[ SECRET POST #2080 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2080 ⌋

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.


__________________________________________________












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 034 secrets from Secret Submission Post #297.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 3 4 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[unicornherds]

Here's the thing, unless you're actually OP neither of us can be right or wrong. You read the secret one way, I read it another. You think OP is a poor soul who is being unfairly misunderstood, I think they sound like a jerk. Either or. There is no absolute way to prove what OP meant. So really, saying that you understood what OP secretly meant and know the ONE TRUE ANSWER is just silly.

Edit to clarify: I don't mind debating secrets and meaning and whatever, what I have a problem with is when people start talking about what OP "meant" to say, like they have some secret inside information and insinuating that everyone else's interpretations are obviously wrong and you are dumb if you don't see that. Which is what you just did.

[(Anonymous)]

There is no absolute way to prove what OP meant.

You're right - there's not. But if you can concede that there's no way to know what she meant, why would you jump to the worst assumption on what she meant and call her an asshole for it?

I went back and read it again. Her secret reads: "I have not and will never ever believe anybody on the internet who says they have autism." Not "I have not and will never ever believe anybody on the internet has autism." Conceding your point that there's no way to prove what the OP meant, her phrasing (though slightly awkward) is highly indicative that she simply meant she didn't believe anyone who said they were autistic was actually autistic. Especially when the only time they claim autism is when they're being called out for unacceptable behavior.

But I'm sorry, I know I'm just splitting hairs at this point. I appreciate you expanding on what you thought in such a reasonable manner.

[(Anonymous)]

You're right - there's not. But if you can concede that there's no way to know what she meant, why would you jump to the worst assumption on what she meant and call her an asshole for it?

Because it's so much more satisfying to get offended and feel morally superior than to admit the other side may have a good reason to feel the way they do.

[otakugal15]

This.

[unicornherds]

You're mistaking a different interpretation as jumping to conclusions.

[(Anonymous)]

Not really. In this case, they're the same thing.