[ SECRET POST #4168 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4168 ⌋

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

01.
[South Park]



__________________________________________________



02.
(The Scarlet Pimpernel 1999)


__________________________________________________



03.
[Daniel Mallory Ortberg]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Twin Peaks]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe, by Fannie Flagg]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Lip Sync Battle: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Channing Tatum, Tom Holland]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Ariana Grande and Selena Gomez]












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 42 secrets from Secret Submission Post #596.
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 mean, it's one thing if you're misgendering someone unintentionally because you've thought of them in one way for so long that it's difficult to automatically/immediately change the way you gender them in your head. But if you're doing it because you inherently don't accept or believe that someone is trans (which is how the OP is coming across), that's pretty political.

[(Anonymous)]

Thoughtcrime at its purest!

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

No one's trying to make it illegal. So I'm not sure that "thoughtcrime" is the right word here.

but yes, the way that a person thinks about, conteptualizes, and defines things is political. It's hugely and centrally political. I don't... really see how you can avoid coming to that conclusion. I don't understand how it can be the case that thoughts are apolitical, or that definitions and concepts can't be criticized. I mean, concepts and definitions are a large part of what constitutes political beliefs in the first place.

IDK what you're driving towards here, I'm going to be honest.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm confused as to how OP thinks they're making a political statement when they're not actually saying anything.

But as anons have pointed out, they're saying it in the secret, so nevermind, statement made.

[(Anonymous)]

I see where you're coming from WRT the specific word "statement", honestly

But it would still be a political thing, even if it wasn't a statement

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Hard to call it merely thought if the person is putting words on an image and showing it to people, to be fair.

You can be as racist as you want in your head, but nobody will know about it until you type things out and put them online.

"He (though I still refer to him as 'she' in my head out of habit) is Daniel."

"She (and I refer to her as 'she' in my head still) is Daniel."

comes off very differently. The first is at least trying to acknowledge the person's gender identity. The other is not merely thinking, but letting everyone else know that they consider the person a woman. And if they do consider the person a woman, okay. But then, they should be prepared for people saying that's transphobic.

That's what free speech is, right? People can criticize what you say or write. Because saying or writing is an action, not a thought.

[(Anonymous)]

Absolutely! The OP had to know they would get criticized for this secret because, as you say, actual speech is subject to consequences.

[(Anonymous)]

Daniel was very well known as "Mallory Ortberg" for years for their work on Toast. It's not surprising if someone knew them for that and still thought of him as a "her". If OP is a fan (which seems likely as they made a secret about him), then that seems just as likely a reason for why they still think of Daniel as "she/her" as doing it for political reasons.

[(Anonymous)]

If you're a fan of his, isn't that the case where you should be trying particularly hard to respect his pronouns, rather than otherwise?