[ SECRET POST #5792 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5792 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 40 secrets from Secret Submission Post #829.
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)]

Totally get why you would be frustrated

But at the same time, the comment you replied to was written in response to others being annoyed that this secret was getting dogpiled

AYRT was basically making the point that if you don't want to get dogpiled for your opinions, phrasing is important

If you don't care about that, don't worry about how you write your secrets

But if you do care about that, there are actually some nuances in the rewritten secret that could be helpful

But yeah, unfortunately this type of issue (unintended dogpiling) will probably affect ESL and neurodivergent folks disproportionately

That said, in this case the content of the secret was blatantly insulting and I think OP knew it would cause drama (or should have known)

[(Anonymous)]

Sometimes no amount of proper phrasing will satisfy the issue because people are being ridiculous and defensive and absurd in their interpretations.

This all reminds me of that quote about Twitter - "There’s a defensive style of writing where you can tell someone has spent too much time on Twitter. You write a normal sentence, then ask yourself how an asshole could interpret it in bad faith and use it to attack your reputation publicly. Then you add caveats."

And like, I'm absolutely guilty of this at times as well. I do jump to conclusions about what people have said. But 90% of the time, unless I'm real sure that the other person is acting in bad faith, I try to at least ask them to clarify before jumping down their throat. Even in cases where someone *is* in bad faith, dogpiling isn't really necessary.

And in this specific case, I totally disagree that the underlying content of the secret was insulting.

[(Anonymous)]

Agree that some opinions will get wank no matter the phrasing

Disagree that phrasing couldn't have helped here

Disagree that the content of the secret wasn't insulting on the face of it, interested to know why you think otherwise (if it is for a reason other than 'but OP said it was irrational!!!1', which has already been argued sufficiently in other threads)

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly!

[(Anonymous)]

This

[(Anonymous)]

+1,000,000