Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



ADR ([info]tekanji) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2005-03-15 12:03:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
really, you seem to go out of your way looking for sources of offense.
[info]ratherberucking is at it again. And on [info]drinkissdaisy's post no less. Last time it was chivalry and this time it's gendered language on talk shows.

Now, there are many people (feminists included) who don't take sexism in popular culture as their cause. The first few posters seem to fit in this, but at least they try to be polite.

And then [info]ratherberucking comes up with this beauty:
really, you seem to go out of your way looking for sources of offense. Why not focus on all the real and glaring injustices in the world?

One branch of that wank is ended by these words of wisdom:
some people argue just for the sake of arguing.

Just in case she wasn't offensive enough, she tries to get a rise out of daisy:
then yell at the stay at home moms who watch these shows.

[info]grrangela weighs in with this post:
It's pretty disappointing that every time someone posts to this community about an offensive television show/commercial or some other example of pop culture's contributions to sexism, 80% of the comments are "get over it." Analysis of sexism in pop culture is a completely valid use of a feminist discussion space, and use of the scroll bar is a completely effective way of avoiding it if you don't think it's worth your time. I notice that all the people commenting to say "why are you focused on this instead of [insert thing commenter thinks is more worthy]" are also focusing on this by using their time commenting.

This is just a baby wank compared to the original one with [info]ratherberucking, but with someone so determined to accuse others of "taking offense", I'm confident that we'll be seeing more of this little wanker.

ETA: You guys wanted [info]drinkissdaisy wank? She was more than happy to oblige while I was off having a life (if you can call being in class "a life").
It all starts with daisy's response to another person's post:
[ratherberucking] did that to me in my last post, i think she enjoys turning opinions into personal attacks.

I'm sure you can imagine how it goes from there, but if not follow the link and see for yourself.

ETA 2: Decided to remove the places where I used the word "troll" (I love that word too much for my own good and tend to use it over zealously - apologies to all). Also want to give a belated honourable mention wank to [info]lifeisacabaret, who seems to be one of [info]ratherberucking's most persistent wank buddies in this post.

ETA 3: So, enter yet another* thread that [info]ratherberucking has managed to wank all over. No sign of [info]drinkissdaisy yet, but one of RBR's minions friends, [info]chrissie has joined RBR's team. On the opposite side, today's wank-buddy is [info]pretzelsalt.

Here's the original thread:
What do y'all think of this? School papers have never ceased to amaze me with the decidedly unprofessional things they publish...

Some wank highlights:
RBR starts us off with this: he comes across as an arrogant choad, but I think some of the points are valid. Some women do go out looking like trash and (while this is certainly NOT an excuse or justification for violence) it saddens me to realize they think that's the only way they can get attention.

Lest no one take issue with RBR's not-very-inflammatory remark, Chrissie jumps in with, A WOMAN SHOULD BE ABLE TO DRESS HOWEVER SHE WANTS AND NOT BE JUDGED FOR IT.

After some bantering, Chrissie reveals her minionhood friendship with RBR: Please understand that my comments to ratherberucking are usually facetious as she and I are friends and have the same opinion on many topics like this.

But their banter has created enough interest for the frothy wank to begin:
pretzelsalt jumps into the fray: I would tell you what snap judgments I have made of you but they would be based on your content - not your "vapid twat" persona and I don't know if you play with that kind of depth.

The "'vapid twat' persona" comment, by the way, was an ill-thought out, poorly executed attempt to "call RBR on her shit":
I would agree in full - which is why I am calling you on YOUR shit. As far as insulting you - I called you what you call yourself in an icon. That was me looking at your appearance. Enjoy.

One of RBR's replies to that is as follows:
also, it's so cute when lj users try to "teach me a lesson"

nope. that doesn't smack of self righteous superiority complex at all :)


Chrissie decides to defend her friend, which devolves into a sarcastic back-patting thread including these gems:
RBR: Is it just me, or is the mindset that we can't acknowledge obvious physical differences actually MORE offensive because it implies that different is somehow "wrong"

Chrissie: I find it offensive. But clearly we're wrong since we have, you know, opinions and stuff.

Anyway, there are many more juicy triad-wanks between these guys but I'm too lazy to find them all.

* Three so far: the first one being from Mar 12, the second from the 15, and this one on the 17. I think I've ever seen so much wanking on one comm in less than a week.</a>


(Post a new comment)


[info]sarajayechan
2005-03-15 10:35 pm UTC (link)
The trouble today is that people get offended way too easily.

*random general statement*

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]slothrop
2005-03-15 10:45 pm UTC (link)
I take offense at that generalization!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sarajayechan
2005-03-15 10:46 pm UTC (link)
I take offense at your taking offense at that generalization!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kalika_maxwell
2005-03-16 12:16 am UTC (link)
Should I take offense at you taking offense at her taking offense at that generalization?

I'll just be offended about everything.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sarajayechan
2005-03-16 12:17 am UTC (link)
I take offense at you thinking of being offended at my taking offense at her taking offense at that generalization!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kalika_maxwell
2005-03-16 12:21 am UTC (link)
Yeah well I take offense at you taking offense at me for thinking of being offended at you taking offense at her taking offence at that generalization!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kalika_maxwell
2005-03-16 12:21 am UTC (link)
*offense

Man, I reached the point where I don't even know what that word means anymore.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]sarajayechan
2005-03-16 12:22 am UTC (link)
I am offended that you're taking offense at my being offended at her taking offense at my taking offense at her being-ah, screw it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cleolinda
2005-03-16 04:06 am UTC (link)
I take offense at your use of mildly foul language!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kittikattie
2005-03-16 04:59 am UTC (link)
As a duck lover (not in that way!), I'm offended at your spelling of the word "fowl." All spellings should reflect the glory that is the bird.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]pokecheck
2005-03-16 05:33 am UTC (link)
I had a traumatic experience involving a duck! How dare you be so insensitive to my pain that I never mentioned until you brought it up!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sarajayechan
2005-03-16 05:52 am UTC (link)
Well, I had a duck involved in a traumatic experience once! How dare you be insensitive to the duck's pain!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

i am a sack of traumas
(Anonymous)
2005-03-16 06:53 am UTC (link)
Pain in general pains me, so how dare you mentioning pain in my face like that?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: i am a sack of traumas
[info]pokecheck
2005-03-16 08:36 am UTC (link)
I have a pimple! How heartless can you be to remind me of my facial blemish!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: i am a sack of traumas
[info]rachelmap
2005-03-16 01:24 pm UTC (link)
Points at icon.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: i am a sack of traumas
[info]mydruthers
2005-03-16 05:57 pm UTC (link)
An icon killed my father! How could you be so insensitive?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: i am a sack of traumas
[info]pokecheck
2005-03-16 10:13 pm UTC (link)
OMG! I once got a B in an English class and it's all Shakspeare's fault! How dare you doth mock my pain with your icon!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Anonymous)
2005-03-18 05:01 pm UTC (link)
sarajayechan, I heart your icon.

I had a small but significant crust on Sean back in the day... :)

Back to your regularly scheduled sploodge.
Silanah [lj]

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2005-03-18 05:01 pm UTC (link)
not crust (ewww), but crush.
Silanah

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Anonymous)
2005-03-15 11:40 pm UTC (link)
I don't think it's really fair to single out ratherberucking for being wanky- she is,yes, but drinkisdaisy is a whole field of wank by herself. She seems determined to be offended by -everything-. Women like that make the rest of us feminists look bad. -_-

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]tekanji
2005-03-16 03:50 am UTC (link)
You want picking on daisy? See the other wank. She wanked allll over that. She was barely a voice in this one, so she only got honourable mention as the OP.

If you think she wanked on this post, feel free to post the link in a comment.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]tekanji
2005-03-16 04:29 am UTC (link)
Probably should have posted a response to you after checking out the thread for new developments... Anyway, while I was out a new mini-wank developed between those two, so please enjoy it.

