[ SECRET POST #3820 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3820 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 37 secrets from Secret Submission Post #547.
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: Otto Warmbier died

[(Anonymous)]

Let's not forget the money he spent touring there went to the NK government to perpetuate the same torture that he endured on other innocent people. All tourists who go there and give them money for the privilege of visiting the carefully maintained fake capitol are somewhat complicit in that, ignorant or not.

No, it's not the same as paying taxes to a government that takes military actions; that's not voluntary. Tours of NK are. It's not only "stupid" to go to NK, it's morally awful or at least morally awful through ignorance. Would you pay to go to a country if you knew the money would go to a regime full of concentration camps? These people did. Not because they're evil assholes. I doubt they thought about it at all, which is better and also worse in ways.

Does that deserve death and torture? Still no. But, the whole issue is more nuanced than "pure innocent cinnamon roll, how can anyone be mad?"

Re: Otto Warmbier died

[(Anonymous)]

I forgot to add: *NAYRT.

Re: Otto Warmbier died

[diet_poison]

I'm a little confused by this, like I didn't say anything even remotely close to "pure innocent cinnamon roll". Yes he was an idiot for going there, I'm pretty sure basically everyone agrees with that, the point is that it's, well, not really the point, because he died. Like all the tut-tutting in the world doesn't matter now, his family is grieving, and "I told you so" is not a useful sentiment.

Re: Otto Warmbier died

[(Anonymous)]

What I am saying is not that he did something idiotic; that is a fact. I am saying it was morally wrong for him to go and give him their money too. I am angered that everyone sees him as a blameless victim and that any pointing out of what he did wrong is "victim blaming" instead of people acknowledging that he, too, was someone who voluntarily went into a horrible dictatorship and gave them his money to continue to fund the dictatorship in exchange for a tour of the premises.

There seems to be only two lines of thought: "all his fault, what an idiot" and "he is blameless, how dare you." I am saying the situation has far more nuance than that.

Re: Otto Warmbier died

[diet_poison]

Victim blaming refers specifically to the implications that it's his own fault he's dead, that he was asking for it, that he deserved it, etc. I haven't seen anyone say it was morally great for him to go there, either.

There seems to be only two lines of thought: "all his fault, what an idiot" and "he is blameless, how dare you."

idk what spaces you're hanging out in

or is it just that people saying "wow that's sad and awful" aren't saying it with the explicit caveat that "oh but he was also dumb and bad" and that means they must automatically think he was a perfect angel? because I do think you should give people the benefit of the doubt here.

Re: Otto Warmbier died

[(Anonymous)]

I see a lot of the people saying "it wasn't his fault, he was just a kid, how could he have known," except ignorance is not an excuse for touring and intentionally or not, giving money to a horrific dictatorship.

I think the situation is sad and awful. I feel bad for his family. I feel bad for him because nobody deserves that, but on the other hand the people of NK don't deserve ignorant American kids going on tour of their country and giving US dollars to the NK government either.

I have seen people say that it was stupid of him to go. I have seen no people call him and the other tourists out on the moral wrongness of going to NK or any known dictatorship as a tourist, moral wrongness of which there is plenty.

If someone were going tourist-ing to ISIS territory, you damn well bet people would be horrified that someone is handing money to ISIS to be shown around their location and use their amenities in the first place, and what kind of ignorant or callous person would do that!? Yet as far as I have seen, that fact simply isn't being addressed at all by the media or even considered by most people. Just that NK is a horrible place.

"It's sad and awful what happened to him" and ending the sentiment there isn't wrong but it's also implicitly absolving him of his active part in, not his death, but in the whole overall situation.

Re: Otto Warmbier died

[diet_poison]

I mean, "this person is wrong for giving money to the NK government" and "this person was tortured and killed by the NK government" don't have a causative relationship, so I don't know why one needs to be brought up when the other is being discussed. What about all the other kids who went on that trip and didn't die? I'm more interested in holding them up to responsibility.

Re: Otto Warmbier died

[(Anonymous)]

It needs to be brought up when people are accusing others of having no empathy.

"This person was someone who indirectly supported the NK government" is absolutely relevant when you're accusing people of not being empathetic enough, since supporting a government that kills and tortures thousands of people is a thing that, in theory, could cause someone to be less empathetic toward that person who was 100% not empathetic toward the people whose torture he is indirectly funding. I hope that's understandable.

Re: Otto Warmbier died

[diet_poison]

It is just bizarre to me that his ignorant, ultimately not significant contribution is being held up as a reason to withhold all empathy for someone who was, as far as we can tell, tortured, coerced, held captive, and ultimately killed in a really sad and horrifying way.

It's not tit for tat, it's not "oh I won't be empathetic because HE wasn't empathetic enough for my standards". (I mean apparently it is, I just do not get it.) Either human beings are always human beings, or they're not. If something horrible happened to someone who was saying these things on this thread, and with whom I disagree, I'd still feel empathy towards them. If something horrible happened to most people, with the possible exception of some really awful psychopathic individuals, I'd feel empathy, because all humans do shitty things from time to time, and they're still human.