[ SECRET POST #5561 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5561 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 32 secrets from Secret Submission Post #797.
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)]

I am the first commenter. The anon who started this thread came in aggressive af and basically accused OP of daring to not think of the children, the poor orphaned children! So I just wanted to point out that, y'know, oftentimes there aren't any poor widdle children at hand to consider. Not saying there can never be, but again, not common. Hence: "wouldn't really apply."

And you... hoo! You're definitely looking for something to get mad about. It's pretty funny to me that you consider the two comments here to be sooo dismissive in tone that it's gotten you in this much of a huff, yet fail to take into account that we're just responding in kind to the tone set by the original comment, which started out with an obscenity ffs. You, that commenter, all part of the problem you seem to be taking so much offense to.

[(Anonymous)]

I never said the tone of the original commenter wasn’t aggressive, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t still have a point that you two proceeded to ignore. Tone isn’t the be all end all of a discussion. If you think they phrased it badly, that’s fair enough. But ignoring the entire point with a whataboutism is exactly what I meant when I called your comment bad faith. Bad faith comments can be unintentional, by the by. And the passive aggressive dismissiveness you and the other commenter displayed was still completely based in ignoring arguments that you don’t like. So you weren’t fighting fire with fire, it was an entirely different kind of nastiness. And it was transparently disingenuous. I don’t exactly love giving in to nastiness, I don’t like conflict at all. But like you said, I’m just responding in kind to the tone you set.

And “No U” and “lol u mad” is really the only arguments you choose to offer? That’s what you’re actually going with? Okay bud, whatever makes you happy.

[(Anonymous)]

"I don’t exactly love giving in to nastiness, I don’t like conflict at all. But like you said, I’m just responding in kind to the tone you set."

i hope one day you will realise how obnoxious people are who think they're such peaceful and reasonable people ~unless provoked~. if the above comments are all it takes for you to "give in to nastiness" you do in fact love it, you just prefer to think you don't.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh no no, it has nothing to do with being peaceful and reasonable. It has to with my anxiety making me want to end conflict by any means necessary most of the time. Even if it means completely buckling. It’s honestly kind of cowardly, admittedly. And I’m the one who still puts myself out there, even if it’s not always directly responding, so I have nobody else to blame for being part of the conflict.