[ SECRET POST #4477 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4477 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.
[American Gods, season two]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.
[James Gunn]


__________________________________________________



07.
(Riverdale)


__________________________________________________



08.
[Gotham, Penguin/Riddler]


__________________________________________________



09.
[one direction]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 30 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 genuinely too angry to get my thoughts properly in line, so this will be the last I respond to you, but this entire comment just sidestepped everything I said. You're taking half-formed snippets of information from a third party, filling in spaces on your own, and using it as 100% unassailable truth that no one could ever disagree with unless they're one of them. This kind of thinking (and, more importantly, reacting) is dangerous. The OP could very well have misrepresented the situation, and that is why we use critical thinking to wonder whether things are being portrayed fairly or what other viewpoints might be applicable, instead of just... black-and-white hammering down on one possible avenue.

I highly, desperately advise you to seek out voices of people who have been damaged by this kind of "discourse" (you'll find plenty on Twitter), and listen to their sides of their story. Because as-is, you're contributing to a very, very real problem.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sorry that you're angry!

I think part of using critical thinking is trying to understand the motivations and biases of the people involved. If OP had been coming in here complaining about this user and calling them a pedophile, it would be one thing. But they didn't! OP is specifically defending the user, does not think the user is a pedophile, and is criticizing the people who do think the user is a pedophile. That makes it much less likely - to me - that they're going to misrepresent the situation in a way that makes the user look worse than they are. It makes it unlikely that they're going to neglect to mention an obvious, significant point that makes the users they're criticizing look more unreasonable. And, really, someone in anime fandom being sexually attracted to underaged characters is not at all a rare or unheard of thing in fandom.

And then, at the same time, OP does cite a specific reason that they think the user is not a pedophile - because "fiction is fiction" and liking underage characters doesn't make you a pedophile. It's true that "liking" underage characters in a non-sexual sense doesn't make you a pedophile. But I believe that liking underage characters is a sexual sense does make you a pedophile, and a lot of people seem to radically disagree with that. And that's where I don't think that there's a lot of grey area, and where things really are pretty black and white. The grey area is "you're not attracted to them" or "they're not underage characters". And if OP is writing about someone being accused of pedophilia for "liking" "kid" characters, and what OP really means is that the person is non-sexually interested in 17 yo characters, that's not a reasonable interpretation of what they said.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT but holy shit you are making a whole lot of assumptions about a situation you know jack shit about.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah go fuck yourself and get off your high horse. What someone likes IN FICTION means absolutely jack shit about them in real life. My friend loves shoot-em-up games and can happily play them for hours on end. He also won't even kill bugs that get into his apartment, he'd rather catch them and take them outside instead.

And I certainly hope you don't think that women who enjoy noncon in fiction actually want to be raped, do you?

[(Anonymous)]

You do realize accusing someone of being a pedophile isn't like talking about the weather right?

[(Anonymous)]

I don't completely agree with you on this, but I also think a lot of what you're saying here is somewhat valid, and is, at the very least, worthy of discussion.

I'm sorry people ITT have such a hair-trigger on this issue that they are unable to perceive what you are saying clearly, and without going ape shit on you.

[(Anonymous)]

People are discussing it. And many disagree with what was said - the post was hurtful and harmful in a myriad of ways.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, if you're a pedo or support pedos, I could see where the post could be hurtful. Of course, if you're a pedo or support pedos the world would literally be a better place if you set yourself on fire and jumped into a canyon, so I can't really be bothered if someone wrote something on f!s that hurt your fee-fees.

[(Anonymous)]

DA
Nobody, absolutely not a single person ITT supports actual pedos and if you actually think so, you need to sit down and take a long hard look at your own "hurt fee-fees" and why you're so dead-set on supporting a type of behaviour that actually helps real pedos slip past the radar because some idiots on the internet cry pedo at every turn when 90% of what they cry pedo at has nothing to do with actual pedophilia. This kind of behaviour actually inadvertently supports pedos far more than people shipping underage characters ever could.

[(Anonymous)]

Anyone who concludes their argument with the ever trite 'hurt your fee-fees' disclaimer has just openly admitted to having lost a debate.

[(Anonymous)]

Calling people pedophiles for fictional shipping is going to take focus away from the real harm that real adults are inflicting on real children in real life.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT went apeshit on a topic they know nothing about so idk. Pot, kettle.

[(Anonymous)]

Note that saying "I'm sorry that you..." is not actually an apology.

Not to add to the dogpile, but here are some other parts of critical thinking you might be missing:

As mentioned, in your original comment you seemed to assume that shipping fictional child characters means being attracted to those characters, a connection that doesn't make sense. You later backpedaled this above by adding "If that person likes those ships because they are attracted to those characters", which is a big "if" that you basically just assumed was true in your original comment.

Second, even if you were right in making that assumption, there are STILL serious issues with your argument. Another assumption you made is that being attracted to fictional child characters is exactly the same as being attracted to real children. This is how you defined pedophilia -- as the attraction to children real or fictional. This is highly debatable because (1) child characters are often not realistic or child-like, and often people are attracted to them BECAUSE they have traits that aren't child-like, and would find real-life children deeply unattractive. To extrapolate from someone's fictional crushes to their real-life tastes is highly questionable in all situations, including this one. You're jumping to conclusions. (2) A lot of people develop crushes on child characters when they're children. As they age, this crush becomes less appropriate (and most people are aware of that!), but it's not like crushes 100% always go away. By your argument, any person who was attracted to a child character and can still remember what that attraction feels like is a pedophile. This is a ridiculous way to define pedophilia. (3) Child characters are fictional and incapable of being hurt by attraction. Conflating people who are attracted to fictional characters with people who are attracted to real children is associating people who don't harm people with a group of people who society views to be one of the most harmful. You were irresponsible in making this connection, as people have pointed out. (4) Child characters are fictional and don't age normally. They can be aged up in imagination or stay frozen in time forever. Due to the nature of their fictionality, even the age of a fictional character isn't a real thing with real physical significance. It is a fictional part of a fictional being. For all of the reasons above treating child characters exactly the same as real children is (IMO) a truly stupid position with very weak justification, and I strongly think you should rethink your position of "things really are pretty black and white". Give me a reason why that makes sense to do.

[(Anonymous)]

This. Thank you.

[(Anonymous)]

you must have realized before you hit send that "i'm sorry that you're angry" is incredibly passive aggressive, right?