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

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?

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?