fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2545 ]

[ SECRET POST #2545 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2545 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 070 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

this sums it up quite nicely

Don't care about a lot of that but some of it is pretty shitty. Thanks for the references.

Fffff- oh god, not "Your Fav is Problematic". I understand the purpose of the blog, but the mods are pretty awful at times and often put up ugly rumors and put stuff up without evidence.

everything in BC's post is sourced from the man himself, from the look of it.

I don't have any particular knowledge of or opinion on the man, but I do think it's worth noting that yourfaveisproblematic is really not a reliable source for such things.

How so? Did they make up those interviews that he gave or something?

For all I know, those interviews might be the most meticulously gathered interviews on the entire internet. However, that blog had previously done things such as:

-Claimed Marina (ofMarina and the Diamonds) did blackface because she painted herself literally black (with white stars) to look like the night sky.
-Claimed Robert Downey Jr. and John Slattery did blackface... because they played characters who did blackface within the fictional context of the TV show/movie in order to show how awful and demeaning blackface is.
-Claimed Zooey Deschanel was sexist because she said in an interview that actresses' body types might give girls an unhealthy body image.
-Claimed Stephen Colbert was transphobic because he did an in-character satire piece on his show (pretending to be transphobic) that mocked transphobes.
-And, most alarmingly, falsely claimed that author John Green sexually assaulted an underage girl without any form of evidence whatsoever (and then deleted the comment without apology or explanation once a great many people pointed out that no such thing had ever been alleged.)

It's not a problem with this post specifically; it's a problem with this blog's overall methodology, which promotes 'social justice' based on lies, half-truths and unfounded accusations, rather than any form of real dialogue or activism. It's terrible, terrible journalism, and I don't believe that tumblr should be considered a legitimate source, no matter the accuracy of this single post.

I'm not defending the blog-- all I know about it is that some people hate it (and for the record, I followed the things that bothered me in the linked post to legitimate sources)-- and I assume that the arguments were not laid out very well, but I think there's room to disagree with some of what you're saying.

Like the Colbert thing. Satire is a tricky thing. There needs to be some element of mocking the beliefs that you are referring to instead of just parroting them. Sometimes even Colbert, who is generally very good at satire, seems to be going for a cheap laugh instead of mocking the way other people do it.

I'm very curious about what exactly Zooey Deschanel said too. Chances are that I would agree with you, but I'm curious.

(no subject)

masu_trout - 2013-12-22 02:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

sarillia - 2013-12-22 02:44 (UTC) - Expand

I was unaware of some of that, so thank you for the info. I don't really think it's journalism to begin with, but if they're providing legit sources* for a lot of what they list, it functions well as a jumping off point, like Wikipedia and their sources.

*tumblr posts that are someone reacting to whatever fucked up action somebody else did and explaining why they found it offensive count, imo

(no subject)

intrigueing - 2013-12-22 02:40 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

rivia - 2013-12-22 03:24 (UTC) - Expand

Yeah, I was perusing that tumblr and...methinks they don't quite get Stephen Colbert and his persona, which point is to MAKE FUN of white male dickishness.

I think that blog should be renamed "your fave is human and as such sometimes says stupid shit (which most of us have regrettably done before in our lifetimes) but they should NEVER be forgiven because they're famous."

Also I don't really see what wrong with some of those things things he's said? Unless these are the same kind of SJWs who think that people should be burnt at the state for using words like "crazy" and "mad" and thinks that everything should be judged from a US perspective.

"they're human and they fuck up too" isn't really a good excuse. namely because everyone fucks up. even people who make a real effort to not be a douche, it just happens. the important part is what happens next and how the person who gets called out on their shit reacts. take for example, mr. freeman's little bit about "ohhh now somebody's gonna be mad about me because i joked about ~rape~" thing he did recently in an interview. he's joked about it before and gotten flack for it before, he clearly knows that it's fucked up to joke about it, he just doesn't care and mocks people who do care. the fact that they're celebrities is important because a) the massive amount of people who swarm to their defenses (the martin freeman tumblr tag) and b) how this seems to encourage others that it's funny and edgy or w/e and do it too (daniel tosh's gang rape 'joke').

and well, if YOU don't see it and you're not part of any of the groups that he marginalizes... it doesn't really matter. just because you don't think it's offensive to you doesn't mean it's not really hurtful to someone else. there are things and words that i initially didn't think was offensive, it took a while for me to realize that chances are if i didn't experience that discrimination on a constant basis, it probably wouldn't even ping on my radar either.

also: this post is a good sum up of what the blog is actually about and what it's function is.

