fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #6163 ]

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?

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....

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.

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....

So basically all your overly verbose arguments burn down to "it's only okay when I and people I agree with do it and everyone else is just butthurt". You keep doing the same thing you are accusing those OPs of, over and over again, and then throw out some weird ad hominems to try to gotcha people but honey, no, it doesn't work this way. You have such hilarious double standards and either don't notice it or are doing it intentionally.

So basically all your overly verbose arguments burn down to "it's only okay when I and people I agree with do it and everyone else is just butthurt"

No. I'm pointing out that you're a hypocrite. You complain that people are assuming things about OPs and then you assume things about the commenters. You can't have it both ways. I prefer to react to what is actually said, not assumptions made.

But, and this is a big BUT, words have connotations. A connotation is "an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning." For example: 'The word “discipline” has unhappy connotations of punishment and repression'. Commenters pointing out that the diction leads one to think that OP has some problematic views is not trolling. It's reading the text. This is also part of textual analysis. Die mad about it.

Speaking of, I'm actually surprised you haven't just called me a troll yet. You don't seem to have a way of distinguishing between someone just trying to make you mad and someone who has a different thought process to yours, which then makes you mad.

The hypocrite is you though. You're the one complaining that some OPs have the audacity to not appreciate some people intentionally playing "who has the best bad faith argument" while being completely convinced that everyone doing it must be some perfect rational person who just can't help themselves and can't possibly be trolling even when all evidence points to the contrary. Then you're whining that everyone who doesn't agree with you is just "butthurt" (and seriously, what are you, 12?). All the while doing all the things you criticise about others yourself.

You're the one complaining that some OPs have the audacity to not appreciate some people intentionally playing "who has the best bad faith argument"

Please point to where I said that in the text. I literally just said that people are assuming that everyone who disagrees with them is a troll, and that they're wrong to do so. I even explained the mistake in thinking that leads to assuming every dissenting voice is a troll. I'll wait for the quote you're basing this off of. I won't hold my breath though.

Then you're whining that everyone who doesn't agree with you is just "butthurt" (and seriously, what are you, 12?

If you consider one throwaway line to be whining, you have much bigger problems.

All the while doing all the things you criticise about others yourself.

No? I've been using citations of the actual text to make my point. So far, you're the one making assumptions with no textual evidence to back them up.

F-. See me after class.

And I literally never said everyone who criticises OPs and secrets is a troll, I just said that in some cases they very obviously are, which you keep vehemently denying. I also never said you in particular are a troll, yet you keep alleging that's totally what I'm thinking.

You keep insinuating everyone who doesn't agree with you is "butthurt" and "mad".
So yeah, that F? Right back at ya.

How are OPs supposed to predict all the ways commenters might wilfully misinterpret their secrets?

This is what you said. This is what I quoted to show that I was disagreeing with this, because almost every secret so far where there has been a big fight over the contents, it's because someone (I think OP not admitting they're OP) accuses comments disagreeing with the secret, pointing out that the secret has very unsavory implications, or saying the secret is in line with very discriminatory lines of thought, of being trolls. Right off the bat, accuses them of "wilfully misinterpreting their secret."

You then said this:
"No but I've seen several really dumb to-the-max bad faith takes here and those were definitely intentional."

Again, assuming intent behind the author, and not engaging with what was actually written. You have no more cause to assume a commenter's intentions than a commenter has to assume OPs intent. If a commenter is using the text of the secret, then assuming that they're doing it intentionally to troll is being wildly stupid at best.

Then I asked:
"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?"

You STILL haven't answered. You decided instead to call me a child for using a word you don't like. You're not going to distract me from the growing suspicion that you DO in fact call everyone who has an opinion you don't like a troll.

You keep insinuating everyone who doesn't agree with you is "butthurt" and "mad".

Nope again. I said OPs calling comments they don't like trolls are being butthurt. If I were OP and calling troll over every negative comment, then yeah, I would be butthurt, but I've never called commenters in my secrets trolls. And then, I called you specifically mad. Which you totally are, 'cause you're still not engaging with the TEXT. You're making assumptions over assumptions because there's no textual evidence in our conversation to give your side any support. You keep falling back on ad hominems and emotions.

0/100. I will have to send a report home to your parents.

DA

I will say I have seen occasions where commenters will randomly reply to completely unrelated secrets with like "fuck off TERF" which *are* clearly trolling and nothing to do with anything the secret said. But then most of the other commenters reply to that with like "wtf? where did that come from"

AYRT

That's why I said "If someone is name-calling immediately out of the gate, sure, call them a troll." Like, name calling goes both ways; assuming a secret you don't like is a troll secret and assuming a comment about a secret you don't like is a troll comment. Neither of them engage with the text of what is said. Both are unproductive.

Anon I'm engaged with above flat out said that if they didn't like the comment then it was intentional and trolling. Which is just the commenter version of seeing a secret and going "fuck off terf".

