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]ryuutchi
2007-07-26 06:16 pm UTC (link)
Mostly reasonable. Except... she didn't expect kids at Red Lobster? Isn't it a family-friendly restaurant, like Sizzler?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rekall
2007-07-26 06:25 pm UTC (link)
It seems it was at night so I guess it's possible she didn't expect kids out that late.

If it was in the afternoon or evening though, I would hope she would know kids would be there. The only times I've ever been there was when I was dragged there a few times as a kid since I don't eat sea food.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ryuutchi
2007-07-26 06:34 pm UTC (link)
Well, she says in the original something about how "it looked like everyone had just gotten out of church". So it might have been the afternoon. But I've never been to Red Lobster, just places like it, and even in late evening there are always at least a handful of families with kids.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rekall
2007-07-26 06:50 pm UTC (link)
She also says "The waitress explains that the tables are full tonight" so she doesn't exactly do a good job of explaining when it happened. I really wouldn't know how late kids stay out since it's rare that I go out at night to eat.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]vasaris
2007-07-26 07:04 pm UTC (link)
Huh. Although it doesn't preclude after-church as some have evening services. Unfortunate that the anti-trolling rule precludes popping up and asking. Ah, well.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ryuutchi
2007-07-26 07:26 pm UTC (link)
In the ETA she says that a friend told her "After 8 is adult time. Dress how you feel and how you want and if there are kids there that late, then it's up to the parents to explain it. But before 8 o'clock or anytime you know there will be kids, you should be a bit more discrete."

My guess is that it was probably before eight, although she doesn't make it clear.

And the ETA is WAY bitchy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]vasaris
2007-07-26 07:00 pm UTC (link)
*shrugs* It sounds like she simply hadn't put much thought into it. I don't have kids and I rarely consider that they might be around. Mind, if I had such a tattoo fat chance and saw them, I'd probably put some thought into putting something on over it, just on the off chance a parent decided to kick up a fuss.

I have to admit being with those boggling over her surprise that a tattoo of a naked person would cause offense. I mean, seriously. Even if the art is fantastic and you love it -- naked person. Seriously. It's going to offend someone.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ryuutchi
2007-07-26 08:23 pm UTC (link)
I don't understand really being bothered by a tattoo of a naked person, but I can understand that some people are. I'm boggling a bit at the OP's entitlement-- "how dare I have to consider that some other people might be made uncomfortable by an image of nudity where their children might see" is what I was getting out of her post.

But, then, I'm also boggling at her wearing a tube top to a chain restaurant. Those places are always FREEZING.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]vasaris
2007-07-26 08:33 pm UTC (link)
Oh, yes. It's like, I know you like the art, but love of god, no everyone has your taste. If you get a tattoo of that kind, you have to expect (and frankly respect) the reactions it's going to provoke, otherwise you're just an asshole.

And I'll second you on the "But why weren't you freeing?"

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map