[ SECRET POST #6184 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6184 ⌋

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, 33 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)]

Well... you're making it all about English, my dude.

Why say that "asexual," which uses a prefix meaning "not/without," and which is therefore usually understood to mean "without attraction," is a spectrum that also includes people who experience attraction? We don't say that "without light" denotes a spectrum including spaces with sparse light; we use it to mean "a complete absence of light."

I'm talking about creating, on the one hand, a redundancy in the language; and, on the other, defining "without" as "sometimes with."

All that? Language issue.

Why does, "this person with a slight presence of X trait belongs to the category of people who lack X trait" more accurately capture the human experience than, "this person with a slight presence of X trait belongs to the category of people with X trait?"

Because when it comes to human experience people react to the slightest difference. Our instincts like to have Completely In-Group or otherwise Completely Out-Group. So, if you have someone with the Slight Presence of X Trait, they Do Not Belong to group with Definite Presence of X Trait. They belong with No X Trait, because they're not Completely In-Group which makes them Other. So, socially speaking, they have more in common with the No X Trait group because of how they're treated by the Definite X Trait group.

Also, your light analogy is wrong. We often say that something that is dark is "without light" - but it does actually have light. We just can't see most of the types of light.

We know this because we, um, educated ourselves....