piece of media I consume.

[(Anonymous)]

It is a lot easier for the people who are super into SJWism to do that. Mainly because they consume so few different authors. They really are only into two or three properties which they obsess over.