[ SECRET POST #5595 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5595 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #800.
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 know -- we're supposed to think BUT IT CAN ESCALATE.)

I agree with you, and also, I think OP's entire point is that it didn't escalate.

[(Anonymous)]

I think OP's entire point is that it didn't escalate.

Yes. But this is sort of the point of taboos, and hygienic practices, and things like that. You don't have a taboo against something because it's bad in every case. You don't practice hygiene because failing to do so is going to be disastrous in every single case - if you don't wash your hands one time, there is a strong possibility that nothing bad will happen to you. We practice hygiene and we enforce taboos as a way of dealing with systemic risk. Not washing your hands increases the overall odds of spreading disease, even if it doesn't spread every single time. And similarly, having a taboo against stalking-like behaviors limits the overall occurrence of stalking, even if something like what OP did is not actually harming anyone. And having such a taboo also buttresses the idea that personal privacy is a thing that people in society generally should respect and value.

At least that's how I personally tend to feel about it (also ofc not every taboo or hygienic practice is actually justified; but this is the framework that we should use when thinking about whether or not they are justified)

[(Anonymous)]

having a taboo against stalking-like behaviors limits the overall occurrence of stalking

I don't agree that what OP did was a "stalking-like" behavior. Also, they weren't doing it publicly while making light of it and talking about how fun it was, so even if you do interpret it as "stalking-like" behavior, OP wasn't eroding the taboo.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure. It's very much up for debate where precisely you draw the line on those things. But I also just am not sure I agree with the idea that it didn't escalate and therefore OP has proven that people were wrong to be uncomfortable with it.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

It didn't escalate because OP made no attempt to act on the information at all. That's what escalation would be, and it didn't happen. People can be uncomfortable with whatever they like, that's a personal feeling, but it's an objective fact that there was no escalation and the celebrity in question is completely unaffected by it.

[(Anonymous)]

See my post below - my phrasing was unclear. I did not mean to imply that it escalated.

[(Anonymous)]

What part was the escalation?

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Sorry, my phrasing was unclear. I do not think that it escalated. What I disagree with is the idea that, because it did not escalate, therefore OP has automatically proven that people were wrong to be uncomfortable with it.

I think anyone saying it's some huge evil moral boundary end of the world is probably overreacting, but I also think it's reasonable for people to be uncomfortable with it, because it does push up against some boundaries and some ideas about privacy that we ought to consider valuable, even if no immediate harm is one.

[(Anonymous)]

da

What's funny is, I'm more bothered by OP's attitude about it than the fact that they mapped out some celeb's traveling routes and know their home address. It sounds mild compared to flat out doxxing, but they act like they deserve a pat on the back for not completely invading someone's privacy. Just no. Have a little shame about it. Or don't. But don't act shocked that people think it's creepy.

[(Anonymous)]

They are definitely not acting like they deserve a pat on the back. They are saying the people back then who decided to talk about OP like they were some kind of threat for looking something up on the internet can go fuck themselves because it's eleven years later and OP is still not any more of a stalker than any of us.

Sadly, OP, sanctimonious people rarely admit they were wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

So your assumption about OP's intention is somehow more valid? Okay, whatever you say.

[(Anonymous)]

This. We can all infer whatever we want, and have any opinion on this that we want. Positive or negative, supportive or judgmental. But only OP actually knows about their own intentions and actions. They’ve been clear in some regards, but vague in others. So both AYRT’s comment, and the more sanctimonious comments making assumptions are basically on the same level as far as treating pure speculation as objective truth.

I for one believe OP. But that doesn’t mean that AYRT isn’t still making a lot of leaps and reaches based on opinion, not fact.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I may have bought the chloroform and the duct tape, but theyre still gathering dust in the closet next to the binoculars and the detailed timetable of my fave’s daily schedule, so suck it f!s! Totally normal!

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed. In some ways, at least. This secret is honestly a little funny, both in me kinda laughing at them, and me kinda laughing with them. I do understand where they’re coming from in a way, in regards to feeling a bit petty and vindictive about being piled on in the past despite outright saying you were never going to act on something. And I’m glad OP is over it now, and is in good spirits about it, even though I suspect it got to them in the past. Also, I’m definitely not saying the responses OP got in the past weren’t self-righteous and pearl-clutching, especially in the way some flat out ignored OP saying they wouldn’t do anything with the information, and in how others flat out said they refused to believe OP about it.

But all that said, what response was OP actually expecting to the original secret? Maybe some supportive and neutral responses, but did they expect no negative reactions? They honestly should have seen it coming(not that seeing something coming means you deserve the response, of course), and the fact that it surprised and got under their skin a little is baffling to me. Because they themselves knew that they wouldn’t act on this information and that the negative responders didn’t know them enough to say otherwise with any basis. So why didn’t OP just brush off the knee-jerk naysayers? OP bringing the secret back up to “own” the negative responders after all this time with basically “You know that time that I said I wouldn’t use information I looked up about my fave to stalk them, and you didn’t believe me? Well I in fact didn’t stalk them after all, so suck it!” is kinda strange to me. Like, good job staying true to your word and not stalking another human being(and potentially committing a crime)? Not doing something you already had no plans to do isn’t an achievement. So this sense of satisfaction from OP is just so...misplaced, I guess? Maybe that’s not the word I’m looking for?

I didn’t have much of an opinion to the original secret one way or another. And I personally had no reason not to believe them, considering someone who actually intended to stalk someone would have done it immediately after finding out their address and schedule, instead of talking about it to strangers. In my opinion at least. So maybe the fact that I wasn’t one of the naysayers ostensibly being proven wrong is the reason I don’t really get the point of the secret? Or the point of OP’s pride and pettiness to rude comments they got in response to a secret they submitted over 10 years ago?

Idk, but despite scratching my head and laughing a bit about this, I’m still legitimately glad OP is able to look back on mean comments and laugh at them. That’s something not everyone is able to do, no matter how much time has passed. So it’s healthy to not let things like this get to you, if nothing else.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you the same anon that keeps making comparisons to things using hygiene? I’m not trying to imply anything by asking, it’s just an “If I had a nickel for every time someone made a comparison of tried to get a point across using hygiene as an example, I’d have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it happened twice” situation to me.

Either way, you or someone else did a couple months used hygiene as an example in regards to some discussion about sex. And the comparison wasn’t received well, and people thought there was some unfortunate implications. Which is understandable, because it was a weird comparison and/or example to use, and this kinda is too. I really don’t think hygiene is the best example to use in most situations for getting your point across, but at least this time the actual point being made with it is less hard to understand for everyone. And at least it didn’t lead to a long, drawn out back and forth(relatively speaking) like last time either.

[(Anonymous)]

That wasn't me, I don't think. I do kinda remember the wank you're talking about and I'm fairly sure it wasn't me.

I do think hygiene is a useful mental model for thinking about a lot of different things. I think there are a lot of situations where you have risks that are broad and systemic, and it still makes sense to adopt general practices to reduce those risks even if the risk is not present in every single specific interaction. "If you skip washing your hands one time, probably nothing bad will happen, but you should still wash your hands" is an everyday example of that which is pretty intuitively familiar to most people.

[(Anonymous)]

I do get what you mean now that I think about it more, so I take back that it isn’t a good example.