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



Vasaris, the Fuzzy Dragon ([info]vasaris) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2007-07-25 12:33:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:childfree

How did we get from tattoos to this?
Over on childfree_debate [info]karynthia posts a question regarding whether it's rude to ask to be seated away from the person with the sexually suggestive tattoo because their kids might see it. Most replies involve "er, no, but how stupid is that?" My own response being a bit of the tl;dr, but that's nothing on [info]wight1984.

Beginning with the quite succinct view that the whole notion is rather silly at which [info]karynthia either takes umbrage or sincerely is curious, it's sometimes hard to tell with pixellated voice-tone, we wade into a tsunami of political spooge.

[info]wight1984, not content with her/his/its? belief that s/h/it is right and [info]karynthia is just plain wrong on whether or not making naked women taboo is silly and/or respecting the views of others even though you don't agree is the way to go, continues on and on and on...

No one has the right to be not-offended! The family in question has no right to ask to be seated away from something they find objectionable, nor to try and re-arrange seating so their kids aren't exposed. Behold the power of capitalism at work! If you don't like it just leave! If you do this often enough the owners of the establishment will ban people with tattoos!

Behold! The first of many discussions of how this word does not mean what you think it means! This comes complete with a side order of "What do you mean this idea is classist? Obviously it bears no relation to classism! It's just capitalism at work! I have no problems with rich people being able to unilaterally dictate how businesses function while poor people don't have the money power to do anything about it!"

But wait, There's more! [info]scorpi084 get's in on the act. Nothing, I tell you, nothing good can come from this. Well, actually I kind of find the whole discussion interesting, but, my god, the character-count fairies are out in force.

Again with that word! I do not think it means what you think it means! -- Really, why not? -- This is my definition! -- Your definition sucks and I reject it -- No, your defintion sucks and I reject it.

Let us pause for a brief moment of agreement. Oh! And another with a side order of seasoned curly fries "Let's all be gender equalists because Feminism sucks." and "Clearly you cannot understand me because I hang out with the low brow and the intellectual elite and clearly I understand the world much better than you, dear girl." Is anyone else hearing "Please quit playing in my sandbox, you seem to be pissing on my castle's fortifications!"

[info]wight1984 goes on to break out the dictionary and bemoan the use of the word privlege. I swear, s/h/it and [info]scorpi084 have their ideological trains running with full heads of steam and are shoveling the coal at them frantically in a game of internetz chicken. I wonder who will bail first?

Oh, [info]wight1884, some of your views are actually rather interesting and kind of thought provoking, what a pity you ruin their effect by being a pretentious twat.

Edited to add:
CF_debate is a comm for CF and parents debate/discuss issues involving children, parents, and society -- at least that's what usually shows up. In the main it doesn't generally stir up much wank. The current spoogefest is fairly unusual as the comm goes, overall.

I'd love to say that this is really funny, but mostly it's just chock full of WTF?!?

ETA the second:
The original post that sparked the discussion in question thank you [info]michmatch

ETA the third:
[info]wight1984 continuing to spread the love elsewhere, thank you [info]arabwel. I vote we elect him the TL;DR Wankergizer Bunny. *iz ded from wank*



(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]nevadafighter
2007-07-25 11:06 pm UTC (link)
Not a whole lot different from her usual state of being. Actually disagree with her, and she starts pummelling you into the ground.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]smo
2007-07-25 11:28 pm UTC (link)
Yup, noticed that too. "You will conform to my opinion if I have to beat it into you!"

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ecchaniz0r
2007-07-25 11:42 pm UTC (link)
Well, she's omg bff lol with SWMNBW, so.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]smo
2007-07-25 11:48 pm UTC (link)
O RLY? That explains a lot.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ecchaniz0r
2007-07-26 12:26 am UTC (link)
Ya rly. And describes the flamesplosions as 'funning', which - I boggle.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]smo
2007-07-26 12:29 am UTC (link)
If that's their idea of fun, I'd rather read pr0n.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]come_love_sleep
2007-07-27 02:50 am UTC (link)
...hell. I'd just generally rather read pr0n, full stop.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]smo
2007-07-27 04:19 am UTC (link)
Pr0n FTW!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]squib
2007-07-27 12:09 am UTC (link)
That's... fascinating. Explains much, though.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]vasaris
2007-07-26 01:22 am UTC (link)
*stares at that*

Um. Could I have a translation of that in English. *iz not up on acronyms*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]hallidae
2007-07-26 02:01 am UTC (link)
"She Who Must Not Be Wanked", I think.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]vasaris
2007-07-26 02:34 am UTC (link)
Ah! I think I've only ever seen that spelled out previously.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]onaga
2007-07-26 02:11 am UTC (link)
Wiki has translation and explanation for why she is She Who Must Not Be Wanked (or Named, variously).

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]oar
2007-07-26 12:15 am UTC (link)
Not to mention responding to every single comment that disagrees with her, usually with the exact same one-sentence line of why she's completely right.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nevadafighter
2007-07-26 12:41 am UTC (link)
That was her standard response when people questioned why she was even in childfree when it seemed like she was running here and to stupid_free every two minutes.

She then went through her entries and determined that "only 20%" of her entries were about childfree or something along those lines, and that meant that her name popping up over and over and OVER again was just us being silly and exaggerating.

We eventually got tired of her.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]squib
2007-07-27 12:10 am UTC (link)
I heard she was banned from Childfree. (Too bad it wasn't earlier, or I wouldn't have decamped for cf_h.) Do you have a link to any of that? I need some good schadenfreude today.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nevadafighter
2007-07-27 12:33 am UTC (link)
It happened behind-the-scenes. I think it was one complaint too many and too many posts to stupid_free and the mods said "Enough."

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map