[ SECRET POST #4098 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4098 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 51 secrets from Secret Submission Post #587.
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)]

I agree with all of this, except one thing which is specifically a historical point about slavery in the ancient world. But other than that, 100% cosigned, it's a phenomenal and nuanced post, a+++

But the one thing is: most of the records that we have about the treatment of slaves and customs for slaves in ancient Rome are records and accounts from the slave-owning classes, which means that there's a decent chance that they're broadly partisan and biased and not an accurate record of the actual practice of slavery. Keep in mind, if you looked purely at the self-image and propaganda of the slave-owning classes in the South before the war, you would get a very incorrect and hagiographic account of slavery, you know? So it's at least a point of uncertainty how much less bad Roman style slavery actually was.

[(Anonymous)]

how in the world do you find that post phenomenal and nuanced, lol. literally who said "she enslaves people in the exact same way that Americans enslaved black people"? absolutely no one. Though I find it extremely disturbing that ayrt thinks enslaving people to participate in death games is somehow not as bad as American slavery, and that it's okay because she's not-white and really just sticking it to the oppressors.

[(Anonymous)]

Peak fandom SJ, that's how.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

literally who said "she enslaves people in the exact same way that Americans enslaved black people"? absolutely no one.

The point isn't whether or not anyone explicitly said that. The point is that our emotional reaction and moral response to "slavery" as a concept is mostly about American-style slavery, even if no one specifies that. So condemning a character based on slavery trades on those assumptions and responses, even if it's not explicitly said and even if there are distinctive characteristics to what the character is actually doing in a sci-fi and fantasy setting. And it's at the very least a more complicated conversation to have about characters like that.

that it's okay because she's not-white and really just sticking it to the oppressors.

That's... not really what anon said. Like. It's a little much to say that someone's post wasn't nuanced, just because you chose to ignore the nuance that existed in their post.

What anon said was not that it was a-OK. What anon said was that it was about complicity in oppressive systems to survive. Which is an important, and meaningful, and nuanced distinction. The point of what anon's saying is not that it's totally fine and OK - I don't know how you get that from a post that said that someone is complicit in an oppressive system - I don't know what you think being complicit in something means. The point is that it's more nuanced and interesting, and less black-and-white.

So, yeah, in summary: the reasons I thought the post was nuanced and good is because it addressed the specific features of the kind of slavery being discussed, and because it had a nuanced take on the idea of someone being complicit in oppressive systems for their own survival without reducing that to being black-and-white good-or-evil. I think those are generally nuanced and good takes to have.