And like I said in my other post,if you can find a good place where daisy lays on the wank in this thread please feel free to post it. I wanted to post some daisy wank, but I didn't see quantity or quality wank by her when I originally posted this.

I also didn't mean to absolve daisy of all wankitude, but I just didn't see anything worth noting when I originally posted. When I first saw the wank, I was actually hoping daisy would flip out like she did last time but (aside from the mini-wank) she seems to be less devoted to responding to everything RBR says. There's still time, though, so maybe we'll see more of this dynamic duo of wank.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ashenmote
2005-03-16 12:32 am UTC (link)
OMG thanks! I hate it when I have to decide on my own who the wanker is. It's so overwhelming! Plus, this way you don't have to correct our misconceptions in the comments.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]tekanji
2005-03-16 03:59 am UTC (link)
Oh, so I can only voice my opinion if I'm commenting on someone else's post? Glad to know.

Listen, you see the function called "post a comment" (I know you did, since you decided to use it to get snarky on my ass)? If you see another wanker, then post it in the comments. If you don't agree with my assessment (goodness knows I'm not the first to single out someone as a repeat wanker), then feel free to rebut it. And, *gasp* I'll do the same.

If you don't like that I comment on my on wanks, then don't post on my wanks. Or, if you just want to bring the wank here, then by all means keep being a wanker. I'm more than happy to wank right back if that's what you want.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ashenmote
2005-03-16 04:55 am UTC (link)
If you comment in your own wanks, that's cool. If you post indignant replies to every comment that doesn't happen to blend well with your perception of a certain participant...that's a little weird maybe, but none of my business. If you drag the ass of this supposed villain over here again in no time, then it starts to smell. And when your post tries to paint said participant, who is a minor opportunity wanker at best, as the supertroll and uberwanker who outshines the most abhorrent inhabitants of greatest_hits?

Then I ask you to take your beef with [Unknown LJ tag] elsewhere.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ashenmote
2005-03-16 04:58 am UTC (link)
Go, me. 'Unknown LJ tag' is the offensive troll person from your post, of course.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]tekanji
2005-03-16 05:32 am UTC (link)
If you post indignant replies to every comment that doesn't happen to blend well with your perception of a certain participant

Aside from the "you win... At wanking, maybe." What exactly were my "indignant replies"?

The only one that I think comes close is where I quote emmazing, but I 1) wanted to quote that post and felt it was a good place and 2) was not intending to be taken 100% seriously in what I was saying, which is why I said directly after quoting emmazing's posts: "Or you could disregard what everyone says and do whatever you want."

If you drag the ass of this supposed villain over here again in no time, then it starts to smell.

So it's my fault that she wanked again so soon? In retrospect I should have just appended it to the other wank, but my thought process was "different post = new wank".

And I'm sorry you took my strong language* as me being a didactic bitch who thinks her baby wanks outshine "the most abhorrent inhabitatns[sic] of greatest_hits". I am merely a didactic bitch who wanted to point out some wank she thought was interesting.

Think of me and my posts what you will. I've said what I wanted to say, and I'm not really in the mood to continue wanking. If you think there's something more to say, or you want to have the final word on this, then be my guest.

* I throw the word "troll" around in my comments all the time and no one has taken issue with it so I didn't think that there was anything weird about posting a wank in the same style.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ashenmote
2005-03-16 06:50 am UTC (link)
Uh hu...I wrote a longer reply to this, but I'm too tired to make much sense and get lost in the unhelpful details. So just this:

I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions (Mainly, that I didn't realize that the wank is highly active and that discrepancy between your post and the wank that I saw wasn't your fault. Until I saw your ETA and comment in a thread above, that is.)

And thanks for coming back with this reasonable and fair reply. I'm afraid I really misjudged you badly.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]tekanji
2005-03-16 07:09 am UTC (link)
I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions

I didn't exactly make the most sense in my original posting. When I saw your comment and the anonymouse's (and also realized that drivingmissdaisy* had been unable to resist the call of the wank while I was away from my computer), I realized that my posting looked skewed toward bashing RBR. So I did try to make a conscious effort to rectify that in my ETA.

