[ SECRET POST #4522 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4522 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[The Matrix]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Mr Meaty]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Roxanne from A Goofy Movie]


__________________________________________________


























05. [SPOILERS for Game of Thrones]



__________________________________________________



06. [SPOILERS for Game of Thrones]

[Arya/Gendry]


__________________________________________________



07. [SPOILERS for Game of Thrones]



__________________________________________________



08. [SPOILERS for Avengers Endgame]



__________________________________________________



09. [SPOILERS for Avengers Endgame]



__________________________________________________



10. [SPOILERS for Dawson's Creek]



__________________________________________________



11. [WARNING for abuse, etc.]

[ProJared]



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #647.
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

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

[thewakokid]

"Nothing occurs in a vacuum" is the most meaningless buzzphrase to come out of either side.

"Kings murder paupers much more often than paupers murder kings, so we don't really need to care if a paupers kills a king" is bullshit. the frequency of the evil, or the people involved in the evil does not lessen the evil. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but this flipping it from individuals being harmed to "No, it should only be about people as statistics, and as statistics men being harmed doesn't matter" is such monumental goalpost shifting... "No, we don't actually care about people being hurt after all, we care about the identity or the class being hurt, that's all that matters" I mean... It's getting hard to not see that as just shifting the focus from protecting people to pushing only one side because you only care about one side.

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

[thewakokid]

I mean taking you at your word, there are now two possible ways to interpret this argument, either my original "We care about people as individual entities, and as individual entities women will always be too weak to hurt men" or what it now sounds like you're saying which is "We don't care about individuals, we just want to make sure the statistics balance, and since the statistics show women as a group are hurt more often than men, we only need to combat one side of this to make the numbers balance out"

And frankly I can't tell which option I have a bigger problem with.