[ SECRET POST #3963 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3963 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________













04. [SPOILERS for Stranger Things 2]



__________________________________________________



05. [SPOILERS for Stranger Things 2]



__________________________________________________



06. [SPOILERS for Stranger Things 2]



__________________________________________________



07. [SPOILERS for Great British Bake Off, S08E08: Forgotten Bakes]

[Stacey Hart in Great British Bake Off]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 07 secrets from Secret Submission Post #567.
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: Lewis CK sexual abuse

[(Anonymous)]

I understand it just fine. I'm just asking for confirmation, because I'm having trouble imagining someone having the audacity to: 1) use a term as stupid as "male ally" and 2) imply that any man showing support to women obviously must be creeping on them because there is no other explanation as to why they would do that.

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

[(Anonymous)]

“consistently positions themselves as a male ally” is different than simply being a male ally

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

[(Anonymous)]

"2) imply that any man showing support to women obviously must be creeping on them because there is no other explanation as to why they would do that."

I don't see anyone doing that. It's like you're twisting what the person said in order to stuff a stupid statement they didn't actually say into their mouth (well, post).

Which seems to be a really annoyingly common way to argue these days.