[ SECRET POST #6345 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6345 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 26 secrets from Secret Submission Post #907.
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

Re: da

[(Anonymous)]

Twist it is.

Re: da

[(Anonymous)]

You're the one with mainly outdated stats, hun.

Re: da

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Anon said last 20 years. AYRT used stats from the last 20 years. Not outdated.

Twist indeed.

Re: da

[(Anonymous)]

It's still not proof that cons have more sexual harrassment on average than any other places.

Re: da

[(Anonymous)]

DA

It's the media getting off its ass and reporting stuff that people quietly tell each other about in backchannels. OP upthread isn't the only one who passes on SF cons because they don't need this shit in their life. And I don't know where you're getting the idea that there's some sort of normal amount of assault everywhere else, that would make sexist harassment in cons "not stand out," in comparison, but that's complete bullshit.

Re: da

[(Anonymous)]

DA - nah, they just decided you were worth the time of engaging with to explain why your perspective is skewed. Seems like they were wrong about you being worth their time tho.

Re: da

[(Anonymous)]

0/10 - ad hominem

Re: da

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

Nope. Thinking someone is wrong and stubborn is a value judgement, but it's not a personal attack. Deeming it a waste of time to show sources to someone who demands sources and then makes up excuses for why people should ignore them is, again, a value judgement, but IMO well justified by the way you're behaving.

If they'd called you a rape apologist or a bastard, those would be personal attacks. What they actually said wasn't.