fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #1870 ]

[ SECRET POST #1870 ]

⌈ Secret Post #1870 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

20.

__________________________________________________

21.

__________________________________________________

22.

__________________________________________________

23.

__________________________________________________

24.

__________________________________________________

25.

__________________________________________________

26.

__________________________________________________

27.

__________________________________________________

28.

__________________________________________________

29.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 67 secrets from Secret Submission Post #267.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeats ]
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think you missed the part where anon said "it is only offensive when used with the intent to offend." Of course it's going to offend you if someone says it in a mean-spirited way. That's just common sense. That's what they were trying to say, so calm yo tits.

Go google "intent is fucking magic" and educate yourself.

If intent never mattered, then why is it considered in court?

DA. It's *considered* in court, but it doesn't excuse your actions that you didn't mean to do it. Yeah, you get a lighter sentence for manslaughter than murder one, but it's still a crime and you're still culpable.

And in torts, negligence is one of the most common complaints brought to court, and the very definition of it specifies that there was no intent to cause harm.

Intent (or lack thereof) will not erase an act or fix the damage it caused.

but it doesn't excuse your actions that you didn't mean to do it

Uh, yeah, it often does...

Look up "mens rea". The exact level of intent required depends completely on the crime, but most require some sort of guilty mind (concurrent with the alleged criminal act in question) before you can be culpable.

(no subject)

mika-kun.livejournal.com - 2012-02-16 17:13 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

pants4pants.livejournal.com - 2012-02-16 22:37 (UTC) - Expand

If you turn around quickly while holding a heavy object and accidentally hit someone with it and they are injured (lets say black eye and need a few stitches - reasonable yes?). You may not be held responsible for assault in a court of law since you did not intend to hit anyone.

This doesn't mean that the person you hit will be any less injured because you didn't mean to hit them.

Just because you didn't mean to hurt or offend someone with your words doesn't mean you won't.

(Additionally, intent *doesn't* always matter in court. If you perform an action such that there is a reasonable chance that someone might become injured as a result then you are culpable. Maybe you get a reduced sentence, but you don't get off clean.)

Yes, but should a person be bullied and called an asshole and told they deserve to be beaten for accidentally hurting somebody? Should a person be held accountable for doing something that accidentally hurts someone if they didn't mean to? I don't think so.

(no subject)

mika-kun.livejournal.com - 2012-02-16 17:09 (UTC) - Expand

I understand what it means. And I understand the problem with intent. Trust me, I really do. It's not like going around throwing the word "fag" at every person you know tomorrow is going to be received well. We are speaking hypothetically about the possibility that if the intent of a word is changed to be positive, over time the word will lose it's negative connotation. This is a hypothetical discussion, not a literal one. It's nothing to get overly dramatic about. No one's saying it's okay to call people fags if you don't mean any harm by it.

No one's saying it's okay to call people fags if you don't mean any harm by it.

That's actually what everyone here is saying. That is the entire basis of this conversation.

No, it's not. We're talking about intent, and how it could possibly change the meaning of a word. It is NOT okay to throw around slurs while they still have a hurtful modern day meaning. No one has said that. I know at least I'm just discussing the possibility that intent could change meaning over a long period of time.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-02-16 02:45 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-02-16 02:47 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-02-16 02:45 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-02-16 02:47 (UTC) - Expand

Seriously? People are still telling others to read that? Kotaku's SJ articles are better than that tripe.

You also sound straight.

Are you trying to insult that anon by implying they are at fault due to their sexual orientation? Funny, you're in a debate about a term that may be used in a derogatory way against homosexuals, but you're discriminating against heterosexuals at the same time.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-02-16 05:03 (UTC) - Expand

Nope. You should tell that to the people who used to say things to me like "of course you're a dyke, you sound like one!'

I think you missed the part where intent isn't always obvious, especially on the internet, and also the part where words that have been used in an abusive fashion can still be really jarring and upsetting to someone when directed toward them in a non-abusive or ambiguously abusive context. I mean, shit, fandom gets trauma-related triggers when it comes to fic warnings, but doesn't understand how having the word "fag" thrown at them might be triggering to someone whose experienced bullying over their sexuality?

I have a serious love/hate relationship with trigger warnings. A part of me wants to say "You know what? There are no trigger warnings out in the real world, and it is not everyone else's responsibility to make sure YOU feel comfortable all of the time." But, another part of me really does get it. I'm so fucking conflicted.

I can understand that, especially as someone who has triggers that aren't the sort anyone warns for, but it seems like not using words that were and still are used as slurs should be as much of a no-brainer as not putting a surprise rape scene in fic labeled "romance/comedy." There's a point at which the idea of common courtesy applies.

I can definitely see it from that perspective. I do feel that trigger warnings can get a bit excessive, but I also see the need for them as well.

What do uncalm tits do, specifically? Why is the excitability of other people's mammaries of such importance to you?

I've been wondering that myself...

Tits are always important. Always.

I tend to think of hyperactive birds, myself. Someone has some tits and they're making noise.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only