[ SECRET POST #7084 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #7084 ⌋

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


01.






__________________________________________________



02. [SPOILERS for Survivor Season 50]




__________________________________________________



03. [WARNING for discussion of suicide]




__________________________________________________



04. [WARNING for discussion of JKR/transphobia]




__________________________________________________



05. [WARNING for discussion of JKR/transphobia, Neil Gaiman/sexual assault]




__________________________________________________



06. [WARNING for discussion of Neil Gaiman/sexual assault]




__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of Michael Jackson/CSA]
























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #1011.
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]

05. [WARNING for discussion of JKR/transphobia, Neil Gaiman/sexual assault]
https://i.postimg.cc/J0Q4RRdK/12.png

Transcript by OP

[fscom]

I'm confused. F!S can boycott Neil Gaiman for being a piece of human trash and can boycott his shit.

JK Rowling on the other hand... I get that. One is a despicable human being who is now a pariah even in his own industry. The other is actively funding a genocide against trans people. Obviously you can be big fans of her work. That is safe.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm confused, too. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[(Anonymous)]

I think they're trying to say FS, the monolith, is A) fine with JKR's works and B) shuns all Gaiman works (?)

Ironically enough, it ended up posted between two secrets above and below them which show this to not be true

[(Anonymous)]

You can be fans of both of their works and still dislike and boycott the people. Not sure where your confusion is.

[(Anonymous)]

>Funding a genocide against trans people
Citation needed.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, so you can't technically commit genocide against trans people because being trans isn't genetic. OP is presumably using the word to mean "mass murder" and if you need proof of that, you either aren't paying attention or are just sealioning.

[philstar22]

Some people use the word in regards to trans people because of the attempts to force them to stop existing as they are. I personally think it is a bad choice of words. But that is why the term is used that way I believe.

[deleted_scenes]

Cultural genocide is a thing.

[(Anonymous)]

A whole lot of assumptions being made here. I don't think anyone's announced a boycott, though there have been sentiments expressed about how people just can't stomach reading Gaiman's work anymore, which is not quite the same thing. Those people aren't necessarily the same people who struggle with letting go a part of their childhoods.

In fact, I think the overall feeling is fairly similar... regardless of how much people liked the authors' works before, nobody is particularly cavalier about continuing to read/buy (if they actually do this, and not everyone does), most people feel conflicted about it. Which is all pretty expected and normal.

[(Anonymous)]

Tbh I've found the opposite to be true, maybe not F!S specifically but the internet at large. People are still finding excuses why it's actually okay to keep watching Good Omens (even if Gaiman isn't involved anymore he presumably still gets paid if the hype has people watching the previous seasons and even if the Pratchett estate owns it now they also likely paid him for the rights, so no just saying 'it belongs to Pratchett now' does not absolve you, sorry) or why they're totally fine for buying the Coraline Skullector doll (but don't you dare buy HP merch even if it's fanmerch that JKR doesn't profit from) or why they can name themselves after a Gaiman character because reclaiming or something (but if you name yourself Sirius or Hermione grow up and read another book). Frankly what this whole thing has shown me is that people love to yell about how you should boycott this thing that they've never liked but when you ask them to do the same to a thing they like there's all kinds of workarounds for why it's still okay to enjoy their thing. And I'm saying this as someone who does not much care for HP, but the double standard is annoying.

[(Anonymous)]

Frankly what this whole thing has shown me is that people love to yell about how you should boycott this thing that they've never liked

Ding ding ding!

[(Anonymous)]

The way proship, anti-puritan fandom specifically, has reacted to JK Rowling, shows they will scream from the rooftops that thoughtcrimes aren't real, until they imagine someone might be secretly rereading and enjoying the old copies of HP they've had since they were twelve.

[(Anonymous)]

Dunno. I just think that NG fans and JKR fans don't really overlap to start with. And people still do watch Good Omens for example.

I've never cared for JKR and I was a NG fan. So it's easy for me to boycott her work. But I have watched latest season of Sandman because for myself I decided that this is enough of a collaborative work and it was made before people knowing how bad he is. But it was kinda shit, so no hyping from me.
I can't reread NG books even if I still own them (I've bought them for artists too, they are really pretty, so fuck it). And I am not going to engage with his further works.

