[ SECRET POST #5231 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5231 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.







Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 41 secrets from Secret Submission Post #749.
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: Random Questions/Ponderings

[(Anonymous)]

I always thought foot fetishists liked/would prefer "pretty" feet, but is there a market for ugly feet too?

Re: What is your favorite kind of pizza?

[(Anonymous)]

New York style cheese. And there's a place I like that makes a thin crust pizza with sliced heirloom potatoes and white truffle oil that's amazing.

Re: Random Questions/Ponderings

[rudehannibal]

I think there is probably a market for everything, lol...

Re: Random Questions/Ponderings

[(Anonymous)]

What's a good whump/dark/Dead Doves prompt list? I found one that's okay but it's not quite hitting the spots I want to hit.

Re: Random Questions/Ponderings

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, but the term 'ugly' is subjective, both in feet world and fetish content in general. What one person finds 'pretty' may be wildly different than what someone else does.

There's also definitely a market for 'beautifying' feet. Some fetishists enjoying cleaning dirty feet, trimming and painting nails, as well as sanding rough callouses.

[(Anonymous)]

As far as any research has been able to show, A/B/O originated in Supernatural fandom.

Re: Random Questions/Ponderings

[(Anonymous)]

I had a friend/co-worker who had a "foot slave" as a source of extra income years ago (and also for kicks, haha pun intended), and she said one of the things he really loved was having her walk barefoot through mud, and then washing and massaging and moisturizing her feet.

[(Anonymous)]

It being cancelled because of some dumbfuck contract that mandates all protagonists need to be a child or teen is the most infuriating thing too.

[venusundae]

i get this. the challenges get contestants to make such interesting cool stuff!!! that's the whole reason to watch, for me. good for whoever wins but i'm never really invested in that part like the show wants me to be haha

[(Anonymous)]

please turn on your critical thinking skills for 3 seconds.

why are so many people whose demands are reasonable, just and good portrayed as "going too far", as being "too extreme"? what kind of message does that kind of story send?
don't hand in your essay just try to not just gobble up what you're served all the time.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT Cut the condescending bullshit. Every fucking terrorist organisation justifies blowing up market places as just and good. In Northern Ireland people got killed just for being seen talking to the wrong people. But of course that was okay due to THE CAUSE. Fuck of with that extremist shit.

[(Anonymous)]

ok centrist

[(Anonymous)]

thanks, i picked it because i remembered there being discourse about the g-boys being terrorists back in the day. and also because all the images that come up on google image search for "terrorist" are fucking awful

[philstar22]

This is me too. I often skip finals on rewatches. I'm just in it for the fun clothes or food, watching the contestants work, and getting to know the contestants.

Re: What is your favorite kind of pizza?

[pantswarrior]

Thanks... I hope the low FODMAP gives you at least as much benefit as it did me - or that something else works that lets you get your garlic and onion back. ...I miss putting entire cloves of raw garlic in stuff so much. :P

[(Anonymous)]

Found the mass murderer.

[(Anonymous)]

One, there are circumstances in which political violence is legitimate.

And two, when discussing political violence, whether legitimate or illegitimate, it's important to consider violence from state actors as well as non-state actors, and appreciate the causes and circumstances in play. It's easy and almost commonplace to condemn terrorism while just totally ignoring atrocities and violencde enacted by state authorities, and I think that's fundamentally a mistake that ends up tacitly justifying one side of a conflict.

[(Anonymous)]

Stop calling it political violence and call it by its real name: murdering innocent people.

[(Anonymous)]

Do you have the same feelings for it when the security forces do it? When civilians die in wartime?

[(Anonymous)]

Yes and yes. But nothing justifies eye for an eye. Have you actually ever lived in a country with an active domestic terrorist organisation? Because I can promise you once they hit the carbomb stage not even the people who sympathized with them are willing to do so anymore.

[(Anonymous)]

Of course people aren't necessarily going to like it, but that doesn't mean that it's not justified. Whether or not it's justified depends on the content, the circumstances, the justification. For any use of force, whoever is perpetrating it.

Do you have a policy of blanket condemnation of all uses of military force? Of all use of force by the police? Because, unless you do, you're just arguing about whether to draw the line. It's not about an eye for an eye - it's about not using one standard of argument for people who call themselves the government and another for people who are oppressed.

For me, personally, I think it's absolutely justified in certain circumstances to use political violence. If you really believe that using violence against the Nazis or to try to use violence to end the system of apartheid was morally unacceptable, I guess it's a consistent view. But personally, I don't share your feelings - I absolutely cannot agree.

[(Anonymous)]

Arguing about where to draw the line, excuse me

[(Anonymous)]

I can't believe I'm actually arguing with someone who is honestly thinking that it is okay to blow up civilians for the right cause. Stop being dishonest, stop hiding behind phrases 'like use of force'. We are talking about collateraling civilians. Everyday people who at the end of the day just want to go home to their families, who fucking deserve to not be murdered by someone who thinks that their 'just cause' weights more than other people's lives. Funny you didn't answer my question so I am going to assume that you don't live in a country with a domestic terrorism history. So I'm also going to assume that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
'It depends on the cause', please spare me the bullshit. You'd be willing to tell that shit to someone who lost their legs to someone elses idea of a 'just cause', are you going to tell that to a family that lost their kid thanks to a revolutionary stray bullet? Yeah I bet.
You want to take out Nazi soldiers? Okay. You want to take out police officers and soldiers who uphold apartheid. I don't really care. You target civilans? No. You are not justified and you will never be. You are the monster in this scenario. No matter how much you think that these civilans deserve it.
And in the end who decides if a cause is 'just' enough? The people who think it's okay to blow up someones grandma, because thats a sacrifice her family simply has to understand? A lot of people think their cause is just enough. The people who have to suffer them think otherwise.

[(Anonymous)]

Violence causes suffering. That's the reality of the use of violence. I'm not flinching away from that. You're the one drawing arbitrary lines in the sand - targeting civilians is wrong, but taking actions that you know will cause civilian deaths as collateral is fine? How many German civilians died as a result of Allied military actions during WW2 - are we supposed to treat those deaths as so awful that the whole use of military force against the Nazis is despicable? A family losing a kid to a terrorist sniper is unacceptable no matter the circumstances or oppression; a family losing a kid to a drone missile, or a police officer using excess force, or a famine is just the normal course of things, totally unexceptional and ordinary.

I'm not justifying every use of violence no matter the reason. I think it had to be justified based on the circumstances and the context. But, yes, I do think there are some circumstances I can imagine where such use of force is justified. I'm not going to rule out the use of violence, even with all its terrible consequences, even if it may lead to civilian casualties. And I'm not going to draw up separate rules where violence magically becomes worse based on whether or not it's done in the name of the government. Is that a difficult and awful moral decision to have to make? Yes, absolutely, just as it is when the people making it have the law on their side. But it's our responsibility as mature human beings to face up to that judgment.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah we can discuss this all day long and we will never come to an agreement. I think your line of thinking is plain gross. Nothing else. The detached waffling of someone who never had to live the life they expect others to endure. But go on dreaming about building an utopia on bloodsoaked soil, that proved to be such a stable basis. I'm out.