[ 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)]

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.