[ SECRET POST #5359 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5359 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 24 secrets from Secret Submission Post #767.
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

[(Anonymous)]

Yeesh, I didn’t expect this mundane topic to turn almost everyone into condescending jerks! It’s such a simple tag, there’s no need for all of this.

The secret itself reads as unnecessarily hostile, which could have been remedied by rephrasing it into an actual question. Especially because one of the nice responses expressed that they accidentally used this tag when they meant to use No Archive Warnings Apply in the past. But instead, the secret wasn’t framed as an innocent question or a mistake like that. Just a passive-aggressive jab at an inoffensive tag.

And pretty much all of the replies met the secret’s hostility in kind. And proceed to come off as just as patronizing. And some comments even seem to imply that trigger warnings themselves are unnecessary, and anyone who needs them “needs to grow thicker skin”. And make the apples to oranges comparison between content warnings in fics vs. books, as if that has to do with anything.

As has been established, this tag is a warning in and of itself. So it’s really weird to get mad at the tag. And it’s really weird to make fun of people who want content warnings in general, because most people who need them are smart enough to know the tag might not be for them. And know how to use and exclude the other tags to help as well.

This whole thread was a trip. And please note that I’m not calling the responses wrong just because they had patronizing language. I just don’t think anyone needed to stoop to OP’s level, or take what seems like bait.

[(Anonymous)]

I will also add that I don’t usually prefer the CCNTUAW tag, unless I’m in a rare mood to be surprised. Being spoiled doesn’t ruin stories for me. And sometimes knowing some things that will happen makes me more excited to experience them in the proper context. Which is why I like having lots of tags in fic I read!

And sometimes I want to read something with one or all of the major tags. As a survivor of sexual abuse, reading non-con in fic has been a helpful experience.

So I almost always want to know exactly what to expect in a fic. Not because I need to be warned(although I totally understand those who do), but for ease of searching. But I understand not everyone is like me in this regard. And that is where this tag comes in. It preserves the mystery for those who want it. Everyone’s happy!

At least they should be. But things can never be that simple, apparently.

[(Anonymous)]

The responses are hostile because we've spent 14 goddamn years explaining to people like OP what the CNTW tag is there for, why people use it, and why it's important. Anyone in this day and age claiming they just don't understand is either lying, or should not be online unsupervised.

And I disagree that most people who want content warnings are smart enough to know that the CNTW tag isn't for them. If they were, they'd just exclude it from their searches along with whatever archive warnings they want to avoid and go on about their day. The rest of us wouldn't have had to have dealt with 14 years of histrionic bullshit from people accusing us of being anywhere from callous sociopaths to indistinguishable from actual fucking rapists and torturers for using the CNTW tag.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

[(Anonymous)]

I totally get the first part, which is why I said OP was being dumb and almost troll-like(but I’m pretty sure they’re being serious, which is even sadder). It’s possible some newbies can not know what it means and ask questions, but Google should be what they do first instead of asking strangers questions. Being asked about basic things like this does warrant more of a bad faith reading these days, with trolls doing their “just asking questions” routine.

I’m just speaking from experience. You might have had a lot of histrionic antis, but that doesn’t mean they’re the majority of people who need content warnings. The loudest people of any group are usually a vocal minority. Not saying this is the case, of course. But it’s just as likely it is than not.

Now antis are always bad. That’s objective fact. But people with trauma who rely on content warnings to be able to read fic just like everyone else in fandom aren’t always hypersensitive, or anything like antis. I do disagree with you, because I’ve made enough friends in fandom spaces meant to be a place that’s safe for victims to know that most of them know what to exclude when they use AO3. And don’t cause a fuss about it.

I’m not saying we’re the majority either. But our experience isn’t any more or less anecdotal than people who have experienced antis complaining about content even after seeing the warning. Questioning the intelligence of most people who want content warnings, without having any evidence that all of them would then ignore the warnings and throw a fit, is unnecessary. Your experience is valid, but so is everyone who quietly filters and excludes tags so they can read fic while being mindful of their own triggers.

I’ve been in fandom for years as well. But I understand that my experience will be different from yours. Especially because I haven’t written a fic in almost 20 years, and it was on a completely different platform(FF.N). And I never got much interaction at all, much less the shit you get from these particular awful people. I might interact in fandom spaces, but it’s an inevitably different interaction from others.

So I’m not arguing with you. Just disagreeing on how charitably most people who rely on content warnings should be treated. Your suspicion is understandable, and I would never wish to tell you to rethink your views just because I disagree with parts of them. Even with all of my personal experience, I would also be wary of the comments I would get if I wrote fic on AO3 while using this tag.

[(Anonymous)]

Gosh, anon, did you need a content warning for this entire thread?

For the record, no one's being made fun of for the act of wanting content warnings. They're being made fun of for thinking the world should cater to their triggers. Also, because they continued to attack something they clearly don't understand and don't care to understand.

[(Anonymous)]

I thought I made it clear that I personally don’t have any content warnings that apply to me, especially because I seek out non-con as part of my healing process. Also, I made it clear that I was saying people were repaying OP’s hostility in kind, which made them seem just as petty, but didn’t make them wrong. I even agreed with the points most made, even some of the angriest.

And this is the comment that I said SEEMED like it was making fun of people who need trigger warnings in general:

“If you can't handle surprise underage incest, the did not warn tag *is your warning.* You don't read those fics if it *might* be there. That's fandom for ya. It's always been a free space for writing your most fucked up ideas in. You can keep to fics with no content warnings. If that makes you feel limited or like a baby, too bad. Grow a thicker skin or proceed with the training wheels on.”

I agree with the comment, it’s just taking the piss at people who feel that their options are limited that I think makes it unnecessary. Because feeling limited is valid, but there’s nothing to do about it if you can’t read the fics, so it’s best to move on from that sadness. And “grow thicker skin” is something that people who argue in favor of content warnings get told repeatedly, usually by people who don’t have PTSD like a lot of the people in favor of the most basic content warnings.

However, I specifically didn’t say it was anything more than a reading, which can always be a misinterpretation. I don’t really believe the anon who made this comment meant that in a cruel way. The wording can be a bit harsh, and debatable to those inclined to disagree. But it’s preceded by statements that I completely agree with, so I’m willing to give their intentions the benefit of the doubt. And thus it’s not always correct to read such comments as uncharitably as possible.

Kind of like how you read everything I said as uncharitably as possible, ignoring most of what I said in order to make a cheap “lol triggered” jab. You even ignored all the times I agreed. You kind of came off as defensive for some reason, as if I was attacking anything at all. Did you want to tell me “you think some of the other responses were patronizing? I’ll show you patronizing!”? If that was your goal, good job at being condescending for no reason?