fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2634 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2634 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Lady Gaga]

__________________________________________________

03.

[free!, attack on titan]

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

(Panic! at the Disco)

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

[Anarky]

__________________________________________________

10.

(Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

__________________________________________________

11.

[Frozen]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 013 secrets from Secret Submission Post #376.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - 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 am really distressed by the fact that you people apparently have no problems with poor sources, as long as those sources give you information that you want to read.

I am really distressed by the fact that you can't get over yourself.

This has nothing to do with me.

Sources matter. I mean, if someone is telling you not to support something, and they link to some website, do you just take their word for it? Why? What if the source of that link is lying? Shouldn't that matter? Why, in this case, does it not?

I think sources should be reputable not because I have some sort of personal grudge but because I believe that truth in reporting is important, and I don't believe that we should support publications that give false reports.

Anon.

kainjinscendre linked to three websites. Even if you think one of them is shit, the other two are not. One bum source does not spell the end of accurate information on the internet--let it go.

My god, no, it doesn't "spell the end of accurate information on the internet." The internet obviously has some accurate information on it. It only spells the dearth of accurate information on that one site.

I don't think inaccurate information should be used in a discussion. And I think that, when it is, it should be called out, even if the other information presented is correct. It doesn't really help anyone to decide that it's okay to use bad information as long as some of the other information is good.

But the whole point of everyone who is arguing with you (and I know there is more than one of us) is that the information is not even inaccurate. And it was information that wasn't available on one of your "blessed" websites. So your basic argument is that "news isn't news unless a 'reputable' site posts it." So whatever that reputable site chooses not to report, whether it's because of political leanings or bandwidth or whatever...we should just not access that information? True, factual information? Because it comes from a source that sometimes gets things wrong? I think that's beyond stupid, it's burying your head in the sand. No source is perfect. None. Some reporters on lousy sites are better and more reliable than others. Some reporters on good sites are worse and less reliable than others. Just putting your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU" when good information is posted on what you deem to be a bad site is ridiculous.

So whatever that reputable site chooses not to report, whether it's because of political leanings or bandwidth or whatever...we should just not access that information? True, factual information? Because it comes from a source that sometimes gets things wrong?

Wait. Could you post a site that generally prints bullshit that nonetheless reports on things that no one else is reporting on? I'm completely serious. I would genuinely like to know about these sites.

In any case, my point is that disreputable sites require a higher level of scrutiny then "this layout is nice, but this layout is ugly," and that sites that have a reputation for being disreputable should not be used to prove a point. Yeah, it's definitely true that no publication is free from bias (hell, no human is free from bias), but it's also true that some publications completely embrace bias and brazenly ignore facts when it suits them. I'm willing to forgive a site or paper that gets it wrong from time to time because the people working for it are human. I'm less willing to forgive a site or paper that gets it wrong because the people behind it are purposely trying to promote a certain POV.

In any case, my point is that disreputable sites require a higher level of scrutiny then "this layout is nice, but this layout is ugly,"

But you know that's not where the scrutiny began and ended. It was more like:

1. Here is a story
2. I'd like more information about the story
3. Hey, these two sites have some additional information
4. They're not the best sites, but their additional information seems to jive with what everyone else is reporting
5. This information is not available elsewhere
6. So of these two sites, which is easier to browse?

It's intellectually dishonest for you to pretend otherwise. Your high horse is getting mighty tired.

Is there some conspiracy among everyone to present exactly six points?

But in all seriousness, my high horse isn't really all that high. I'll readily admit that I'm not above anyone. There'll probably be a time when kaijin is on top of something and I'm not. I'd bet on it. But in this case, she isn't.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest at all. On the contrary, you're adding in a bunch of steps with no evidence to suggest that they happened or that they exist.

NA No evidence maybe, but they are logical assumptions about logical steps. How the fuck does your brain work.

You need therapy. And possibly medication, too.

You do know the information is correct, yes? You do know that your tangent has hijacked the thread and flooded KJ's email, yes? If your answer to either of those is no, therapy alone might not be enough for you.

Of all of the things that I might have done wrong, I'm glad that telling someone whom I know nothing about that they need therapy and medication is not one of them.

heheh your behaviour says a lot about you. you act like my ocd sister so yes to the therapy

What do you actually know about me or how I behave IRL?

Hey now, let's be civil. While I do think DM!anon had an over the top reaction to a news link, we don't want to start diagnosing someone based on internet behavior (if we did there would a lot more psychopaths in the world!).

Heck, I answer ever reply I get on a post in General Chat! Maybe I need therapy. :P

Three hours. You have been obsessing about a link to accurate information that someone posted in a fandom community for three hours. I don't know everything about you, but I know you need behavioral help.

How do you know that I'm obsessing about it? How do you know that I'm not checking back while doing other things?

A lot of conversations in this community go on for hours. Are they less or more obsessive?

You haven't been having conversations, you have been rewording your original comment.

Whether you're checking between other activities or not is irrelevant; you have exhibited unhealthy behavior by obsessing for several hours about something that is inconsequential. Maybe this unhealthy behavior isn't a constant in your life, but this type of behavior usually is. And it really does require professional help in most cases.

Whatever the case, I wish you the best of luck!

What are your qualifications, anon?

[ SECRET POST #2634 ]

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources