[ SECRET POST #4054 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4054 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Spirited Away]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Death Comes to Pemberley]


__________________________________________________



05.
[The Detective, season 1]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 09 secrets from Secret Submission Post #580.
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

DA

[(Anonymous)]

Wow um, you're really strawmanning here.

I think 'literal neo nazi' falls under potentially dangerous people. Just because that's not the example they used doesn't mean they think that's okay.

Here's a question for you. Why are you so against someone being hesitant to indulge in online vigilante attacks ?

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Here's a question for you. Why are you so against someone being hesitant to indulge in online vigilante attacks ?

That's not quite my issue. My issue is that "online vigilante attacks" is a really wide-ranging, imprecise phrase. And I can think of plenty of things that someone could describe as online vigilante attacks to that I wouldn't think were bad. publicizing the fact that someone is a literal neo-Nazi is one example - I think that someone could easily describe that as "online vigiliantism".

So I get very sketchy about the idea of condemning online vigilantism without any more specific information about what we mean by that. And I think it's an example of a more general trend of sort of... coming up with over-general norms to dismiss things as mean or nasty without thinking through their context.