[ SECRET POST #5777 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5777 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 23 secrets from Secret Submission Post #827.
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)]

NAYRT

My issue is that there are lots of people online labelling things as bigotry when they aren't, thus trivializing real bigotry and making it easier for the genuine bigots to get away with it.

But it seems pretty clear that not all accusations of bigotry are wrong, or are cases where someone is trivializing real bigotry, or whatever. If someone says "I don't like bigots", it's at least possible that they have real bigots in mind.

I mean, do you have any specific examples of people on this comm making bad accusations of bigotry in mind? What's the rationale for the assumption that that was going on here? It seems like a big jump to make to me.

Also, screaming insults at people is not the only way to address such things, and is unlikely to produce real change.

OK but if that's what you think, how does that then walk on over into implying people you disagree with are incapable of introspection or humility?

[(Anonymous)]

Not all accusations of bigotry are wrong, but in fandom, most them are. Like, maybe one time in fifteen or twenty, the accusation is actually real, and not just some fandom ship war or character-stanning bullshit. Fandom bullies have figured out that accusing someone of bigotry is a great way to get other people on board with their bullying, and actively look for things to attack other fans over.

As for examples, well, Sam Wilson stans insinuating that if anyone doesn't like him as much as they do, doesn't like him the way they do, or would have preferred a different character as Cap, it can only be because that person is racist. There's also the time someone got dogpiled because they said they thought of Korra as lesbian. And that lovely contingent who thought it was just fine to try to get a man fired from his job because they don't like the church they thought he went to and the beliefs they thought he had.

For your third, it never occurs to them to stop and ask if that person really meant what they thought they said, or it was a matter of poor wording. Or to ask them why they think that way. They just assume that they know everything, are automatically right about everything, and their (in most cases) very narrow worldview is the correct one. They just assume that they know where the other person is coming from, when in fact they don't.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh right, I remember the "dogpiling" about Korra. If by dogpiling you mean people kindly correcting the OP by saying Korra isn't a lesbian, she's canonically bisexual. And then people who insisted on being wrong about canon calling the canon corrections homophobic and eventually the OP coming back to say they know Korra's bi and were just using lesbian as a catch-all for wlw because the two other characters featured in the secret were actually canon lesbians.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, it's not "dogpiling" to correct something that's factually wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, it was, and pretty homophobic, too.

[(Anonymous)]

As a lesbian, fuck off

[(Anonymous)]

You first. You must have led a very blessed and sheltered life to never have encountered that particular brand of homophobia where only gold-star gay people actually count, or the version where its OK for people to be attracted to their own gender as long as they keep themselves sexually available for the opposite one.

[(Anonymous)]

Very cute. How about the form of biphobia where someone's sexuality is defined only by their current partner? Or where your attraction to multiple genders means you're somehow tainted and not REALLY queer? Funny how women's sexuality is policed either way, from both inside and outside of the queer community, huh?

[(Anonymous)]

Where does it say in canon that she's bisexual? We know she dated a dude, and then ended up with a woman, but that's about it. She might be bisexual, or she might be lesbian. either way, that person wasn't doing anything wrong or taking anything away from you by headcanoning her as a lesbian.

[(Anonymous)]

SA Besides, Korra is fictional. She doesn't have a sexuality. Other fans are free to interpret her however they like.

[(Anonymous)]

Bryke issued an official statement within days after the finale to confirm that Korra and Asami were bisexual. Whether you regard that as Word Of God and ignorable is up to you I suppose, but that is 100% what the creators intended and wrote into the story. And they found it important enough to explicitly say "they're bisexual" instead of a more vague "they're together"

As far as "taking away from someone" by headcanoning, sure, a headcanon is a headcanon and within your own head does no harm, but when bisexuals face bi erasure CONSTANTLY in their every day life, they deserve to be able to look at even just a silly fictional character and say "she's bi just like me" and not be slapped back with biphobic arguments about someone's sexuality being defined by their current partner's gender over and over and over.

Signed, a lesbian who wants more lesbian characters as much as the next lesbian but supports bisexuals because they get shit too

[(Anonymous)]

The problem with the original argument was that people very much insisting that *based solely on her depiction in the show* Korra could *only* be interpreted as bisexual. And that's not correct.

If you want to talk about Word of God and creator intent, that's a different thing.

