[ SECRET POST #5707 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5707 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.



__________________________________________________



12.



__________________________________________________



13.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 72 secrets from Secret Submission Post #817 .
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I'd say it's less about only getting (or making) only positive responses and more about people not actively being assholes. Disagreement =/= rudeness unless you choose to be rude.

(And yeah, sometimes tone can be difficult in text-only spaces, but how often is there uncalled for name-calling in any sort of exchanges? That's pretty unambiguously rude.)

[(Anonymous)]

Yes and no; it's really depending on what the person is posting originally, too. Sometimes "I simply disagree, though" is genuinely not what people want to say or enough to convey what they want to say, and they do want to tell someone they are wrong or ignorant for holding a point of view. There's certainly a gray area in there between polite disagreement and name-calling by those that may vehemently disagree with the someone that can be viewed as "flaming", but that also isn't 100% ad hominem. And usually in internet debates I find most of the responses fall into that gray area. If most people tended to randomly jump immediately to pointless name-calling I'd agree with you, but that's not my experience.

And from the POV of the people who vehemently disagree, they might think the original poster is being an unnecessary asshole by actively posting an opinion they perceive to be offensive. So it's hard to draw lines here, besides to say you should probably expect no more politeness than you would from a random strangers whose opinions you don't know.

[(Anonymous)]

you should probably expect no more politeness than you would from a random strangers whose opinions you don't know.

I agree with AYRT though that people tend to be far more hostile online than they would ever be in person, even to a stranger. Overt hostility is not something I often experience from people IRL--especially not from strangers. Even when I worked in retail and then in food service, overt hostility was still an uncommon occurrence.

[(Anonymous)]

>Even when I worked in retail and then in food service, overt hostility was still an uncommon occurrence

Yes, but you probably weren't telling your customers your opinions on their kinks or their politics, right? Internet discourse usually starts with something; it's rare that people vehemently disagree with something like "how are you today?"

[(Anonymous)]

For several years now I've had a job that involves socializing with an ever-changing group of co-workers for hours at a time, pretty much every day, and I have never once had a conversation get overtly hostile, or witnessed a conversation get overtly hostile, even when a serious hot-button issue came up. It happens, but it's rare. People almost always keep their claws in. They don't say, "You're a hateful bigot and a fucking moron," or, "People like you are what's wrong with society," or, "Fuck off and eat shit, you ablist/sexist/terf," or, "Cry me a river you libtard snowflake." They say, "I don't think that's true," or, "I disagree with that," or, "I don't think that's fair," or, "We'll have to agree to disagree." They might say, "Oh come on." They might take a condescending tone.

No matter how you slice it, in my experience people are just way less inclined to be hostile in person.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not sure about that honestly, because these are different situations again. These are coworkers who are going to see you again tomorrow, or that you know you'll run into again, vs random strangers who may have just declared out of nowhere that your harmless kink makes you equal to a pedophile.

The internet isn't like coworkers, it's more like random strangers in the street who you've never seen before and likely will never see again who decide to broach their political opinions aloud at a street corner lol.

[(Anonymous)]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think you're wrong about the internet not being analogously identical to the real-world contexts I'm talking about. There are no identical real world contexts with which to make a 1:1 comparison, and I honestly don't care. I don't care whether the context is identical. I care that in one of these contexts, people are frequently hostile, right out of the gate, while in all the other contexts, kneejerk hostility is much, much less common.

Are there reasons that explain why people are quick to respond with hostility on the internet? Sure. But are they reasons that justify said hostility? No. Are they reasons that indicate said hostility is inevitable and unavoidable within the medium of the internet? No.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I agree with you that it's not justified, fwiw. Just that it's something we have to expect.