Am I boycotting? Am I boycotting enough. IDK

[(Anonymous)]

My question would be, if you think it's okay to watch Sandman would you extend the same courtesy to, say, people streaming the HP movies, or do those people need to grow up and stop supporting transphobia? Is Sandman a collaborative work and no one knew about Gaiman at the time but the HP movies don't get the same consideration? If you think people should boycott JKR but not Gaiman that strikes me as hypocritical, because you don't want to have give up your show but think other people should give up theirs.

[(Anonymous)]

Charles Vess is great, isn't he? (I'm assuming he's one of the artists you mean.)

[(Anonymous)]

how is jkr genociding trans people?

[(Anonymous)]

Fuck them both, but it doesn't make sense to compare the ways people have responded to their work. Gaiman has way fewer fans than HP has, and his works have never been a crucial part of entire generations' childhoods. It's easier to distance yourself from something that doesn't mean as much to you or isn't as built into the culture in the first place.

JKR has revealled herself to be a monster, and, in fandom and online spaces at least, a lot of people have stopped financially supporting her and any official HP projects. But HP fandom has had a life of its own in ways that nothing Gaiman has made ever has, and finding joy in fanworks is not the same as supporting her.

[(Anonymous)]

You give so much more attention and thought to JK Rowling than the average person.

Now actual genocides? Like Gaza? They get a lot of attention.

Trans people are threatened by certain governments, so stop thinking being online is any kind of activism and get rid of your government.

[(Anonymous)]

Unfortunately, in the UK, where most of JKR's anti-trans money goes, the three current major parties are all anti-trans (Labour, Conservative, Reform) plus the UK still has the first-past-the-post electoral system that encourages "lesser of two evils" voting. In many other countries, the choice is much easier.

[(Anonymous)]

Where are you seeing this? I've seen nothing but revile for JKR.

The issue is, unfortunately, enjoying both Gaiman and JKR's works are fine if you don't give them money and support their new creations. There's nothing wrong with not deleting your old Gomens or Marauders fic, or keeping your physical copy of Sandman or HP. Their crimes happened after they published these works, and while "separate the art from the artist" is spineless apolitcism, it's not realistic to expect people to drop their attachments to decades-old media.

And this is coming from someone who despises both (I think they're hacks), and I roll my eyes at HP and Gomens fans. A part of me still sympathizes because a lot of beloved albums are by musicians with bigoted views or allegations. I no longer support them and pirate all my music, but the relationship I had with the art itself before these things happened is still complicated.

Also that's not what genocide is, for fucks sake.

[(Anonymous)]

Using "genocide" like this only serves to water down the actual impact and meaning of the word. Look at what happened to "nazi" from the 2000's to the late 2010's: people kept calling anyone they didn't politically agree with a nazi and now that we actually have things happening (in the US, anyways) that are extremely reminiscent of Nazi Germany, a large chunk of people shut the alarm bells out because the word got abused so much during that earlier time period.

That said, I have no horse in the race with regards to JKR: I never liked Harry Potter when it first dropped and never got the cultural zeitgeist (and I was in the age range that should've been fans of it) that it was at the time. JKR only became the monster that people say she is because of how they attacked her for a simple essay she did (she was, originally, sympathetic to trans people but because of her abuse history, she didn't want FTMs in cis women's shelters. When people did the equivalent of the "You hate pancakes?!" meme and demonized her, she embraced the demonization and now UK legislation is where it's at now wrt trans persons. Unless there's news we're not missing of mass transgender concentration camps, what is going on is NOT genocide.

I personally think Neil Gaiman is far, far worse because he was one of those "male feminist" types who used that moniker and political stances to prey on extremely vulnerable women. Hell, his rape shit flew in the face of the work his former friend Tori Amos did for RAINN. Sick, vile, disgusting. AND he has a child, who apparently was in the same room when he was having sex with people. Gross.

SA

[(Anonymous)]

* she didn't want MTFs in cis women's shelters.

Curse not being able to edit as anon.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree completely.

[(Anonymous)]

i agree 100% about neil gaiman. he seems like one of those men who knew all the right things to said and said them and really sounded and felt convincing but deep down he was just a piece of shit misogynist just as much as any other misogynist. except arguably worse because he is a wolf in sheep's clothes and came across as being "safe" or "trustworthy"