[ SECRET POST #6882 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6882 ⌋

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


01.




__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 36 secrets from Secret Submission Post #983.
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

[fscom]

04. https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/105b23dbfcfd.png

Transcript by OP

[fscom]

Collapsed for length!

Re: Transcript by OP

[fscom]

If a creator you like has done something unethical or immoral and you still like their work and want to separate the art from the artist, that's okay.

You can still enjoy their books, TV shows, movies or videos on Youtube or whatever. If the media brings you joy, then take that because life is short and miserable and we need all the moments of joy we can get.

This does NOT make you a bad person.

Unless, of course, you make excuses for their bad behavior and act like it's not that bad, or that because you love their work, they're allowed to do SOME bad things, sometimes, just because you think the good outweighs the bad. You're not entitled to 100% guilt-free pleasure in media. Manage your own conflicted feelings and guilt without trying to make everyone else give your fave a free pass for doing dodgy stuff, please.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with the first half. Counterpoint to the second half: I get to decide what I feel is "bad" and what is not a big deal.

[(Anonymous)]

yknow the core issue with this, er, issue, is that no one wants to have to give a dissertation to prove that they're in camp A rather than camp B, but for people who love those people and are terrified they're in camp B, that conversation has to be had. damned if you do, damned if you don't. I don't blame people in camp A for being tired of having to prove their cred, but sometimes you have to - not to internet randos but to a dear friend or cousin or something.

[(Anonymous)]

Unfortunately there's also sometimes there no amount of dissertation you can do to convince someone you're not a horrible person overall because you enjoy some random canon, because they consider finding enjoyment in any canon created by a bad person to be the sin. They agree that people aren't entitled to guilt-free enjoyment and by jove they're going to make sure people feel all the guilt they personally think they should feel, which is all of it all the time, you horrible liker of some movie in which a problematic actor had a supporting role, you.

Fandom equivalent of That Guy who brings up factory farms every time somebody mentions eating an egg, and won't take anything but immediately converting to veganism as an answer. Sometimes these are your cousins or friends.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh yeah, completely agree. In a perfect world we'd have understanding friends and family and be able to have those chats and agree that there's no problems, but it's no perfect world. Like I say, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you allowed to do some bad things, OP? How bad? You're denying other fans the right to have a nuanced opinion.
Also please speak for yourself and say that YOUR life is short and miserable.
The thing is fans are allowed to enjoy creations of problematic authors AND have opinions about said authors that are different from yours. Unless you know the author personally please stop with saying your opinion is any more valid than the other fans.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's worth bearing in mind that a secret can only be so long, and OP's secret was already about as long as it would afford to be. They didn't have room to add a bunch of caveats about what type of bad things they were referring to and what type they weren't.

Obviously the question of "Did a person do a bad thing? If so, how bad was it? Is it excusable? Is it forgivable? Should they atone? Should they apologize? Should they even respond? Should they have to suffer consequences and if so what are those consequences?" is a complicated issue that basically has to be taken on a case by case basis, and will inevitably involve differing opinions.

But I really didn't get the impression from this secret that OP is saying every single thing people want to hate a celebrity for is correct and should not be argue with. I think it's pretty clear OP is talking about things where there is objective and credible evidence that the pubic figure in question has knowingly done things that measurably harmed or endangered others.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree, but mostly because it's exhausting watching fans do the dance of how THIS bad thing is completely understandable because of X Y and Z while shitting on other creators who have done far less!

[(Anonymous)]

Some people say you're evil if you continue to enjoy the media. They can fuck right off.

Some people say it's okay to enjoy the media as long as you're not ~financially supporting~ the artist. They can fuck right off, too.

Last I checked no artist in the world was on a trillion dollar pay package, so I'm just gonna unapologetically enjoy what I like, anyway I want to, before end stage capitalism sinks us all.

[(Anonymous)]

Even if that artist specifically says they are using the money they get from their art to fund the bad things and are taking the continued purchase of their things as a sign that people support their bad views?

[(Anonymous)]

I don't entirely agree. I do understand why people take issue with putting money in the pockets of creators who lobby for harmful political causes. However, I do tend to feel like people should worry about their own damn selves, and I do also find it frustrating how little sense of scale, proportion, or pragmatism so many people seem to have on the entire issue of financial boycotting.

And I do think that the fat cats at the top of all our corporate conglomerates benefit enormously from the social propensity for us to unleash the majority of our blame, anger, and demands for accountability onto anyone we feel might actually give us a response. Because that's never going to be them.

[(Anonymous)]

"It's not shameful to enjoy things by problematic creators as long as you take periodic breaks in every discussion about the thing you enjoy to remind everyone that the creator is problematic and self-flagellate for liking the thing, as long as you do that it's totally fine and you shouldn't feel bad but actually you should"

Remember when that was the popular solution? This secret is giving me those vibes.

[(Anonymous)]

Be sure to self-flagellate even if you liked the thing long before anyone knew how problematic it/the creator was!

[(Anonymous)]

I'm as annoyed by the virtue-signaling, morality-policing, "I'm going to pick this one deeply insignificant hill to die on because getting angry at randos for perpetuating the problems of the world makes me feel less helpless and useless and instead I get to feel like I stand for something" bullshit as anyone.

But nothing in this secret was about how people should self-flagellate. The secret is about not excusing terrible things a creator did simply because you can't handle the cognitive dissonance of still liking their work while no longer liking them. Based on the secret, it sounds like OP is totally fine with people liking what they like and actually doesn't feel like it's necessary for people to be apologetic about it at all; OP only takes issue with fans who refuse to allow their stance on the creator to be effected by anything the creator does.

I agree with them on that. I have a couple caveats, ofc, but OP probably has caveats as well, they just couldn't include them in the secret because a secret can only be so long.

[(Anonymous)]

I think everyone has their own threshold where it becomes impossible to separate art from artist anymore. In general, my line is whether the person will gain monetarily from my engaging with their art, but there are a couple people where I just cannot at all (Marion Zimmer Bradley is a good example of that).