[ SECRET POST #5103 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5103 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02. https://i.imgur.com/tY3l0Jf.png
[OP warned for NSFW classical art]


__________________________________________________


03.
[venom/venom 2 (movie)]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Helluva Boss]


__________________________________________________






















05. [SPOILERS for Mandalorian]



__________________________________________________



06. [SPOILERS for Mandalorian]



__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for mention of incest/underage]



__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for mention of rape/abuse]



__________________________________________________



09. [WARNING for mention of abuse]


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #730.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[feotakahari]

I keep writing and deleting responses because none of them seem like they’ll convince you of anything. Maybe the most appropriate thing to do is to convey what I’m thinking, whether that’s convincing or not.

I’ve seen the video game discourse about how playing games about killing people makes you immoral. I play every game I think might be like Ace Attorney, no matter how often they suck. But I don’t think doing so has made me any more moral than the people who play shoot-em-ups. They consume their games, and I consume mine, and the consumption hasn’t done anything to make the world a better place.

You can argue things like “black people should have stories that represent them.” But that doesn’t depend on me reading the stories. That depends on me funding the stories whether I read them or not. I want to be absolutely clear that I’m talking about consumption, not capital. “Spend your time reblogging this art to get people to look at it” is just as much consumption as “spend your money on this art.” And conversely, I’m willing to give you money whether or not I’m consuming something from you. But I don’t think I’m purchasing holiness in either time or money.

[(Anonymous)]

Minorities don't get contacts if our work doesn't sell. And we're voting with our dollars and clicks anyway. This pooh-poohing of fans who do support our communities with our dollars and clicks really isn't helping.

[meadowphoenix]

none of them seem like they’ll convince you of anything
you don't seem to be addressing anything I'm saying. maybe that's the problem. I'm not talking about books as persuasive media, though naturally books have a point of view that may be persuasive. I'm talking about books as perspectives of and on the inhabitants of society and it's structure. I don't think you understand the difference, and that's what I'm talking about is the failure and the lack of clicking.

Let me frank: you cannot reason optimally through moral decisions without knowing multiple perspectives The consumption is not the moral decision, and I n e v e r implied that it was (and if you think I did, quote me then). That was you. What I'm saying (what I laid out DIRECTLY in my "rule") is that the ability to think critically about the way you see the world REQUIRES that you understand multiple ways of seeing the world. The ability to make moral decisions follows from that critical thought. To think critically about the world in order to develop a moral praxis on which you base moral judgments, you must seek out perspectives that challenge the dominant perspective. Second to the this is the issue of normalization of alternate perspectives, which seeking them out provides. if you know there may be alternate perspectives, when you are faced with one perspective, you can reason through that one perspective by challenging it's premise based on alternative premises. If you don't know this, you will miss some aspect of moral reasoning.

The pithyness of "violent videogames triggers violence" isn't something I lead you to, and that's what I mean when I said you're putting words in my mouth.

You understanding the black perspective 100% requires that you consume our narratives about ourselves. That might not make you less racist, but when you encounter racist narratives, you now have more information to recognize that, and from there make a moral decision regarding how you want to address it. If someone tells you, X is how black people are seen so I'm going to treat them like this, you reblogging black people seen A-W and Y-Z means that you can challenge that assertion, and from there develop a way of treating black people that takes variation into account. It's nigh on impossible to do that moral consideration when your perspective of how black people are seen is merely X. The consumption is not the morality, it leads to optimal moral reasoning hth.

[feotakahari]

I don’t know how to do this without people saying I’m putting words in their mouths. I don’t see the chain of logic that led from point A to point B, so I say what I mean in the hopes that I’ll clarify the situation. Then they take that to mean I think I’m contradicting something they didn’t actually say, and they didn’t mean that, they meant something else entirely! Only they don’t actually specify what that something else entirely WAS, so I still don’t know what they meant. Then I try to further lay out what I meant, and they still think I’m contradicting some DIFFERENT thing they didn’t actually say. And this keeps happening over and over, and I never find out what they actually meant!

Like in this case. You’re talking about “a way of treating black people.” I think that means there’s some distinction between how you want black people to be treated and how you want other people to be treated? But I don’t actually know if that’s what you mean, and even if it is, I don’t know what the distinction is. And anything I say to try to figure out what you’re talking about, you can say I’m putting words in your mouth!

Ugh, my head hurts so much.

[meadowphoenix]

Here's a guide, if you find you're having communication problems: a) quote people and then tailor your response to what you quoted. if you don't actually understand what people mean, or you see several different interpretations, ask. If you don't see how they got from A to B, ask. That should cut down on common misunderstandings

I think that means there’s some distinction between how you want black people to be treated and how you want other people to be treated?
I'm using the example you gave regarding black people in media (you mentioned not needing to consume media in order to encourage representation), and using it to describe how a person must engage in that media to have optimal moral reasoning. You used black representation, I'm talking about the significance of the representation, or the purpose: the treatment of black people in society as a class.

For what it's worth, this is my point about it not clicking for you. You see the argument "black people need representation" and seemed to have no idea that there was an end goal there of "black people are treated better because their presence as fully nuanced human beings is normalized." And yet you decided to give that example regarding your point about consumption. You have to ask questions beyond rules. Moral reasoning requires that you understand the point of the ethics.

[feotakahari]

"the treatment of black people in society as a class."

"black people are treated better because their presence as fully nuanced human beings is normalized."

Okay, so I support the latter and oppose the former. I don't want anyone treating me as a class rather than an individual, and I think the fewer classes are allowed to remain in existence, the better. That's why I call myself queer--because it's a not-a-class that anyone can join if they want to.

I can see a possible chain of logic where someone reads a book about black people, and that makes them realize black people are individuals. But I feel like if you don't already know that people are individuals, you're probably missing a lot more than just a book.

I'm not making any statements here about what you believe. I'm just trying to clarify my position.

[meadowphoenix]

Okay, so I support the latter and oppose the former. I don't want anyone treating me as a class rather than an individual
I can understand why you support the latter, but the former is a function of society and is unavoidable at this moment in time.

That's why I call myself queer--because it's a not-a-class that anyone can join if they want to.
"Queer" may be a self-selecting class, but it is a class of some exclusivity, you will get treated in a specific way if you call yourself queer (than if you were not queer), and no not anyone can join (like anyone whose sexual and gender identity is non-marginalized). If you don't want to be in a class you'd have to leave society, and if you don't want a label to class you, you'd have reject all labels entirely, which wouldn't save you from society treating you as being in a class.

But I feel like if you don't already know that people are individuals, you're probably missing a lot more than just a book.
Yes, the problem is racism. But since it exists, we have to encourage people to ethically resist and dismantle racism, which means they need to engage in varied perspectives that challenge the dominant (racist) perspective.