Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2023-01-18 04:41 pm
[ SECRET POST #5857 ]
⌈ Secret Post #5857 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06.

__________________________________________________
07.

__________________________________________________
08.

Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 16 secrets from Secret Submission Post #838.
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.

no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-01-19 12:42 am (UTC)(link)Also, headcanoning fictional characters as autistic is good actually and we should do that like 10x more.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-01-19 12:53 am (UTC)(link)There's a reason that even licensed professionals don't diagnose people right off the bat until they've spent some time talking to them/doing diagnostic tests and evaluations. It's not like you can just say "this person does these things, so they're autistic/have ADHD/OCD/bipolar/etc."
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-01-19 12:54 am (UTC)(link)I don't think speculation is intrinsically invasive
If you're going around social media yelling about it to everyone, that's probably invasive, I guess
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-01-19 02:43 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-01-19 03:07 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-01-19 03:33 am (UTC)(link)That would be like me thinking, "Oh this person I work with might be on the spectrum, they do a lot of the things I do." and... that's as far as it goes, an internal musing.
Said person doesn't know I've had the thought, nor does it colour how I interact with them.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-01-19 03:48 am (UTC)(link)I would call it more presumptuous than invasive. If they were to present their speculation and/or "evidence" to the famous person or on a public forum with the person's name attached, I would consider that invasive.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-01-19 04:28 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-01-19 06:29 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-01-19 06:46 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-01-19 07:46 am (UTC)(link)OP's own words. That's assigning. Speculating would be "I think they might be on the spectrum."
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-01-19 08:21 am (UTC)(link)"110% sure" is just an emphatic statement of the strength of their belief that it's a fact.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-01-19 01:56 pm (UTC)(link)Invasive would be if you harassed them (or even their friends) on social media, asking why they haven't admitted their condition and tossing a bunch of "helpful" resources at them, thinking it's your job to ease their life in some way.
Speculating is not being invasive. It's presumptuous (and depending on the reasoning, possibly delusional thinking) but not invasive. But as long as the person avoids turning their thought into an action (and no, an anonymous secret on a comm where the celeb wasn't even identified doesn't count), then no harm is being done.