[ SECRET POST #5426 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5426 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 42 secrets from Secret Submission Post #777.
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)]

People can understand it and also dislike it

[(Anonymous)]

+100000

[(Anonymous)]

Dislike, sure! But that doesn't really cover why people would openly wonder why Netflix chose to make Tiger King instead of a thoughtful documentary about big cats. If you truly understand it, there's no need to ask that question.

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't watch the first Tiger King, but if any part of that documentary positions itself as being sympathetic to the captive treatment of big cats and promotes treating them better, then it's totally valid to say, "If Netflix/the producers of Tiger King want to improve the living conditions for captive big cats, why did they make more of this garbage fire instead of making a thoughtful and educational documentary on the issue?"

It's this thing called a rhetorical question.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Ehhhh but they "positioned [themselves] as sympathetic" because it's a hook, not because they actually believed it. The new season will still have sympathetic-to-the-cats moments, because those sell. They get people invested so that they'll keep watching. It really is that simple.

[(Anonymous)]

This. It's not so much that Netflix is sympathetic, it's that they clearly know that the element of outrage helps to sell the series.

[(Anonymous)]

they "positioned [themselves] as sympathetic" because it's a hook, not because they actually believed it.

And this is why the question is rhetorical. People aren't confused; they're pointing out Netflix's bullshit.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, the one person I'm thinking of is confused for sure, lol. They're not equipped to ask insightful rhetorical questions bent on exposing Netflix's bullshit.

[(Anonymous)]

It doesn't take an insightful person to ask a rhetorical question. Complete idiots do it all the time.

[(Anonymous)]

I suppose. It's a stretch, though. You'd have to be really, really naive to think that the welfare of big cats is a sincere aim on Netflix's part. It's fairly obvious to anyone with a few brain cells that this is 100% not the point.