"Anon I'm engaged with above flat out said that if they didn't like the comment then it was intentional and trolling."

Where did they say this?

"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?"

"Certain types of replies" = "dumb to the max bad faith takes" = "troll" IN THIS PERSON'S OPINION. It might not be "dumb to the max" or "bad faith." Could be earnest dumb to the max. Or could be really smart "bad faith" where they have a good point, but said it in a way to try to cause drama. Either way, it's all opinion on this anons part. Quite evident from the language used ("dumb" "bad" "to the max") that anon doesn't like the comment. From there they say "those were definitely intentional" with no basis or support for this statement. How are they definitely intentional? Does anon have access to the commenter's hidden villain monologue where they state outright their intention to troll? Can they read the commenter's mind?

How do they know the "dumb to the max bad faith" take is intentional?

Because anon finds them dumb. Anon doesn't like it = troll.

Did they actually say it, or not?

Except, and this is the point you keep ignoring over and over again, there very much are plenty of cases where the comments were troll comments and obviously so. You keep denying the very possibility of that. And there are plenty of cases where people are wilfully misinterpreting secret because it fits their own agenda. Obviously you can't always tell 100% but it's very, very obvious in some cases. And again: why is it not okay when OPs make bad faith assumptions about commenters while it's okay when commenters make bad faith assumptions about secrets?

And oops, it's almost as if the usage of a certain word that gets used by a certain type of people on the internet gets you associated with that group. You should have known that considering you keep going on an on about commenters having all the right to interpret secrets in a certain way just because the wording is the same as that of particular groups so if you use terms of a 4chan brat it's gets you associated with that, shocking!

And the fact that you keep repeating that the OPs in question are calling EVERY negative comment a troll? That rarely if ever happens. Also, you don't even know if the person calling the troll is the OP in the first place because they sure as hell don't always indicate that. When they do? Sure. But they often don't.

Except, and this is the point you keep ignoring over and over again, there very much are plenty of cases where the comments were troll comments and obviously so. You keep denying the very possibility of that.

No. I dealt with that at the beginning of the discussion, where I said:

"If someone is name-calling immediately out of the gate, sure, call them a troll."

And there are plenty of cases where people are wilfully misinterpreting secret because it fits their own agenda. Obviously you can't always tell 100% but it's very, very obvious in some cases.

I'm sure there are, but there is no way for us to know. To assume from the get go that some comment is "wilfully misinterpreting" instead of having a different point of view, and to call them a troll or some other name is just letting everyone know that you're the asshole.

And again: why is it not okay when OPs make bad faith assumptions about commenters while it's okay when commenters make bad faith assumptions about secrets?

Go back and read my statements. I never said "It's perfectly fine to make bad faith assumptions about secrets BUT NEVER ABOUT COMMENTS!!" I have repeatedly said that you cannot assume bad faith just because you don't agree with it. This goes for both comments and secrets, but the secret we're having this discussion in is talking about comments, and the comment I responded to was also talking about comments, so the discussion is about comments. If you would like to discuss this for secrets, go start another thread.

And oops, it's almost as if the usage of a certain word that gets used by a certain type of people on the internet gets you associated with that group. You should have known that considering you keep going on an on about commenters having all the right to interpret secrets in a certain way just because the wording is the same as that of particular groups so if you use terms of a 4chan brat it's gets you associated with that, shocking!

What does that have to do with anything? What group do you want to lump me in with? The group that doesn't discuss waffles when the topic is pancakes?

And the fact that you keep repeating that the OPs in question are calling EVERY negative comment a troll? That rarely if ever happens.

It's happened at least twice in the last two weeks. So, sure, in the course of history, it rarely happens. But the secret that we're all responding to is talking about this specific "re-occurring theme". Which... which is why we're talking about it.... here. In the thread about the topic of secret posters being mad that commenters didn't read their mind...

Also, you don't even know if the person calling the troll is the OP in the first place because they sure as hell don't always indicate that

Which is why I said: "it's because someone (I think OP not admitting they're OP)". I don't know they are, I just think they are. Because I don't know, I'm not going to act as if they are OP. I'll just keep that suspicion in the back of my mind until they do it enough for me to feel more comfortable calling them on it.

Please go back and read more closely.

D+

The grading stuff makes you sound like a troll.

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

+1000

But in a lot of cases they literally accuse people outright. Ayrt keeps pretending that all anyone every says is "you sound like x" when that is not actually true. Some do, some very much do not. And plenty of the comments that do not are very much trollish in nature.

No yeah if they're literally saying "OP, I am sure you're a terf" then my comment doesn't apply. If they're saying "you sound like something" or asking "do you also believe in opinions commonly held by a certain group you sound like?" that's not them insisting OP *is* anything though

+1000 again.

[ SECRET POST #6163 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject