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]txvoodoo
2007-07-27 02:08 am UTC (link)
I'd say that it comes down to behaving like a civil person, regardless of the age of those around.

And yes, I agree, we have the right to take umbrage against anyone ;) (I'm having HP flashes here).

I'm an aunt many times over, and my family agrees with you - boundaries are necessary. When I've been on aunt duty (not so much in past 10 years, but a lot when they were all kids, not teens), they behaved, or didn't get to stay.

Also, when did all these restaurants become "family places" exclusively? When I grew up (and had to walk uphill all the way in the snow with bare feet, of course! ;)), you were on good behavior in public, and the adult world did not cater to children. A "family restaurant" would be child-themed. If you've got tablecloths and full menus and all that - it's a grown up place to which well-behaved children MAY go. It's not a constitutional right.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]vasaris
2007-07-27 02:27 am UTC (link)
*laughs* I had an HP flash too. She is such a petty and nasty woman, isn't she? (although I do think it was a bit much to make her ugly, too -- I mean, that level of quiet evil out of an average-looking person would have been so much more chilling...)

It's funny, I don't really mind kids at restaurants generally, but maybe I'm lucky and mostly encounter fairly well behaved kids. It might be related to being in the Pacific Northwest where it's just kind of, well, generally rude to wander up to strangers and bother them without some kind of explicit invitation.

But yes, going out to dinner was an event when a kid and very rare to do so at real sit-down places until I was old enough to hold still for the length of a meal. Kid friendly places when I was little had stuff for kids to see and do, or had crayons and placemats you could color in, etc. The push to turn all restaurants into places that are "family/kid" friendly seems strange to me because a) you'd think parents would want time without kids -- theirs or anyone elses and b) kid/family places were special and kind of cool... you know, being seven or eight and going someplace just for you. It was awesome to have places like that. Now they don't have anything to look forward to and/or work on their manners for, and that seems kind of sad.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]txvoodoo
2007-07-27 02:49 am UTC (link)
You are so lucky. The community in which I live is kind of an homage to The Culture Of Child Worship (and not in a Michael Jackson sense). We're all supposed to coo at the little dumplin's when they randomly poke at you when you're sitting in a restaurant. If you don't, you're a godless grinch type.

And yes, entirely agree on your 3rd paragraph. By eliminating having going out be SPECIAL, you totally lose the leverage to MAKE them behave ;) To me, it goes into the entitlement culture - now everyone, of all ages, whatever, is entitled to go everywhere. Whenever. If they don't get to, they're being deprived of their RIGHTS, instead of having it be a special TREAT.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map