[ SECRET POST #6461 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6461 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of abuse/rape/etc]




__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for discussion of abuse/rape/gore/underage]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #923.
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)]

To be honest, I think this attitude is closely related to an anti mentality (where you can tell whether someone is a good or bad person based solely on their fictional output), which is itself closely related to both evangelical Christian attitudes toward art ("you are what you eat" i.e. the only way to be a "good" person is to only like and enjoy "good" things) and to victim-blaming mentality ("if I can correctly identify who are abusers based on their public behavior, then I will only interact with good, decent people and will never be harmed by predators and abusers").

All of these things are myths. There are plenty of abusers who never publish a fictional work you could use to detect their abusiveness (I would say most abusers, actually, just because publishing fiction is relatively rare). Meanwhile, there are plenty of artists who are not abusers but who do make themselves vulnerable to public scrutiny by publishing their works for public consumption. A person's virtue has no relation to picking out the "right" "good" things to consume and avoiding all the "bad stuff." And some abusers do give off red flags, but the best, longest-operating abusers are for obvious reasons going to be extremely good at covering their tracks and working people and systems in order to continue to abuse unchecked. You can NEVER fully protect yourself just by knowing/picking up on the signs, and the people who get hurt by abusers aren't to blame for trusting abusers; it is ALWAYS the abusers who are to blame for violating people's trust for their own gain.

Anyway, all of this is to say that the "you should have known X was terrible from their art, you should read Y and Z instead!" reactions are just so laughably bad and frustrating, but also not really surprising to me because of how frequently I encounter other anti, purity politics, and victim-blaming attitudes in fandom daily when it comes to fiction. I completely sympathize.

[(Anonymous)]

victim-blaming mentality ("if I can correctly identify who are abusers based on their public behavior, then I will only interact with good, decent people and will never be harmed by predators and abusers")

And then they proceed to misidentify abusers by being a hammer that sees everything as a nail. Oh the irony.

I hope "The Gift of Fear" will one day come into fashion again.