fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3646 ]

Skip to Main Content

[ SECRET POST #3646 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3646 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Fantastic Beasts]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Daredevil, Foggy Nelson]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Ash vs. Evil Dead]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Longmire]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Criminal Minds]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Stitchers]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 21 secrets from Secret Submission Post #521.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

02. http://i.imgur.com/NuDEgB6.jpg
[Fantastic Beasts]

Soooo...what you're saying is that you only have fucks to give about representation when the person not being represented is you?

I'm not the OP, but yeah? That's all most people care about. But I bet you don't have a problem with it when it's about race or sexuality.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-12-28 00:29 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

wldcatsprstr_14 - 2017-01-05 01:01 (UTC) - Expand

That's what I got from it.

It's not a bad guess but I just feel the need to point out that OP didn't actually say they have whatever they think Newt has. It's possible that this matters more to them for other reasons.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-12-28 00:42 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

sarillia - 2016-12-28 00:47 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-12-28 01:11 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

sarillia - 2016-12-28 01:16 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-12-28 01:08 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-12-28 21:50 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

wldcatsprstr_14 - 2017-01-05 01:03 (UTC) - Expand

"Soooo...what you're saying is that you only have fucks to give about representation when the person not being represented is you"

... no, they're not saying that. They didn't even say they had anything in common with Newt.

I read this more as they don't care about representation but people "debunking" headcanons for seemingly bigoted reasons bothers them.

Kind of appreciate that, actually. I for one am sick of able bodied people telling me that I should be offended by the word lame.

I am not entirely sure I understand this secret. Are you saying Newt's behavior is disturbing, or that other people are saying it? Because it kinda sounds like the latter but there's no reason his behavior would have to be disturbing for it to be explained away by a mental illness and in fact that sounds like the opposite of what actually happens - behavior is more disturbing if it's not caused by an illness and don't fans tend to put a lot into defending their snowflakes and not using words like "disturbing"?

(Not to denigrate Newt, though, he's amazing)

I think they're saying the people in their fandom circle are going out of their way to explain away any socially unacceptable behavior because they think mental disorders are gross/disgusting? Not that OP thinks they're gross, but maybe I'm misreading.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-12-28 00:50 (UTC) - Expand

Sideeying the giving zero fucks about representation and erasure but...

That seems kind of a stupid thing for people to insist on, and I say that as a huge animal person (who is terrible at making eye contact with people for--- reasons that I'm quite sure are unrelated).

I've never really walked out of a piece of media going "wow this character is on the autism spectrum" without any prompting, but I kind of super got that vibe from Newt? That being said, I could be totally off.

Edited 2016-12-28 01:24 (UTC)

Aside from the representation issues, their explanation is just really weird to me. I avoid eye contact with animals that don't like it and I look people straight in the eye when I'm talking to them. Because people and animals are different. Even different animals are different and have different feelings about eye contact, and Newt would know that, so I don't see why his experience with creatures would be what got him in the habit of avoiding looking people in the eye.

Hey, maybe people are just tired of tumblr forcefully diagnosing every other character with a (wrong) disorder. That's not representation and doesn't actually do people with real disorders any good.

+1

+10000

You can't "misdiagnose" a fictional character. If you think a character has a disorder because you have the same one and think you see it in them, nobody can say for sure that you're wrong (or right) because the character's brain isn't even real. Two people with the same disorder can disagree about whether or not the same character has it and both be right.

I am not in this fandom, but you do not have to think that autism/ASD (I am assuming that's the issue people are diagnosing him with) is disgusting for you to be utterly sick and tired of people labeling every damn character as ASD if they have even the slightest personal quirks

Pretty sure Newt is just somewhere on the autism spectrum, OP. He's a very positive portrayal of that.

As someone who is not autistic and avoids eye contact with people 90% of the time for shyness/self-conscious reasons, I would be fairly upset if people labeled me as autistic because of it. I have not seen this movie, so I have no idea if Newt gives off other "vibes" to have people place him on the spectrum.

I'd have to say that I am a bit tired of the labeling trend, though. Characters can just be quirky without having a disorder or illness (and I hate seeing a character I really relate to being diagnosed, especially if we're very similar in personality or mannerisms).

Why does it bother you though? I too am shy/don't like making eye contact, etc, and sometimes people have asked if I'm on the spectrum (I'm not) and it doesn't offend me. Seems kind of oversensitive to be tbh

DA

(Anonymous) - 2016-12-28 04:10 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DA

(Anonymous) - 2016-12-28 04:14 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DA

(Anonymous) - 2016-12-28 04:22 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DA

(Anonymous) - 2016-12-28 05:47 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-12-28 05:34 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-12-28 05:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-12-28 06:22 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-12-28 06:51 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-12-28 15:57 (UTC) - Expand

Characters can just be quirky without having a disorder or illness

This is like the "not every character has to be gay" argument against slash. Guess what, almost all quirky characters are written to "just" be quirky without the writer having any disorder in mind. People headcanon'ing differently won't change that, so calm down, you're in the majority here.

I am so glad I have all of you blocked. Like, my dashboard is actually full of fun stuff now.

I get what you mean OP - if someone went out of their way to debunk something (that cannot be debunked, let's say ... you would not say Newt was presenting as an American in the film) aggressively.

I would say it is more him just being awkward and anxious, sure he might not trust humans and think them dangerous but would not say it is because of that - someone else might and we both would be right in our own subjective viewpoints.

"...no need for him to have any disgusting mental disorder..."

Fuck you.

Op is talking about (what they think) other people are saying. Not what they believe

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-12-28 05:50 (UTC) - Expand

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only