fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2551 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2551 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Resident Evil movies]

__________________________________________________

03. http://i43.tinypic.com/bg9zlf.gif
[moving .gif]

__________________________________________________

[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

04. [SPOILERS for something but idk what]

__________________________________________________

05. [SPOILERS for Frozen]

__________________________________________________

06. [SPOILERS for Bioshock Infinite]

__________________________________________________

[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

07. [WARNING for rape]

[Martin Freeman]

__________________________________________________

08. [WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

09. [WARNING for domestic abuse]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - 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

I don't even know what Duck Dynasty is but I've seen the basic facts of both cases and I don't know why this is controversial. Martin Freeman was just being an unfunny asshole. Phil Robertson said that black americans were happier under Jim Crow and that homosexuality was a moral failing and one step above bestiality.

Only one of those statements outright supports dehumanising and oppressing people. Making light of the crime of date rape is not on the same level.

And it was about a hobbit wanting to bang an elf. Two things that don't even exist. Gay people and black people exist. They're just not even close to being equal.

Reading the thread, it looks like people have a problem with people putting words into people's mouths. Phil Robertson didn't say any of the things you say he did, just as he didn't say a lot of the "quotes" people are attributing to him. What he said was ignorant and intolerant, but it wasn't the things you and other people are accusing him of saying. He never dehumanized anyone or advocated for oppression, he actually went out of his way to say he was against those very things himself. If you're going to get up in arms about something, get the facts straight.

...Wow, you really haven't done your research have you? He *has* said those things [and worse], just not in the interview that started all this shit.

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men," [Robertson] says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers--they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field .... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people'--not a word! ... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

Are these fake? You're right that this isn't directly advocating for oppression. But in my opinion it's advocating for the heavily-edited-to-the-point-of-fiction version of reality that people absolutely use to justify oppressive practices.

I'm not really up in arms, I just don't see them as equatable offences (that was me above)

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/phil-robertson-black-people_n_4473474.html

Yeah, he wasn't dehumanizing black people! It's not like the happy black person stereotype wasn't at all dehumanizing way back when, naw.

This too! Also failing to see the romantic lives of gay people as equivalent to his own, and equating them to some absurd biblical fantasy.

Which wasn't even about being gay. It was there to stop people from leaving for other religions, namely ones that liked fertility festivals.

They're paraphrases, but they're not especially inaccurate paraphrases, especially given the social context in which they were uttered.

Also, "he actually went out of his way to say he was against [oppression and dehumanizing]" - that's not really all that meaningful. Because anyone can say that. It's a question of whether his opposition to oppression and the rest of it is sincere & meaningful, of whether his other words are in line with that sentiment, and I don't think they are.

It's just weird to me that people have chosen this as their hill to die on - because the implications of the things that he said were pretty bad, and also because it just seems like such a random case in which to find people really fired up to defend the guy.

[ SECRET POST #2551 ]

????

Re: ????

Re: ????

Re: ????

Re: ????

Re: ????

Re: ????

Re: ????

Re: ????