[ SECRET POST #6182 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6182 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 50 secrets from Secret Submission Post #884.
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

[(Anonymous)]

The point isn't being immune, the point is that there is no neutral communication.

Learning to identify "propaganda" as you call it (or bias for a less charged and inflammatory term...) is actually much more useful than coming online to tell other people they should stop watching this or that for "lack of immunity" to it. One thing develops critical thinking and skill in decoding messages, all the while helping people coexist despite differences since they don't automatically shut one another (or conversation between them) down for mere ideological opposition; the other attitude, of not wanting to interact with anything since it can secretly "influence" them, only burns bridges and stalls any kind of dialogue.

Next time anyone wonders why society is suddenly so "polarized", one of the many reasons for it is that people now refuse to interact with anything that doesn't comply with their own standards of what is or not "acceptable", what is or not "propaganda". We're not even talking about outright political manifestos or weirdos saying bizarre things on the internet here, we're talking about watching a television show.

So we stop watching anything written by Tories... What next? Do we only consume media created by vegans because the rest is meat-eater "propaganda" and "we are not immune"? Please.

[(Anonymous)]

The point isn't being immune, the point is that there is no neutral communication.

Given how neutrality as a concept is dragged through the mud on social media these days, this is far less of a surprise than it would have been even five years ago.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, the lack of neutrality based on our simple human nature (by which we are always taking sides) doesn't signify lack of any possible communication between opposing parties ever forever. It just takes a bit more work and a willingness to listen instead of a relentless drive to speak.

One would think people would have understood how to deal with that instead of constantly magnifying whatever problems it brings, yet here we are.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

One would think people would have understood how to deal with that instead of constantly magnifying whatever problems it brings, yet here we are.

From my experience (including in this comm), I think people understand it but either can't or don't know how to put it into action. Unfortunately, there are a lot of issues that are time sensitive, and learning the steps to put this sort of thing into action takes a lot more time than what's (potentially) available.

Likewise, I'm not entirely sure we are always taking sides even by our human nature. I say this because there are so many things happening in the world, and it's impossible to really know the ins and outs of them all. I have seen some people pushing for more use of the phrase "I don't have enough information to form an opinion", and I actually don't think this is such a bad idea. Unfortunately, the abundance of clicktivists (which has been on the rise at a fairly high and steady rate since 2011 when I started my media analysis journey) has made admitting a lack of knowledge to form a solid opinion almost a sin (and an unforgiveable one at that).

[(Anonymous)]

That is taking a side, though, that's not being neutral. It's "I am delaying my response to this until I have better information" -- and it is a very, very good way of dealing with things, especially with the complicated phenomena involving numerous political factors at work in any one given event, indeed. That gives people time to ponder and it's this little "delay" that usually leads us to better decisions anyway.

I'd wager that things are a lot less time-sensitive than they initially seem, though; social media makes everything appear immediate, without priority, as everyone is always posting about something that's important to them at any time of the day. And this taking a step back to analyze what's going on until we figure out what to do about it, this refusal to react simply because we can would make talking to one another a lot easier!

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

That is taking a side, though, that's not being neutral. It's "I am delaying my response to this until I have better information" -- and it is a very, very good way of dealing with things, especially with the complicated phenomena involving numerous political factors at work in any one given event, indeed. That gives people time to ponder and it's this little "delay" that usually leads us to better decisions anyway.

In terms of emotional involvement and cognitive balancing, it's still pretty neutral. And there's a chance that even after reviewing the nuances they may opt to not get further involved and thus not take a side.

(That said, some sense of urgency is justified given how quickly posts online can disappear.)