[(Anonymous)]

That's a very you problem to be having. Someone's headcanon is their own business and other people are allowed to publicly disagree when that headcanon is presented publicly. Sure, based on her depiction in the show, she COULD be a lesbian, but likewise nothing in her depiction says she's not bisexual either, so it's your headcanon versus someone else's, and the argument ceases to be about queerness at all.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't disagree with you. I think that, based on the evidence presented in the show itself, Korra could be seen as either lesbian or bisexual. If someone thinks she's bisexual based on what was presented in the show, or based on stuff external to the show, that's obviously fine! Great. Fantastic. Wonderful.

The thing that I disagree with is the idea that, based solely on what was depicted in the show itself, Korra could *only* be bisexual. Some people express the view that because Korra at one point in the show is depicted as interested in a man, she can't possibly be a lesbian. And that's what I think is wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

1. They were the ones who started that argument with their policing of someone else's secret and acting like they had The One Truth about the show.

2. As the anon above said, their argument was that Korra could only be interpreted as bi from the show itself, which is both untrue and erases the lived experiences of many, many gay people. So someone immediately scampering in to insist that Korra could only be interpreted as bi felt like a slap in the face in that sense.

3. Not everyone considers Word of God to be canon.

4. Most of the time, when the "but they're bi!" argument gets deployed, it's in defense of het ships. Given that fandom itself feels like it's becoming more and more hostile to slash fans in general even in supposedly slash-friendly spaces, there's some sensitivity on that issue.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT I agree that as depicted in the show, Korrasami could be lesbians or bisexual. However, why doesn't saying they're lesbians count as erasing the experiences of real life bisexuals? The knee-jerk reaction to that claim almost certainly came from experiences of bi erasure--ie, "she's with a woman NOW so she has to be a lesbian." One queer experience does not overpower the other, and both can be hurt.

It's also in this case borderline biphobic to claim this instance is in defense of het ships--it's very clearly not. Nobody in that thread or this one is arguing for Makorra; they are arguing for the bisexual representation of two women in a relationship, and that being in that relationship with each othet does not erase their sexuality, which is something that many many many bisexuals face, so there needs to be sensitivity in return, for other queer women.

[(Anonymous)]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was in defense of het in this instance, just that that's how the argument is usually deployed, thus other people might have a knee-jerk response to it. So, no, not biphobic, just tired of this bullshit.

I think there's also a situation where some bi fans are conflating another fan doing something they don't in fandom like with societal oppression in general. I see this a lot these days, where people assume that anything they don't like is oppressing them personally, when it isn't. They also assume that they own the character and how that character can be portrayed by other fans, which they don't. In the process, they are acting like their experience should and does supersede everyone else's.

Also, to be blunt, the whole argument about creator intent, etc. reminds me a LOT of the arguments that I saw deployed against the existence of slash back in the 90s and 00s, when all characters were canonically straight so writing them otherwise was disrespectful to the characters and the creators and the actors etc. The exact thing being argued about is different but the basic substance is the same.

The person who sees Korra as a lesbian who figures it out later in her life is not taking anything away from the people who see her as bi. They could share the fictional toys, and let other people play the way they want to, but somehow, that just can't be. Just like the het shippers in my old fandoms just couldn't let the slash shippers be. Courtesy and sensitivity go both ways.

I also notice that you tap-danced around my real beef with this argument, which is one group of fans trying to control what other fans can do in fandom.

[(Anonymous)]

You really felt the need to drag this back up however many months later?

[(Anonymous)]

They asked for examples and I gave them. Looks like I hit a nerve.

[(Anonymous)]

Because it's still a stupid as fuck argument and the discussion in the original thread was civil (until people started getting called homophobic for gentle corrections of biphobia)

[(Anonymous)]

You mean snotty condescension and language policing.

[(Anonymous)]

Is the man "getting fired" because of his church Chris Pratt? Lmao I think he's doing just fine and doesn't need your defense.

[(Anonymous)]

It was still wrong to try to get him fired, and the campaign went far enough that James Gunn had to get into it. Whether Pratt's doing fine is immaterial to the argument.

[(Anonymous)]

Nah

[(Anonymous)]

If it's wrong for the right to try to get people fired for lifestyles or political beliefs they don't like, it's equally wrong for the left to do it. Too many keyboard warriors on the left are so far up their own asses that they don't understand this.