[ SECRET POST #5470 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5470 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 33 secrets from Secret Submission Post #783.
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

[fscom]

05. https://i.imgur.com/caWJKxZ.png

[(Anonymous)]

uhhhhh not that either thing is good, but there's a huge glaring difference between those two you're missing here w/r/t doing things to yourself vs doing things to other people without their consent

[(Anonymous)]

Came here to say this. I feel like this must be a troll secret.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that from a moral point of view, doing something to others is worse. But I don't think the only question is which is morally worse. The problem to me is that, if you give Oscars to people for acting that's self-destructive, you're effectively encouraging people to be self-destructive in the future. You're rewarding and incentivizing the behavior. And from that point of view, I'm not sure there is a huge difference between incentivizing someone to harm and incentivizing someone to self-harm.

[(Anonymous)]

You can encourage all you want, but those people still retain full agency over their own actions. If they actively choose to leap aboard your crazy train, that is still on them. People make their own choices with or without encouragement.

[(Anonymous)]

People have agency, and ultimately people have responsibility for their own choices, but the environment and the actions of others do shape and inform those choices. People don't exist in a vacuum. No point pretending that they do.

[(Anonymous)]

Asking someone to punch themselves in the face is a dick move, asking them to punch someone else in the face is assault and incitement thereof.

[(Anonymous)]

uhhhhhhhhhhhh

p sure there is a difference between idealizing dramatic suicides and idealizing school shooters. both of them are bad. nobody is saying those are good. but you are saying those things are the same which they are not what the actual fuck anon

[(Anonymous)]

Nobody forced her to, she could have passed on the project freely. Hell, she could have done the movie and not dropped that weight (there's a new thing, called "acting"; I hope it catches on). At the end of the day, she chose to do it to herself. The douchebag chose to torture his castmates and not himself, they had no say in his decision not to try that new fangled acting lark.

You want actresses to not drop a tonne of weight for roles, don't go and see their movies if they do. It is their choice if they want to, though.

[(Anonymous)]

What she did, she did to herself, with her own permission/awareness/consent.

What he did, he did to others, without their permission/awareness/consent.

That's it. That's the difference. It's a pretty big one. I'm honestly rather concerned that you don't see why these two things are so different.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay.

[(Anonymous)]

He isnt going to fuck you anon. Even if you join his cult

[(Anonymous)]

Can we please stop with this "he's not gonna fuck you" shit. Its so gross.

+1

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed.

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

+2

[(Anonymous)]

And it's not nearly as clever as the ayrt seems to think.

[meadowphoenix]

I mean... we didn't give an oscar to Anne, and plenty of people mocked her, that's honestly the time when her reputation, for what many people saw as a wildly OTT oscar press, was the most mocked. Anne got very little good press from that or for winning, except for her telling Matt Lauer off, and that was with her trying to pretend her dramatic weight loss was part of a bigger conversation about poverty and exploitation and not merely her oscar chances.

If it helps, it's now very in to mock any type of Stanislavski method bullshit. Jeremy Strong's recent article only had a couple fully mockable quotes, but he got roasted so badly his friends went on a full Chris Pratt defensive.

[(Anonymous)]

You and I are in different circles, anon. The most I hear about it is Anne herself telling her interviewer (trying to do what you're saying) off, saying that she starved herself.

Most people think Method Actors are ridiculous and hurting themselves.

[(Anonymous)]

A lot of other actors think that method actors, or at least a certain kind of method actor, are just plain daft.

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly? I kind of agree. I'm not too worried about "society" telling little boys to be rat-mailing weirdos so they too can star in really maligned movies. But I'm kind of worried about how "starve yourself for ART" is rewarded with Oscars. It's not just AH, but Christian Bale and Tom Hardy and Hugh Jackman and all that bad extreme makeover shit.

(I also don't like her performance very much. Yes there's a lot of emotion but lots of people have done this song with tons of emotion and were able to sing it better. I'm biased I guess, I really kind of hate all the music in this adaptation.)

[(Anonymous)]

While I don’t think really self-destructive things should be encouraged, there is such a thing as bodily autonomy and personal agency, and discouraging something like this can easily slide into body policing, which is not a good thing. So someone causing harm to their own self should be made aware how harmful it is if they don’t really know that and should never feel that they have to, but beyond that, as long as they are compos mentis, they should have as much freedom to make their choices for their own self as anyone else. However, harassment should always be reviled and stopped.