[ 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)]

Look, both your points basically boil down to 'I want OP to be able to express their opinions in public, irrational or not, without receiving criticism if people disagree or are insulted.

Not at all my position. I think that it would be good if the tenor of the response were informed by the context and nature of the OP's opinion, not that there should be no response at all.

I have no problem with people pointing out that their opinion is irrational and not founded on facts (as OP acknowledges). Similarly, I have no problem at all with other people expressing their own irrational, emotional responses to OP's opinion. But I think it does matter how those responses are framed.

It matters a lot to me that OP is advancing their own emotional feeling knowing that it's an irrational emotional feeling and not treating it as a simple natural fact. For that reason, I don't think it's accurate to say that OP is "publicly expressing any thought that enters into their head without thinking about whether it would hurt people." In much the same way, I think it's helpful and more productive and generally better when the emotional responses to be framed as emotional responses, not as fierce defenses against vile unprovoked insults.

You think OP is being scrutinised, when really an organic discussion is taking place for which the tone was set by the content of the original secret, whether or not you or the OP thinks so.

That's not quite my point about scrutiny. I don't think that OP is being overly-scrutinized by others.

What OP has done is express an emotional belief which they feel despite knowing that it's irrational. The response is that this was wrong of them, and that - knowing the emotion to be irrational - they should have never expressed it, because those emotions are bad and wrong and unacceptable. I think that the implied attitude towards one's own emotions is bad. OP should not have to constantly be weighing whether or not their emotions are objectively reasonable, and aggressively quashing and repressing all those emotions which are not sufficiently objectively reasonable. I think that's an extremely bad internal mindset, but it seems to me that this is what people want OP to have done.

And so when I talk about scrutiny and monitoring and hyper-scrupulosity, that's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about internal attitudes and self-regulation here, not about external scrutiny. I think that kind of attitude is very bad and I don't think it should be promoted. It is acceptable for OP to have emotions that are messy and not objectively factual, and if it's OK for them to have those emotions, it's also OK for OP to express those emotions in the proper context and setting.

Also, fundamentally disagree that there is anything inherent to the unspoken social contact of fandom secrets that implies we all need take a second to think about whether someone intended something to be an insult before you comment. I've been lurking here for almost 2 decades, it's always been a wank fest and that's part of its appeal

Oh sure people are always going to be wanky. But if it's being wanky you're after, you can't complain about being hard done by and other people are treating you unfairly. To the extent that a conversation is supposed to be an actual conversation, then I do think it's reasonable to want people to think about what the person actually said before just coming over the top with the flamethrower response.

[(Anonymous)]

To your first few paras, I think I've responded to these points in my other comments and you have just not taken them into account - you may want conversation to occur in a certain way, but that doesn't mean that it will or that it should

You also have repeated in general that OP should be allowed to express their opinion how they want to, but are continuing to say that other people should moderate themselves in response, and are continuing not to address my points re the hypocrisy of that

To your second point, yes I realised after I posted I misinterpreted your point on scrutiny

However, I still disagree. You think OP should be free from having to internally moderate their own thoughts. I agree. I just think OP should moderate their expression of their opinions if they want more civil responses to those thoughts in a public forum. If they don't want a civil response, they don't have to moderate. It's that simple.

You continue to hypocritically say you think OP should be able to be free from internal moderation in public expression, but that all responders to OP should have to scrutinise their responses before they reply. You continue to not address my points on that matter.

Re: your third pont, I don't think anyone except you thinks anyone is being hard done by ITT (in that you think OP is being hard done by by the critical responses they've received). Most people either are agreeing with OP, or saying 'gosh that's rude and silly'. Thinking an opinion is rude =/= thinking you are hard done by, btw. So I agree with your point, because it supports my argument more than yours. For instance, turn your last sentence around - if OP wanted an actual conversation, they could have rephrased before posting.

That said, there has been an actual interesting conversation going on in these threads - and it's mostly been about tone rather than the content of the secret itself. Which I think says something.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah I think my main point at this stage would just be that I do think that OP did moderate their statement, to wit, they acknowledged that it wasn't rational or founded in facts. I think that does constitute moderation of expression in a meaningful and substantive way.

[(Anonymous)]

My opinion aside, from the weight of the majority of comments on this secret, it seems that that moderation was not sufficient to meaningfully nullify the rudeness of the content of the secret