fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #6163 ]

[ SECRET POST #6163 ]

⌈ 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ 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