Mock. Mockmockmock. Mockity-mock-mock

12:59am: "In America" wank, because it was just too purty not to share.
I want the IMDb message boards to have my children. It's just so wonderful there. Everyone is happy and full of joy. People give virtual hugs and bouquets of flowers to each other. Children laugh and sing.
Wait, wait, sorry, I'm thinking of the wrong place.

So in this lovely thread for the movie "In America", monty_clift asks if anyone else was utterly embarrassed by how badly acted That One Scene was. You know, THAT scene. It was in the movie, at that one point...
It banters back and forth for a few posts. Most people seem to be agreeing with monty, that scene sucked acting wise. A few people retaliate saying that the scene was supposed to make you uncomfortable, DUH! A random few others mention that the writing was bad, the actors did the best they could.
The fact that they've all figured out what scene he was talking about in the first place still has me confused. But in general, it keeps itself in the realms of a civil disagreement.

By this point everyone knows that they're referring to the scene between Johnny and Mateo. The inevitable happens when joekay decides to point out that maybe some people are just a little homophobic and that's where the discomfort stems from. Americans get uncomfortable when guys are touchy feely apparently.

Watch the fit hit the proverbial shan. Laugh as it splatters.

I'm gay, and I say that wasn't it at all, therefore you're WRONG

It had nothing to do with being gay 'cause he mentioned loving chicks too, so there. =P

Watch as Joe backpedals himself right off the nearest cliff

It's badly written!
No, the actors just suck!
Stop generalizing about homophobic Americans!
Did not!
Did too!

People stop making sense

One guy actually makes a good point in Joe's defense. But it made coherent sense, and we all know that there just isn't a place for that kind of thing on the IMDb message boards! So it's totally ignored.

After that it stays pretty much on topic with people just debating the original issue of whether or not that one scene just sucked donkey balls. There's some name calling, deleted posts, and a whole lot of Americans versus the rest of the flipping world.

3:53am: You killed fanfiction, you bastards - we report you!
While we've been drowning in the bile wank that is FanFic_Hate, another livejournal community slipped by us.

Enter BadWritters. They take the hate one step further, they just don't trash the bad fic, they report the bad fic!

Yes, they email fanfiction.net and report TOS violations (grammar, author's notes in the stories) and get the stories booted off ff.net! They are the fiction police of the Internet!

They seem to be quite pleased with themselves here in getting rid of the dreck off of ff.net.

The rules for the community are:

This community is for people who are against bad writing and bad characterisation in fan fiction. It's not, specifically, anti-bad grammar (although that comes into it); nor is it specifically anti-mary-sue (though heaven knows it'll feature a few!).

If it's bad, this is the place for it. Post snippets of the badness or otherwise direct our attention to the worst offenders and let's see if we can rid fanfiction.net of at least some of the stuff that earns the site its reputation.

If, by chance, you recognise errors, or you find that it's your story that's being thoroughly shredded, maybe it's time you rethink your writing.

A word about ratings, slash, character bashing and 'ships:
-All ratings up to and including R are welcome for discussion and snippet posting. If it's bad NC-17...well it shouldn't be up at ff.net in the first place ;)
-Slash is welcome (given the explosion of slash writing - and bad slash writing at that - it's just as well!).
-If the fic character bashes, it's automatically a candidate for this journal, even if it's perfectly spelt/punctuated has good grammar, because if there's a character being bashed, that character is probably out of character, or if they're not, those around them probably are!
-As for 'ships, the only rule is you can't define a story as being bad just for the relationship it portrays. Of course, if that 'ship is mis-spelled, badly punctuated and bashes a third party, bring it on!

Long live the Grammar Nazis!

9:32am: OMG GARFIELD IS RACIST!!!one!
I should NOT have gone near the festering stink that is the Garfield movie, in any way shape or form. But I did. I don't know what's funnier here, the real wank in the form of people who thought the original poster was serious, or the pseudowank from those who got the joke...

• "Dude, I get it so much. I was thinking the same thing with Superman, I mean...it's a white guy with black hair. And he's probably only afraid of kryptonite for one logical reason...it begins with a k. Add three doses and that's some deadly sh*t for Superman. And the big S on his shirt OBVIOUSLY stands for slavery. And if they make another movie, they probably won't let Christopher Reeve be Superman, so they're friggin' racist against cripples, too. Man, what is wrong with the world?"
  
