fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5964 ]

[ SECRET POST #5964 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5964 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

[Murdoch Mysteries]

__________________________________________________

06. [SPOILERS for Reservation Dogs, season 2]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #852.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

That’s fine, but then why did you feel the need to participate in the thread instead of avoiding it? I wouldn’t answer a question about something I don’t like, such as Supernatural, unless the question was about not liking it. Not everyone will like the Muppets, there’s nothing wrong with that. I just don’t get the point of this response. (You have the right to say what you want ofc, that’s not what I’m saying.)

Because they wanted to be part of the discussion. I mean, they're talking muppets so it's still on topic.

Sure, I guess. I just don’t personally get wanting to be part of a discussion when it deals with something I don’t care for at all.

This is hilarious. You're like that bird meme 'why is this not about me?'

I’m the anon they were replying to, and I feel like I fit that meme more than ayrt here. Not intentionally, but still.

AYRT

For diversity of opinion and to hang out on f!s in the general comments a bit. I don't share stuff about my offline life here if it's unrelated to fandom, and the hypothetical about aliens didn't call to me. And I couldn't remember anything that I wanted to start a thread about, tonight.

Also, I get the impression that when everyone who doesn't like something politely avoids it, people who trot it out at the fandom water cooler can sincerely forget we exist. Leading to overbearing pronouncements like "if you don't like Neville Longbottom, you've got no soul," or claims that it's a unanimously agreed-upon fact that Jim Henson was a genius.

I appreciate your clarifying that it was a real question, as opposed to a "why can't you be quiet?"

That’s fair, I understand now. There was a disconnect between what I would personally do and what others might do, so I was curious. Thanks for humoring my weird question, and I apologize for being so unable to stop my keep my curiosity to myself that I put you or anyone else off. Because there’s nothing wrong with your response to the thread.

AYRT

I don't mind your question at all, what you said was clear and thoughtful. And I suspect you weren't the only person wondering about that. Unless it's changed a lot, fandom!secrets has a lot more lurkers than commenters.

I guess i don't understand why you didn't start a thread about hating the muppets then? which would increase your goal of making sure people don't forget muppet dislikers exist, but also not seem like you were deliberately doing some form of non-participation. i can't see this as hanging out as you are responding to someone who is premsing the discussion on willingness to exchange muppets, and diversity of opinion would involve sincere engagement on the topic, not "this is a subject i wouldn't want to think about"

NAYRT - Obviously they wanted to participate because this is a social comm and participating is fun. Diversity of opinion is also fun, and I appreciate them coming in to represent the "nah to muppets" crowd.

Frankly, I find this whole "positivity only" attitude kind of toxic and suffocating. If AYRT had been aggressive and rude about their dislike of muppets, then I would understand your comment, but all they did was express a perfectly valid opinion that related directly to the topic being discussed. It's your attitude that feels negative to me, not theirs. They just wanted to participate by civilly sharing their opinion; meanwhile responses like yours actively seek to shut down legitimate participation.

It was a genuine question, because I personally couldn’t understand wanting to do that. It had nothing to do with aggression or rudeness, because they weren’t being that way at all.

Anon that the anon you responded to was speaking to

I appreciate your standing up for comments that aren't affirmation, per se, like mine, but I don't think the anon you're talking to here was being rude or dismissive to me. I took it as a real "why?" because they were perceptive enough to realize my disagreement was not an attack (and puzzled about what other purpose it could be serving), and careful not to attack me either.

I find expectations of "positivity only" to be oppressive, too, but they're widespread and widely taught. IMO, when someone doesn't get what I'm doing, wanting to get it is the absolute best response they could have.

This isn't "positivity only" though. The topic of conversation wasn't "what's your opinion on X?" or even "hey, did you see X? wasn't it great?" This was a group having a discussion about a very specific topic and someone piping up with "Guess what? I don't like that thing!" and then leaving. Think about the real-life version of this: You see a group of people chatting about, I don't know. Beetles or something. And you walk up to say "I think bugs are gross!" Like, good for you I guess, but it's weird and off-putting that you felt the need to insert yourself into the conversation for that.

You see a group of people chatting about, I don't know. Beetles or something. And you walk up to say "I think bugs are gross!"

This isn't an apt analogy, for a number of reasons. For one, thinking bugs are gross is the majority opinion, so voicing it--while still totally valid--isn't really adding much to the conversation. But okay, say the subject of the convo is butterflies specifically. That works better because most people like butterflies, so somebody saying they find them gross adds to the conversation by virtue of it being an unpopular opinion.

But the other issue with this analogy is that it frames the group who is sharing positive opinions about butterflies as pre-established, and the person who shares their negative opinion about butterflies as an interloper. The others were already there, while the interloper is "walking up." This is not applicable to the current situation, in which we were all already here, in this social situation that is F!S. OP was just as much a part of the convo from the start as everybody else was.

So a more apt analogy would be, "Imagine you were hanging out in a group and the topic of butterflies came up, and so far nobody else in the group had said anything non-positive about butterflies, but butterflies had always given you the creeps, so you said that." Cool! You've just (civilly) added a whole other dimension to the conversation, and I appreciate you for it!

A casual conversation about butterflies where this would be appropriate would be "So, what do you think about butterflies?"

An apt comparison to what we're actually talking about would be "So, what do you like better? Checkerspots or swallowtails?"

Now you've come along to say that you think butterflies are creepy. Cool! You've now turned a conversation about butterflies into a conversation about YOU! No one appreciates you for it, and you probably have a hard time finding people to hang out with you because you're the kind of self-absorbed asshat who has to make every conversation about yourself.

DA
Eh. This is such a non-issue that you're massively blowing out of proportion and especially all the frothing-at-the-mouth namecalling makes you seem like a much bigger asshat than the person you're talking about.

This ^

Agreed.

DA

What you're actually saying here is that the person starting the conversation should have the power to determine whether anyone disagrees with them. That is, that if they say "what do you think about butterflies?" they're allowing dislike, but if they assume everyone is a butterfly enthusiast and move straight to a follow-up question, it's "rude" not to go along with that or stay quiet.

And not just rude. According to you, this "means" a lot of other things about what kind of unsatisfactory, disagreeable person they are. I'm unconvinced.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #5964 ]

Re: If you could replace one character in one movie with a Muppet, who would it be?

nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: If you could replace one character in one movie with a Muppet, who would it be?

Re: If you could replace one character in one movie with a Muppet, who would it be?

Re: If you could replace one character in one movie with a Muppet, who would it be?

Re: If you could replace one character in one movie with a Muppet, who would it be?

Re: If you could replace one character in one movie with a Muppet, who would it be?

Re: If you could replace one character in one movie with a Muppet, who would it be?

Re: If you could replace one character in one movie with a Muppet, who would it be?

Re: If you could replace one character in one movie with a Muppet, who would it be?

Re: If you could replace one character in one movie with a Muppet, who would it be?

Re: If you could replace one character in one movie with a Muppet, who would it be?

Re: If you could replace one character in one movie with a Muppet, who would it be?

Re: If you could replace one character in one movie with a Muppet, who would it be?

Re: If you could replace one character in one movie with a Muppet, who would it be?

Re: If you could replace one character in one movie with a Muppet, who would it be?