[ SECRET POST #3828 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3828 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 31 secrets from Secret Submission Post #548.
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

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT:

I am very confident that you are misreading that specific phrase. Is what I'm trying to say here.

I'm sorry, but you haven’t convinced me that I misread that specific phrase.

...that white people don't own those characters, and can't own those characters, and oughtn't to think of those characters in dehumanizing and possessive ways.

See, this I can get behind.

But the specific language the OP criticizes isn't intended, by the users, as dehumanising. It isn't read, by their audience, as dehumanising. It's affectionate, informal (bordering on ridiculous), has no racial component, and comes from a very different place than the language of oppressing a disadvantaged social class.

If their letter said, 'Don't treat these characters like porn stereotypes,' I could get behind it. If it said, 'Don't fetishise their otherness,' likewise.

But it's not. It's saying, 'How dare you treat these characters as other popular characters are treated.'

And I cannot support it.