[ SECRET POST #4963 & 4964 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4963 & 4964 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________














03. [SPOILERS for season 6 of 'the blacklist']
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/710880568237096991/737542265806913556/rjksfntjk4as21.png
[embed broken but working link]


__________________________________________________



04. [SPOILERS for Avatar the Last Airbender]



__________________________________________________



05. [WARNING for discussion of rape]



__________________________________________________



06. [WARNING for discussion of homophobia/biphobia]



__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of sexual assault]



__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for discussion of transphobia]



__________________________________________________



09. [WARNING for discussion of rape]























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 52 secrets from Secret Submission Post #711.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 (warning for pedophilia, suicide) - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Your implication that Jo's just some crank on the internet with no real influence, rather than an accomplished businesswoman with enduring media presence and one of the most successful living authors in the world, is sexist.

[(Anonymous)]

NOM ran campaigns that successfully deprived people of marriage equality in multiple states, including California. If you can provide evidence that Rowling has actively funded or organized anti-gay or anti-trans political organizations, I'll change my mind. Until then, I'm not obligated to take "someone said something wrong on the internet" as an existential threat, no matter if it's Rowling or even Trump for that matter.

[(Anonymous)]

Where did this "existential threat" idea come from? Who said anything about an existential threat? That's something that you brought up as an arbitrary standard for what people should be allowed to care about.

People don't have to pose an existential threat to be harmful. For that matter, I don't see how anti-marriage equality campaigners were an "existential threat" either.

[(Anonymous)]

Anti-marriage campaigners successfully passed laws and constitutional amendments blocking marriage-equality or any equivalent recognition in a majority of states. The latter clause is significant because it meant that private and piecemeal rights such as private adoption, legal and medical powers of attorney, insurance benefits, and other benefits. For example, Janice Langbehn was denied hospital visitation for her partner under a Florida law that refused to recognize same-sex power of attorney. The Obergefel decision documented that confusion about the arbitrary distinction between marriage and domestic partnership created clear legal harms for same-sex people.

So yes, NOM's political activities clearly harmed LGBTQ people in the states where they were active and successful. Which was why OSC's active involvement in NOM resulted in a boycott.

And as I've said, if you want to boycott or scold Rowling for her tweets, whatever. It's not like I'm buying her work anyway. We don't have to work on the same things.

[(Anonymous)]

"harmed people" is not the same as "posed an existential threat to people" and you must know this

legal recognition is also a problem for trans people and opinions like Rowling's, espoused loudly by powerful and influential people like Rowling, play a significant role in that

[(Anonymous)]

I think you need to ask yourself why you're so insistent on scolding a queer trans person for prioritizing policy issues that have an immediate impact on my health and safety.

[(Anonymous)]

Until then, I'm not obligated to take "someone said something wrong on the internet" as an existential threat

Seconding this heavily. One of the most frustrating things about politics in 2020, to me, is that people are so bad at gauging the threat levels of the shit they hear about. We all run around reacting to shit that poses next to no actual, real-world threat to us, and then end up too exhausted or apathetic to give more than lip service to shit with significant real-world threat levels.

It's not like picking our battles has even been human beings' strong suit, but man, the internet took something important we were weak at, and said, "Let's make this twenty times more challenging for you mofos."

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, even if we grant that Rowling's attitudes may have some nebulous and indirect effect on anti-trans policy, those bills are sitting in the statehouse right now and are platform planks in this November election.