  
• "[Willy Wonka] is proof the white man was enslaving the orange race long before Garfield came along."
  
  
• "And what about Nermal...who's grey...and stupid in the movie...they're obviously referring to our senile elderly. And Shrek is green, but I can't think of anything funny enough to say about that."
  
  
• "i think its stupid how racist people always have something racist to say about racism. I mean if there are racist implications that are racially implied by racists, then that's the choice of the racist. I personally am not racist, but I can see the humor in the racist's racist remarks that one can consider racism. Racist racists' race has a huge part to do with the racial degree of the racists' racism. Lets go back and start over with the racist definition of race. Isn't race the color of the racists' skin? My racist point is that every racist is a racist and every non racist is a racist no matter the race of the racist or the racist's racial remarks of the racist."
  
  
• "yeah, and I suppose Bettle Baily shows that hardships of the military????? Oh, and I suppose Dilbert is racist to becau---- who cares? Yeah I'm a tad bit racist because I can't stand to see people who preach equality turn around and get a big fat paycheck and when it comes to other peoples opinions they don't care because they are always right, sure..... I hate political correctness."

And my personal favorite:

• "how can the film be racist? Jon has a color TV"

11:41am: Never bring up two things in conversation: politics or Harry Potter.
The Leaky Cauldron makes a post about Bill Clinton being compared to Harry Potter in the media. I'm sure this causes many to react immediately with a bewildered cry of "What you talkin' 'bout, Willis?!" I expressed the same sentiment myself, in fact.

Turns out the comparison is primarily based upon the only thing that the two have in common: really impressive book sales. For those not in the know: Clinton's autobiography, My Life, has enjoyed a sales frenzy that rivals that of Order of the Phoenix. Any other similarities between the two are being declared by snarky reporters trying to stab at the public's easily pushed buttons. As far as I know, Clinton has never called himself the "Potter of presidents", as the tongue-in-cheek article linked to in TLC's post sarcastically nicknames him.

The way TLC presents the story, as if the comparison were being made seriously and not snarkily, creates a deluge of hybrid Potter/Political wank in the comments, most of them in the vein of "OMGWTF?!" and "How dare you besmirch the sacred name of the Virgin Harry!" Conservatives do battle with the twisted logic of the American Liberal, and arguments erupt over whether Clinton=Voldemort, Bush=Voldemort, or Cheney=Voldemort and Dubya=Wormtail.

Inevitably somebody says, "Great. I guess to you the flag is just a piece of fabric. God Bless the USA!" and it all goes to potterpolitiwank soapbox hell from there.

ETA: Changed the format, becuz paragrafs r goood.

6:55pm: Bite-sized Queen of Wands wank
Over on qow, the community for the webcomic Queen of Wands, duckxxx posts detailing why he'd rather date Angela (one of the recurring female characters) than Kestrel (the main female character).

"I though it would be fun to have a GF that looks 12.
You know to go out to the park and make out, make the soccer moms mad, the usual."

Responses include accusations of pedophilia, pyromancyr's theory of internet humor, and kimnicole getting really worked up about the, um, imaginary sexual objectification of an imaginary 12-year-old who's actually in her twenties, or would be if she wasn't, you know, imaginary.

Oh, and don't miss the other nugget of wisdom from pyromancyr, in which we learn that all men secretly lust after barely-legal ass and all women are just jealous!

EDIT: Drat, deleted. Putting some of the wankiest salvaged bits behind the cut:

( Are you one of those pederasts or something? )

10:03pm: She hates animals!
Ah, friendsfriends list on LJ is such a beautiful thing. You can find wonders if you just look and read.

I have a dog. He's 48 pounds and sometimes he needs a little forceful handling to calm him down, or sometimes he likes to bounce around and chew on his leash. I think all dog owners know what I'm talking about.

These pictures of Orlando Bloom's girlfriend, Kate Bosworth- wait. Orlando's hetero??!!1! Anyway, this just proves that she hates and abuses animals. Or at least according to the anti-Kate people in this post. Is she? Or isn't she? *cue intense music*

Orlando what have you gotten yourself into?