[ SECRET POST #2188 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2188 ⌋

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: 05 pages, 102 secrets from Secret Submission Post #313.
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)]

"Tone argument" used to have a meaningful definition, before it was repurposed to mean "don't criticize our methods, ever." Sometimes, detractors would enter activist spaces and try to stop the activity taking place (particularly when it was being effective) by saying "wait, wait, you're doing it wrong!" That absolutely did not mean that confronting people when they were being ineffective or counterproductive was taboo. If our goal is getting stuff done, there's nothing heretical about trying to assess if what we're doing is effective. Some of the more visible straw-activists of every stripe have been agent-saboteurs, posing as radicals to discredit the movement. It worries me that I wouldn't even know how to begin to tell those apart from the SJW faction online.

[kittenmommy]

You know, it never even occurred to me that some of them might be trolls/saboteurs. It makes sense, I have to admit.

[(Anonymous)]

It's been in the back of my mind ever since I read articles about the US government giving a number of internet Psyops the go-ahead.

[kittenmommy]

Well, if it's trolls who are trying to make marginalized people and their actual allies look like humorless, abusive, bullying assholes, they're doing a spectacular job of it!

[thene]

It's terrifyingly non-impossible.

Seeing as we're still talking here, I just chased up a few recent articles from memory, as examples of how this shit has played out in IRL activist groups that have fallen under scrutiny from government:

The Long Con: Anatomy of a Two-Year Undercover Sting and What It Has to Do with Law Enforcement’s Habit of Wasting Large Amounts of Money on Investigating People for Their Social Habits and Political Beliefs (this site carries small NSFW personal ads in the sidebars)

Undercover police officer unlawfully spied on climate activists, judges rule: Mark Kennedy was arguably an agent provocateur, says appeal verdict quashing Ratcliffe-on-Soar conspiracy convictions (From the UK: I've read better story articles about this same case, but tl;dr an undercover cop switched sides, got overinvolved in the environmental activism he was meant to be investigating, got a bunch of people arrested, and they got their convictions quashed).

Reclaim The Cyber Commons (About mass astroturfing organised by, variously, the Tea Party and the Chinese government.)

ETA, I opened this in a tab and then forgot to link it: How FBI Entrapment Is Inventing 'Terrorists' - and Letting Bad Guys Off the Hook

...So, yeah. I can't rule it out although I feel like it's an unlikely angle of interference. I mean. It's tumblr and everyone's 14 and trying to tell each other which words not to use and what to be mad about.

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks for the links, will read.

Re unlikely: Except for the fact that a few years back, the US gov had an unhealthy fascination with twitter, and how it might be good for inciting revolutions. They might be selecting platforms that don't require as much relationship-forming and in-depth conversation, so as to broadcast more of a signal.

[insanenoodlyguy]

You might be giving them too much credit.

As an admitted troll, I wouldn't say I've set out to fuck with a movement. Or necessarily others.

I mean, sure, if you see a bugfuck crazy group on the internet it'd be fun to fuck with, that's part of your motivation, but the primary purpose of doing it isn't an ideological clash to maintain the white patriarchy.

Usually it's because it's funny to set them off. Classic elementary school entertainment in the digital age of manchildren.

[(Anonymous)]

I might. But some of the SJW tactics I've seen don't look like straight-up trolling to me at all. They look like rat-fucking, which is an old Republican party term for posing as the opposition and then doing things that attract negative attention from the public at large.

It first occurred to me that some of the SJWs sounded like conservatives in disguise when I heard about their reviling interracial marriage. Then other things, like the fact that they're ... unwilling? unable? to actually say what their side stands for or why they're speaking out against [whatever] made more sense. Saboteurs don't want to give anyone who doesn't know about the ideology of the group they're infiltrating reasons to agree with it. They want it to stay off-putting and foreign.

The other thing that really struck me was how much the SJW tone had in common with the way right wing pundits argue and harangue. The left has a tradition of I'm educated being a badge of honor. You establish your credentials in the group by speaking eloquently, not by making emotional appeals. And there's sort of a ... "first person to be reduced to insults and rage loses" rule. This is not the case in activist safe spaces, where venting is allowed, but it is very much the case in terms of how they present themselves to the world at large. Liberals, even radical liberals, believe in educating and convincing people that the world should change in X, Y, and Z ways.

TL;DR Bullying, threatening, and mobbing are all antithetical to improving the way the majority feels about any mistreated minority. A person who actually wants to help the cause they're acting as a spokesperson for should know this. So I'm not sure what they SJWs game is, but when I can't tell the difference between [whatever they are] and intentional sabotage, there's something very wrong.

[kittenmommy]

So I'm not sure what they SJWs game is, but when I can't tell the difference between [whatever they are] and intentional sabotage, there's something very wrong.

YES.

[fuchsiascreams]

What the fuck? Why the hell would they be against interracial marriage?

[(Anonymous)]

The gist was that it was bad because the white person *must* be fetishizing the POC. Who is only in the relationship because of internalized self-hate. Seriously, it was a fucking train wreck of offensive assumptions. But it had the one, positive effect of breaking the SJWs credibility, in the eyes of a lot of people who'd been cutting them slack, before.