[ SECRET POST #4476 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4476 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 39 secrets from Secret Submission Post #641.
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'm at work so this isn't going to be super in depth, and also, I think the linked piece is largely an emotional reaction and not a serious argument so I'm kind of reluctant to seriously go after it. but -

One, generally pointing to dysfunctional features of online discourse is not the same as making an argument about the ideological affiliations of any particular group. It certainly is not a warrant for describing leftists as 'authoritarian', definitely not without a lot of further elaboration (which I don't think De Boer satisfactorily does).

Two, it's one thing to just say, in general, that our norms of discourse are generally bad, and that online tends to have a lot of dumb mobs. And of course, this is true in some sense. But just vaguely waving at some idealized vision of The Real New York, or 1970s queers, is not really adequate engagement with the difficulties of sincere engagement and discourse. Certainly not a solution to it. How do we engage with people in a way that's consistent with our beliefs about human dignity and egalitarianism while still giving people room to make mistakes? How do we balance different people's needs in different spaces for discourse when those needs and desires conflict? These are real problems, and I think people are struggling with them in a way that's pretty honest and sincere, and writing it off as 'everyone who yells at someone else on the internet is a cop' is not really a great approach to the problem.

And if that's the problem you have with the discourse, I'm not sure if making blanket statements about SJW authoritarians is really consistent with that interpretation, btw