[ SECRET POST #5810 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5810 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________


















05. [SPOILERS for Black Panther: Wakanda Forever]




__________________________________________________



06. [SPOILERS for Sandman]
[WARNING for discussion of rape/sexual assault]




__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of transphobia, antisemitism]




__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for discussion of rape]





























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #831.
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)]

Of course he's welcome to his opinion, and I completely disagree with it. "Having a conversation" with people like that is just a waste of time.

[(Anonymous)]

The alternative of screaming at them doesn't really work either though is the problem. Something Stewart is mature and worldly enough to know, and most puerile morons on social media aren't.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

Screaming at them doesn't work, either, I agree. I feel they just shouldn't be engaged with at all, and I hate the ~we shouldn't cancel them~ bullshit. First, grow the fuck up with the "canceling" crap. People are not "canceled", it's called facing consequences for your actions, and no one is owed a platform to spout hate speech.

[(Anonymous)]

Not wanting to engage, think about, talk about or watch ever again is perfectly valid. That they should lose their platform is a valid consequence. And if what people are describing as cancel culture ended there then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But it doesn't. It goes on to perpetrate the idea that everyone who doesn't want to tow that line is somehow complicit and worthy of the same condemnation. And that is rank BS.

[(Anonymous)]

anti-cancel culture is worse than any problems with cancel culture

[(Anonymous)]

person from comment above yours

100% agree!

[(Anonymous)]

Why? Nobody's saying there shouldn't be consequences for actions, what people disagree with is the insanity of not allowing any room for disagreement or discussion. Nothing is black and white.

[(Anonymous)]

This, this this.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

"Hate speech," at one point, had a meaning that most people could agree with. It meant that telling other people they should go out and do bodily harm to [hated minority] was illegal and a punishable offense. The more broadly the term is applied and the further it gets from that meaning, the more ordinary people wind up siding with conservative wingnuts. You can't legislate anyone into civility. You can't impress them with punishments into thinking your side has the right idea. About anything. And when you (general you) try, they often decide you have more power over their lives than they want you to have.

Conservative dogmatists alienate and lose people in this exact, same way, when they pull rank and claim that everyone HAS to believe in the bible. Why? Because.

But a lot of liberals do, too. And it's a big problem, because the issues that people feel like saying "because. No questions allowed!" about are near and dear to their hearts. So, you get the strongest emotion paired with the least convincing argument. "I would force you to think what I think if that were possible, but if I can't, coercing you to TALK and ACT like you believe it anywhere other people could hear you is good enough" is a disaster waiting to happen. And it creates a very personal conflict over what was previously an ideological disagreement.

[(Anonymous)]

So anything less than "please go out and kill those damn [insert marginalized group here]!" doesn't count as hate speech in your eyes? Politicians who, for example, constantly demonize gay and trans people and call them pedophiles are in no way responsible when someone goes out and shoots up a gay club? Media figures who rant about Jewish people behind the scenes controlling everything and attempting to "replace the white race" and politicians claiming Jewish people are responsible for wildfires aren't at all responsible when someone goes and shoots up a synagogue?

"I would force you to think what I think if that were possible, but if I can't, coercing you to TALK and ACT like you believe it anywhere other people could hear you is good enough"

No one is saying that, but violence against minority groups has been rising exponentially ever since white supremacists and anti-Semites and other bigots of various stripes were given tacit support by a fucking president of the United States and a platform by his supporters in rightwing traditional and social media.

Your slippery slope argument is bullshit.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Politicians who say awful things about gay people (or Jews, or blacks, or women who get abortions, or insert so many scapegoat groups here) are being propped up by piles of less influential people who believe those things. The problem isn't that we can't duct-tape their mouths shut, the problem is that the billionaires of this world sleep better at night when they know that the increasingly stressed out and fucked over wage-dependent people that vastly outnumber them are aiming their rage at each other.

That second group - people whose only legal contribution to politics is voting - already feels keenly that they have too little power, and they lash out hard at the idea of people they disagree with being able to dictate how to live to them. (On top of all the other stuff they don't want and don't know how to say "no" to.) And politicians and the media cynically manipulate that, encouraging discord and deepening divisions.

You may be under the impression that no one is saying "talk like you agree with me, or be dressed-down, kicked out of any public space, and erased as if you never were," but that's exactly how threatening normal people's media accounts looks to anyone who isn't already sold on the idea that the expanded definitions of "hate speech" are reasonable. Or convinced that subsequent, future definitions of "what should not be said" will be fair.

[(Anonymous)]

So some people are misinterpreting things because they're uninformed, looking for conspiracies everywhere, and want to play the victim, and the rest of us are supposed to cater to them? Why?

[(Anonymous)]

It's always such a relief to see considered, nuanced comments like this. I appreciate you anon, and I appreciate your viewpoint.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Thanks. I saw your reply and appreciated it.

[(Anonymous)]

"I would force you to think what I think if that were possible, but if I can't, coercing you to TALK and ACT like you believe it anywhere other people could hear you is good enough" is a disaster waiting to happen. And it creates a very personal conflict over what was previously an ideological disagreement."

This needs to be pointed out to just about everyone on every side but especially the left - which was previously my spiritual home.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, sweetie. Believing that some groups of people should either not exist or stay in their place well below yours was always a very personal conflict. I'd say that I'm sorry that it has suddenly become personal to you too, but that would be a lie.

[(Anonymous)]

Anon that the AYRT was RT.

I don't think you have a right to passive-aggressively talk down to strangers. The insults do not make your argument any stronger. They just make you seem vindictive.

And, because I can anticipate the likely reply, "tone policing is always completely invalid!" is an accepted belief in a rarefied in-group. Outside that space, it has been widely rejected. So, when you go for the throat of any person disagreeing with you, because you think your cause is so noble that anyone else around will understand and sympathize, chances are, they don't. They're seeing someone with a lack of emotional discipline. Someone they will avoid if they can, in the future, as opposed to sharing their thoughts with or asking you what you think.

And as long as the left just digs into "no, they're not! Or if they are, that's because they're idiots! Because all of this is totally right!!" We keep having a people-don't-want-to-hear-from-us problem. That we made.

[(Anonymous)]

Totally different anon

I legit clapped after I read this. Thank you!

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Ah, I'm sorry, and I empathize.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, Jon Stewart knows Dave Chapelle, and I don't, so while it would be a waste of time for me to attempt to have a conversation for many reasons, it might not be the case for Jon.