[ SECRET POST #4506 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4506 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 07 secrets from Secret Submission Post #645.
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)]

Is it, though?

[(Anonymous)]

It makes it something other than being a self-righteous killjoy at least, not that you seem open to a rational discussion.

[(Anonymous)]

da
The fuck crawled up your ass? You can actually warn someone about an antichoice comic without being judgmental about it. It doesn't change the context at all.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

+1 That's what fandom is like these days, though. Nobody thinks anyone else can be trusted to find out and decide on their own, they think "friendly reminders" are necessary... for YOUR benefit, of course. Not because people get a cheap thrill out of being the fandom hall monitor.

[(Anonymous)]

I preferred not being ignorant so I'm glad the information is going around. How would people find out on their own if it wasn't talked about? The part that isn't good is the implication that anyone who continues to enjoy something is bad, but that's not what you're complaining about, you just want people to not talk so that you get the luxury of not feeling judged.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, given that we're also living in the age of "google it!", I think people could quite easily find out if their faves are problematic, should they wish to filter their media consumption based on *insert moral issue here*. If the information is readily enough available for the fandom gatekeepers to find it without someone telling them, pretty sure it's just as readily available for anyone else who wants to know.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

[(Anonymous)]

That's a completely unrealistic suggestion. It is not how the world works at all. We don't go into situations taking it for granted that people are probably doing problematic shit. Honestly, "instead of people talking about problematic things, you should just Google every artist you like to make sure they haven't done anything problematic" is such a bizarre position to take that I'm not even sure what to say here.

[(Anonymous)]

It's also pretty damn naive to just assume all those friendly reminders about some artists' alleged problematic behaviour are totally true and made in good faith. Considering a very high number of those things turn out to be untrue/based on misunderstandings/mis- or in bad faith interpretations of something they said or outright intentional lies to start a smear campaign, you end up having to fact check and google that shit anyway if you want answers that are not vague hearsay.

[(Anonymous)]

...that's not what's being said. What's being said is that if people want to know if someone is doing problematic shit, they have the resources available to find out themselves, without having to depend on fandom policing to hit them with unsolicited 'friendly reminders'.

[(Anonymous)]

How do you actually picture that working out in practice? Under those circumstances, even people who genuinely really do want to know would never find out, because they aren't going to Google every single person whose work they engage with, and it's completely ridiculous to expect them to. Especially when the alternative is, like, "maybe talk about these things in a less strident, obnoxious way."

[(Anonymous)]

They must not want to know that badly if they’re not willing to put in the 15 seconds it takes to google something. Are you accusing the socially conscious of being stupid, lazy or both?

[(Anonymous)]

It's like trying to prove a negative.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sorry this is so confusing for you, but it's not that difficult. If it's unreasonable to expect people to do their own research when it's so incredibly easy to do so, then there must be a reason for that.

So, is it that the people who really care about their content creators being problematic just aren't smart enough to spend a few seconds typing "Nathan Pyle" controversy into google? If you do think they're smart enough to expend that minute bit of energy into something that you also think they care deeply about, and still aren't doing it, then you must think they're too lazy expend that effort. Which is it?

If it's neither, and we're assuming that someone reading a web comic also has access to google, then the idea that someone who cares about these things can't be expected to do their own homework and must rely on "friendly reminders" from internet strangers is a huge pile of horseshit.

[(Anonymous)]

SA as above, just to also point out that said people may in fact not want to know (or care) if their faves are problematic, and it is 100% their right.

The point is: if you care that much about *insert issue*, you have the resources to find out for yourself if your new fave is involved with it. If you don't, you have the right to be left the fuck alone and enjoy your problematic fave in peace.

[(Anonymous)]

But there's nothing particularly unique about that. It's true of every circumstance that there's information we do and don't want to know, and there's no filter yet devised that's capable of controlling that perfectly. So we're all sort of left to muddle along trying to make the social norms as workable as possible. And asking for the social norm to be that people never talk about it is preposterous.

[(Anonymous)]

Not talking about it =/= not going into other people’s blogs and offering unsolicited, unwanted ‘advice’.

Talk about it on your own blog, engage with others already discussing it, of course. But do not throw yourself uninvited into someone else’s space to ’inform’ them of some problematic BS they never asked about, just because they reblogged a funny comic. See the difference?

[(Anonymous)]

Sure! I think that's a lot more reasonable.

[(Anonymous)]

Are people completely reliant on tumblr callouts for their information on whether or not creators did something shitty?

[(Anonymous)]

Would you be OK with this if the way people talked about it was just different and didn't look like a Tumblr call out post?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm on Tumblr and yes, many are. Not all of us~ of course but it's kind of a running joke there that some people will just blindly reblog someone's callout post before looking to see if its factual or not. There are a few actual posts floating around on there with thousands and thousands of notes that are callout posts that turned out to be 100% bullshit.

[(Anonymous)]

I love how you say "the luxury of not being judged" like it's a bad thing. Yeah, I do enjoy the luxury of not getting hate messages and people telling me to kill myself because I like something I didn't know was problematic, actually!

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that a lot of the way that Tumblr exercises the human capacity of moral judgment is bad but I don't think that means we should stop making moral judgments