Edited 2013-12-22 02:22 (UTC)

No. Just fucking no. What the blog's intention is and what it's effect is are not the same thing. Just because they claim to have good intentions doesn't mean that what they do or the way they do it is remotely okay.

Also, why are you constantly pimping the blog and trying to defend it? Because y'know -- what you just said about how it's bad if a celebrity makes a mistake and then repeats it and doesn't apologize -- that's exactly what that blog did with the utterly unforgivable John Green "story."

Which John Green story? I've seen a lot of wank about that dude and I'm not immediately sure what you're referring to

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-22 02:59 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-22 03:05 (UTC) - Expand

Please clarify on the negative effect the blog has?

I'm not trying to defend it either, nor have I been "constantly pimping" it, I think this might be the first time I have linked it, though I might have months ago with something about Amanda Palmer, so kudos if you're remembering that or w/e I guess. I'm only just reading up on the John Green assault stuff (which i think is what you mean by the "story"?) now, though I can't find a lot about it aside from them rewording then removing it from JG's page and him denying it. I'm not disagreeing that they should have apologized, I just don't know if that invalidates all the other accurate (by being simply links to interviews and whatnot) info they've collected.

(AYRT) I will agree that if a person makes a rape joke, and then shrugs it off when they get flack for it, then yes that's a pretty douchy thing to do. However, some of their defensiveness can also sometimes be understandable. If a person is famous and makes a stupid and offensive joke about rape, and then they get scores of people telling them that they're the lowest of the low and deserve to die horribly for doing so, of course it's more likely to provoke a more defensive reaction (from the both the person themself and their fans alike).

I'm a homo-romantic asexual woman, with a mental illness, and from a poorer background, so I would be the "target" for quite a few of those remarks, and I still don't really see what the issue is with a lot of them. I do see the obvious problem in some of the remarks, but to criticise him for using words like "tart," "mad" and "nuts" to choose a few (at least I'm guessing this is what the critique is for since I really can't imagine anything else wrong with those sentences), I think it a bit OTT and just trying to look for drama.

I agree with you on that, I see a lot of people just outright attacking others rather than attempting to educate them on why what they said was fucked up and hurtful, though at the same time it shouldn't be the slighted party's responsibility to educate the other person. There's also the fact that generally speaking, it's not a lot of people who do call someone out on their shit. I mean that in the sense that for every person who tweets "that was a really hurtful thing to say" or something like that to a celeb who made a gross joke, there's going to be twenty reassuring the person that those PC SJW assholes are just being bullies and that they should just keep doin' what they're doin', fuck the haters, etc.

And now that I look at that, those examples do seem a bit trivial I suppose, compared to the others, but I've never been called crazy or mad or nuts and get dismissed (yay me, apparently I keep my mental illnesses under wraps better than I thought) and it doesn't bother me but that's because I haven't experienced being hurt by those words.

I feel like some of that doesn't make sense, I hope it does, I've stared at it for too long already trying to figure out how to phrase what I wanted to say.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-22 16:01 (UTC) - Expand

Thank you! I often think about that; we've all got a friend (or maybe we are that friend) who makes an off colour joke and everyone in the group goes "oh dude, not cool" or "that was too far" etc. They get called on their shit (which hopefully makes them re-examine their conduct) and thats that. We don't suddenly all jump up and scream at them that they should die horribly and are the biggest piece of scum to walk the earth.
I'm not defending the problematic shit that some of these ppl have said, but I think that we are so unforgiving of famous people when we will usually accept the same from someone we know.

That tumblr is basically a platform for the mods to masturbate on how morally superior they are, over the rest of the racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or whatever other shocking epithet they can throw at the rest of the inferior fandom.

The faves are just an excuse.

what did Freeman do?
and offtopic maybe, but why he shows middle finger on many photos?
So confused :/

just google martin freeman rape joke/lucy lui dog.

i read that celebs flip off paps because then they can't sell the images since it has ~profanity~ in it. i'd presume that's why.

Isn't that the same place where they picked apart the oh so problematic statements of Stephen Colbert? Plus, those self-elected arbitrators of what's right and wrong also have the habit of distorting statements for shock value.

tumblr SJ: an all new level of dumbass sanctimonious bs.

you make it sound like colbert hasn't said problematic stuff and that it's outlandish to say so.

Yeah, I'm sure the true SJW can find plenty to get offended by over obvious satire and humor.

The funniest thing, is that, in the end, there's not much of a difference between them and the extreme republicans that watch Colbert as serious business.

What an unexpected response.

Satire is used to show how ridiculous something is, that isn't the case with a lot of the transphobic 'jokes' he's made. Trans* people are used as the punchline for an easy laugh, those comments are not taking down the powerful, which satire is intended to do, it's stepping on the powerless.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only