Anyway, thank you for your reply. I really appreciate that you took the time to consider not only my response to you, but also my ETA and my replies to other threads.

* See, I wrote that without thinking and then realized that was half of what got me into trouble. I just can't resist making up stupid names for these people... o.o;

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]zaliesiren
2005-03-16 01:04 am UTC (link)
::points to icon::

And that's all I have to say about that kthx.

(Reply to this)


[info]teratologist
2005-03-16 02:10 am UTC (link)
I've always wondered - if I point out that things that seem normal and trivial to others seem just plain weird to me, why is it automatically assumed that I'm 'offended' by them. Oftentimes I'm just pointing out a connection that seems interesting. Even if something does bother me, why assume that I want to OMG censor it or something?

(Just rambling because it seems like every time I tell my otherwise mostly-wonderful partner that I don't want to watch a movie that I think I would find stressful or obnoxious, he acts like I'm going to vote for goddamn Jess Helms or something. It's my opinion! Cope!)

(Reply to this)


[info]chaimonkey
2005-03-16 03:56 am UTC (link)
I find [info]ratherberucking to be quite logical. (So I am much offended! *scratches self*)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]tekanji
2005-03-16 04:04 am UTC (link)
YOU OFFEND ME SIR OR MADAM!

Seriously though, I don't understand some of her logic jumps. If you really do understand, can you explain? Not trying to be a jerk here - I'm honestly curious.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]twocorpses
2005-03-16 04:39 am UTC (link)
Oh my. I'm sorry but this daisy person is just ... ugh.

(Reply to this)


[info]blue_linnet
2005-03-16 05:22 am UTC (link)
oy...ratherberucking seems like she's trying to be deliberately annoying. Not that daisy is much better, but they both seem to be really good at deliberately misunderstanding people.

Also grrangela is not entirely correct. *80* percent? Hardly. Maybe 2 or 3 posters.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]tekanji
2005-03-16 05:36 am UTC (link)
they both seem to be really good at deliberately misunderstanding

Seriously. Part of me is starting to wonder if they aren't both part of a vast conspiracy to make feminists look like wackos. -.-

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nevadafighter
2005-03-16 05:59 am UTC (link)
Feminists usually do a good job of that all on their own. *runs*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]tekanji
2005-03-16 06:04 am UTC (link)
OMG UR SO OFFENSIVE! *cry*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nevadafighter
2005-03-16 07:18 am UTC (link)
YAY! *goes around being offensive*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]tekanji
2005-03-16 07:34 am UTC (link)
Oh, oh, is that how it is? Well.. well... you like drinking milk! Take THAT.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nevadafighter
2005-03-16 07:38 am UTC (link)
Is that like the PC version of "your mother wears combat boots"?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]tekanji
2005-03-16 05:55 pm UTC (link)
Naw, throwback to the "milk = rape" wank that first drew my attention to the feminist comm.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


tourette
2005-03-16 07:53 pm UTC (link)
I believe that was actually on the feminist_rage community, which is a different kettle of meatless fish substitute. It did lead to the mod making that community a closed/apply by email one, though, and banning people that weren't actually members in the first place. Fun! But no more mighty disagreements, alas.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]tekanji
2005-03-16 08:31 pm UTC (link)
Ah, my bad. Those two comms are two sides of the same coin in my mind (and both feature hothead, mistress of wank) and so I get their wanks confused sometimes...

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Anonymous)
2005-03-17 01:57 am UTC (link)
Woooooooo! Snap, I'll need to rember that the next time I run into the roving vegie-whackjobs in Ann Arbor.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]tekanji
2005-03-17 10:08 pm UTC (link)
You'd better, lest I take offense to your not using my CLEARLY AWESOME insult!!111

(Reply to this)(Parent)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map