fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4669 ]

[ SECRET POST #4669 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4669 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[The Good Place, Chidi/Eleanor]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Mel Giedroyc and Sue Perkins]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Indivisible]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Jamie Finn from The Great British Bake Off, season 10]

__________________________________________________

06.

Notes: Had a couple of repeats, so I took one from next week.

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #668.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 2 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Or can you always say "it's just fiction ~~and I recognize it's problematic,~~ therefore I enjoy it shamelessly."

That.

I don't understand this comment

I don't understand your confusion. OP gave two options. I chose the second with the part that didn't apply crossed out.

How does the part not apply. I guess that's my question.

DA

Why should you have to “recognize something is problematic”? Why can’t you just literally not care? Media is what I use to get away from analysis and thinking about broader impacts. I just don’t care.

I mean, if it's problematic, it's problematic, right? I don't understand framing it as whether you choose to recognize something as problematic or not? You don't intrinsically have to care about it being problematic but like... it's like refusing to recognize whether an apple is red or green

Your analogy only works if there is a constant vicious battle in the background over whether the apple is red, green, or some other color entirely. And the reality is that it depends on the lighting and the angle what you actually see, and some people are colorblind, and some people can’t quite see it but HEARD that it’s red, and clearly if you think it’s green you’re Satan incarnate.

Meanwhile, you’re just like... it’s a fucking apple. I’m not even gonna bother to look at the color ‘cause I enjoy the taste.

My point here being: literally everyone thinks different shit is problematic, or that it isn’t, and there will never be a consensus. So yes, the option is there to literally close your eyes and eat an apple.

"Problematic" isn't nearly as clear cut as you make it out to be. Instead ofv"is the apple green or red" it's more like "is the dress white/gold or blue/black".

But the answer to "what color is the dress" is not, at any point, "no color at all".

Never said it was. But it was "I see this differently than someone else" and "people actually see different things here so you can't say for sure which colour people see in the picture (regardless of the actual colour of the dress)" and a lot of people rightfully went "WHO CARES WHAT COLOUR THAT DAMN DRESS IS".

So no, "I mean, if it's problematic, it's problematic, right?" is not actually true. It's a matter of opinion. There is no 100% agreement on whether or not something is problematic all the time.

No, sorry, this analogy completely proves me right. Different people can disagree about what color the dress is, and not care what color the dress is, and not want to hear from other people about the dress because they talk about it too much. But the dress still has a color.

How does it? Problematic is only one interpretation of a work, like gold and white is only one interpretation of the dress color. Why are you so convinced that your interpretation is the right one?

But if you don't care that something is problematic, that implies you are aware it is problematic. You can't not care about something unless you are aware there is something there which one could potentially care about.

Personally, I don't think it really matters whether you care a thing is problematic or not, but being aware that it's problematic potentially matters. When people are unaware something is problematic they are a lot more likely to think it's fine for that thing to occur in real life. After all, why wouldn't it be? As far as they're aware, there's nothing wrong with it.

NAYRT and I don't really know how to explain this, other than to say that part of the relaxing and liberating nature of fiction for me, personally, is entering a brain zone where I don't have to make any moral judgments at all. I get to flip that moral nihilism switch and rock on because it's all imaginary and there's nothing at stake.

I don't think that has in any way impacted my ability to distinguish between right and wrong in real life.

Exactly. I don't understand why it matters whether fiction is "problematic" or not because it's fiction. It's not reality. You can like all sorts of things in fiction that are horrible in reality because no one is getting hurt in fiction. As long as you understand that fiction is not reality, what's the problem?

DA above me said it better than I could.

DA (again)

To make things easy, I would say that being problematic is subjective overall. That anything and everything can be problematic depending on how you look at it. Sometimes it's obvious, but otherwise there is no point in sidestepping potential landmines that might not exist in the first place.
Basically this whole chain of comments. Throwing out disclaimers this way and that is a better way to trip people up, because even if it doesn't exist, you're giving them a better target to aim at.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #4669 ]

Re: Based on 6

Re: Based on 6

Re: Based on 6

Re: Based on 6

Re: Based on 6

Re: Based on 6

Re: Based on 6

Re: Based on 6

Re: Based on 6

Re: Based on 6

Re: Based on 6

Re: Based on 6

Re: Based on 6

Re: Based on 6

Re: Based on 6

Re: Based on 6

Re: Based on 6