[ SECRET POST #6163 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6163 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.
[Five Nights at Freddy's]



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.


























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #881.
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

[fscom]

07. https://i.imgur.com/Ft62ncK.png

[(Anonymous)]

NGL it's funniest when OPs arrive going "why would you assume my secret is about [very common occurrence or opinion or complaint]? How dare you assume that I am, or mention that I sound like, one of [the groups of people I sound like]!? Can't you tell that, based on nothing, I am the exception or meant something different from what I literally said?"

I think some people truly don't understand how anonymity works

[(Anonymous)]

At the same time, commenters projecting their pet issue onto even the most bizarrely unconnected secrets and then doubling down and insisting everyone else is just stupid because they don't share their weird as fuck interpretations is pretty wild as well.

[(Anonymous)]

It's because secrets are basically memes. If you put too much text on them, they lose their punch, and a good amount of the audience is likely to teel dear. So people try to make their points concise, which involves leaving some stuff out, and they wind up picking the wrong things to leave out. It's understandable that they do, too, because when you know all the background, it can be really hard to identify which parts of it are essential for other people to know.

[(Anonymous)]

IA and think misunderstandings are natural and to be expected due to what you said. From both OPs forgetting to include things and commenters bringing different sets of experiences to the thread.

Getting mad at commenters for not knowing the stuff you left out though, is real iamthemaincharacter behavior.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Yeah, that's fair. I think the outsized anger often goes both ways, though.

[(Anonymous)]

That does go in the other direction as well though. We often get commenters mad about some left-field interpretation of secrets as well. Which is an interesting aspect of advice columns as well, even when there's enough context to know that the commenters interpretation isn't correct.

[(Anonymous)]

But that goes the other way as well. Why is it so terrible for OPs to get irritated by commenters misinterpreting their short text just because "oh they're not mindreaders, how were they supposed to know the context?". But it's perfectly alright for commenters to just make up the most insane baseless bullshit just because? How are OPs supposed to predict all the ways commenters might wilfully misinterpret their secrets?

[(Anonymous)]

wilfully misinterpret????

But OPs' point of view is universal! The only reason you wouldn't assume the same thing as them is if you're doing it on purpose to be a troll!!1!eleventy! /s

[(Anonymous)]

No but I've seen several really dumb to-the-max bad faith takes here and those were definitely intentional. And again: why is it okay for people to jump on an OP for defending their secret text against misinterpretation but apparently not okay for someone to call certain types of replies trolling?

[(Anonymous)]

If someone is name-calling immediately out of the gate, sure, call them a troll. But name-calling is not "You sound like people who say X", "You sound like people who believe Y". That's not trolling, that's pointing out that either a) OP has beliefs that may be coming from people they don't want to be associated with or b) OP has worded their secret in a very careless way. OP getting all butthurt because people have called them out on their poorly thought-out opinion or poorly worded secret are not trolls. People who immediately go to straight up name calling (asshole, horrible, gtfo, etc) are trolls.

We've had a spate of secrets recently where the OPs couldn't handle not being given the most generous reading of their secret and have called people giving sincere comments trolls who are doing it on purpose. Like, no. Your experience is not universal, people see things in other ways and have knowledge and experience you don't. And you may want to take another look at your opinions and how you present them and yourself if people think you're coming from a problematic place. But that takes effort, so it's easier to assume everyone who said anything even remotely negative about your secret is an asshole who is making up things, even though they quote what is clearly written in the secret....

[(Anonymous)]

Calling someone a racist/Terf/whatever just because of some vague feeling you have about what an OP might possibly have thought with zero evidence is pretty damn trolling and 100% intended that way because insinuating something like that is exactly what a troll would do: throwing out bullshit OTT claims to provoke an extreme reaction/poss someone off. I think you don't really know what trolling is, the way you keep excusing this.

[(Anonymous)]

with zero evidence

The evidence is the text in the secret. If OP worded it so poorly that several people see a thought-line directly from TERF/racist/whatever talking points... then yeah. That's evidence, baby. That's how textual analysis works...

100% intended that way because insinuating something like that is exactly what a troll would do

That's not how real life works... Eating pasta is also something many trolls do. Doesn't mean everyone who eats pasta is a troll. Did you know that 100% of trolls drink water?!

throwing out bullshit OTT claims to provoke an extreme reaction/poss someone off.

Now you're the one assuming the intentions of anons on the internet. How do you tell the difference between someone who is intending to piss you off and someone who just has a different opinion of yours and you're getting mad at it? Just because you have a certain reaction doesn't mean the person only said what they said for the express purpose of you having that reaction. That's a very self-centered way of looking at the world.

In fact... that's the exact same thought process for men claiming attractive women are sluts: the men are aroused, so the women must have dressed that way for the express purpose of arousing them....

[(Anonymous)]

Ngl this. Someone saying "that *sounds* terfy" is not saying "you are a terf," they're saying you sound like one. Or if someone points out to you that "hey racists use this phrase a lot" and you didn't know that, you could... just be like "wtf I didn't know that, I am not one of those things and worded that badly then, here's what I actually meant".

That like, never happens, though. People just double down insisting what they said was perfectly fine then don't get why people are side-eyeing them for being fine with sounding like groups that uh, most people don't want to sound like

The idea of making america great again or whatever is not entirely terrible depending on what you mean by that but using that phrase then getting mad when people assume you're a Trump supporter is. Ummmm

[(Anonymous)]

+1000

[(Anonymous)]

Because the field isn't even. The secret creator is making a statement anonymously to the readers at large and implicitly giving them the opportunity to interpret it.

Like this isn't someone's private blog. This is a secret comm where people post things with the intent for them to be seen and commented on. No one made the OP say what they did and broadcast it to be seen in a forum where such things are meant to be seen. Therefore they are inviting the interpretations.

This isn't to say that every interpretation is correct. Commenters can be wrong too. But if an interpretation *might* be correct based on what info was given, or what contextual or circumstantial info was *not* given, if it's *plausible* based on info or lack thereof, then it's silly for OPs to claim that such an interpretation could not possibly be true and be mad about it and say the person must be trolling or something. Which often happens.

[(Anonymous)]

+1000

[(Anonymous)]

I take forever to get to the point when I talk, so secrets here are how I practice saying things concisely.

In a secret, I said I use FS to practice concision, and someone read it as circumcision.

[(Anonymous)]

I do the same!

[(Anonymous)]

Misreading something is a different issue imo, because that can be clearly proven wrong by just pointing back to the existing text. Funny tho

[(Anonymous)]

How dare you say anons piss on the poor

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I think a lot of secret OPs just underestimate how well known their specific corner of fandom actually is. That said, can't blame people who weren't there for needing more context to get your point.

[(Anonymous)]

But OPs' point of view is universal! The only reason you wouldn't assume the same thing as them is if you're doing it on purpose to be a troll!!1!eleventy! /s

[(Anonymous)]

Ngl I'm pretty dumb and when I occasionally make secrets - I'm often doing it on the fly through MSpaint without so much as spell checking it (I apologize for all the times I've missed the blatant bad grammar -_-). So there's been secrets I'll reread and feell regret for not wording it better :P

[(Anonymous)]

Observing and not participating? Sounds boring.