[ 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)]

Whether or not you agree with what they have to say a group of people shunning/banning someone for holding opinions they disagree with is oppressive. They are the minority. You are the majority. You are oppressing them.

In ever instance of this I've seen it's been over wording or something completely subjective. Not someone intentionally being rude. But people take it completely out of hand because their victim or white knight complex is astronomical.

[truxillogical]

To the first paragraph. No. No, that's not how it works. Again, saying it in absolute terms like that means that people shunning/banning people like the Westboro folk are "oppressing" them. That's not what oppression is. It's not oppressive to say "If you can't act like an adult and treat other human beings with dignity and respect for being who they are (as opposed to simple "having an opinion"--something that can change at will), then you are not welcome here."

A guy can charge into a forum with the opinion that all women are cunts or sluts, that female geeks are all "fake geek girls" and that rape jokes are hilarious. That's his opinion and it is a wrong opinion. It is not merely a disagreed with opinion--it is a factually wrong opinion, and massively hurtful as well. And if he does, he may well be shunned by people for these opinions.

That is not oppression.

Wanting nothing to do with someone because they possess hurtful opinions isn't oppression. If it's a matter of wrong speech, as in your second paragraph, that's one thing. Once upon a time, I watched a good deal of SVU and didn't know anyone who wasn't cisgendered, and I had no idea that terms like "heshe" were considered offensive. Heck, recently, in response to the Hawkeye Initiative, some guy went on an incredibly sexist (and just plain ignorant) rant in which he used the word "dyke" frequently. He didn't apologize for anything else, but was very surprised to find out that it's considered an offensive word (especially as employed for his purposes). Still wrong about a lot, but he honestly did not know about the language issue, and stopped that when it was pointed out.

But there's a world of difference between someone being shunned or hated because they're black, Latino, Asian, female, LGBTQ, autistic, or any other number of things that you are born into, and someone being shunned or hated for their opinions, which are things that you personally form and show other people what your values as a human being are. As kids shows are so fond of telling us, it's what's inside that counts, and opinions and values are what's inside. Those are the things that count, that whole "Content of their Character" thing that you do judge other people by. That's not about someone's language (which is messy, and, to paraphrase someone downthread, it's not like there's a monthly newsletter to let people know what language is considered unacceptable and from whom); it's about their opinions.

[(Anonymous)]

You're implying that someone who likes to use phrases like "Runs like a bitch." are somehow akin to a cult like family of religious nutters. And even if the Westboro "Church" say fucking awful things they've never acted out against people. Most of their pickets of funerals has been so far away the family never know. Most of their protests have been met with counter protests. They're a joke. They are not oppressive. They are idiots. Nothing they have done has effected anyone's rights. And.. from what I've heard they may have crazy opinions but they're fairly nice people willing to talk to you (or talk down to you) rather civilly.

Words are words. They are not oppressive unless you let them effect your life. Actions and legislation are oppressive.

[(Anonymous)]

This. Oh my goodness, this. And it's such an important distinction.

This got longer than I expected.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

You can change your opinions, but they're still a part of who you are, and they fit in with everything else you are. Changing them (IMO, obviously,) should be about aligning yourself with the truth, not about fitting into a group more seamlessly. The fact that your opinions are not immutable doesn't mean they are, or should be, completely negotiable.

I agree with the importance of treating people with dignity and respect. That's exactly why I don't believe in kicking them out of my life for myriad flimsy reasons heatedly proposed on the internet. Minorities get that respect from me, and so does everyone else. I make the distinction between how people treat each other and what opinions they hold by looking at their actions. That's a test that many loud, self-proclaimed good people don't pass, and a surprising number of people who say shocking things do.

I feel like I have a right to criticize someone when I care about them and want them to be a better person. That's also the kind of arguing that I've found effects actual, long-term change. It's not "I'll cut off contact and tell everyone how horrible you are if you don't do this," it's "you're my friend and I want you to extend your caring to this group of people that I believe are worthwhile and sympathetic." There's no thundering YOU SHOULD, partly because I don't like that, and partly because I don't need it to get my point across. I've seen little old ladies correct their friends very effectively - "you know, it's not Christian to use the word 'nigger'" - and while that specific example isn't my style, I want more of that in activist discourse: the sense that what we're doing and saying should be making things right for all people. Building relationships, instead of destroying them.

I have nothing against avoiding someone, if what you've heard from them disagrees with you. And I have nothing against kicking a person out of a community if they can't seem to stop proselytizing (i.e. that evangelical Christian in an rp who was making a nuisance of herself). But I'm completely opposed to pressuring people, in fandom, to shun and villify other people for believing things they disagree with.

I don't know where any other person got their values, or why they believe what they believe. They get a chance with me based on how they relate to me. And if it turns out that they're harmful to others, I see if something can be done about that. Generally, the answer is yes.

We need to stop acting like adults are set in stone, to such an extent that verbal sledgehammers are needed! We need to give the kind of help we'd like to get, and would be willing to accept. There's countless unjust things to be angry about, but no one signed up to be a punching bag, or the stand-in for all of them. And scapegoating is not good activism.