fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4057 ]

[ SECRET POST #4057 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4057 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 38 secrets from Secret Submission Post #581.
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

I think it's mostly used that way by people who are angry at the whole concept of warnings and ideologically disagree with it

so, you're probably not going to get much traction there

I don't know about "angry at the whole concept of warnings" - where are you getting that?

I'm a fandom dinosaur, and remember when the whole warnings concept started, that Choose Not to Warn was considered a valid warning by authors who did not want to name specifics for whatever reason.

Just treat the "Choose Not the Warn" as a warning, and go on your merry way without reading the story. Problem solved.

AYRT

I should have put ideological disagreement first and angry second, because I think that's much closer to how it actually functions.

And I'm not saying that Choose Not To Warn isn't a valid warning. I'm saying that people who use it across the board and generically, in the way that OP is talking about, are often motivated by a disagreement with the basic idea of warnings or with the way that they're used in practice. As a way of saying "I'm not going to warn for anything specific so consider yourself preemptively warned for everything", often because either you don't think you should have to warn for things or you think that the way people approach warnings is bad (because they ask for warnings for too many things, for instance). So that's what I'm getting at when I say ideological disagreement.

And then, when it comes to anger - I don't think that everyone is angry about it but IME there are a lot of people who get all heated up about warnings. And if I didn't already think that was the case, this thread would certainly be a dang example.

Is it that strange that people get defensive about warnings? One side feels that they're being called oversensitive, and the other side feels they're being called uncaring. It's almost always instant drama.

I think you're right. There's a lot of anger in this thread and it feels like way more than makes sense in response to to the things I've said.

It's actually why I didn't make this a secret myself. Because I know F!S, and I know how many people here are essentially hostile to the idea of things being triggering (unless you are literally Ex-army and can show a recording of yourself having a flashback or something), and also hostile to warnings, and who also just generally dislike tags in any capacity.

But once the secret was posted and it was obviously essentially mine (though not quite how I would've phrased it), I was like, welp, guess I'm gonna argue with F!S today. Lol.

I don't see a lot of hostility to the concept of things being triggering. It's mostly hostility to the concept that everyone should share your weird ideas of what the CNTW tag means.

I don't see a lot of hostility to the concept of things being triggering.

Literally the first comment in the thread is calling people who want warnings for triggers whiny-ass crybabies

And that means everyone except you agrees with that person?

No, it means that there's some hostility in the thread towards the concept of things being triggering.

So you believe that actually a lot (as opposed to not a lot) of people in this thread are hostile towards the concept of things being triggering?

I could see where someone could get that impression.

People in this thread aren't irritated at you because they think warnings are horrible. They're irritated at you because you're looking at someone saying "Hey, guys, I don't use warnings, so read my stuff at your own risk" and responding with "But why aren't there any warnings?"

I think AYRT is right in saying that the anger seems disproportionate, though. It definitely reads that way to me.

what does this even mean

It feels to me that many of the posts in this thread are more angry than is warranted by things that OP said. In other words, the amount of anger seems disproportionate to the thing that is causing it.

This whole pseudo-OP thing you're doing is weird.

NAYRT

I kind of take it at face value?

It happens pretty frequently that someone grabs something from the comments and turns it into a secret. It's not even the only secret today that this is true of. So I'm not sure what's so weird about it.

Wait, so are we talking to the person the secret was quoting?

That is my understanding of the situation, yes.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #4057 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP