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



Biz ([info]bizzle) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2009-08-13 07:49:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
But what are your thoughts on homosex?
Sci-fi writer John C. Wright does not approve of the Sci-Fi channel's apparent pandering to the "homosex" crowd.

The head of Sci-Fi channel has contritely promised to include more homosex in future shows, and to do it nonchalantly, just as if this abomination is normal and natural and worthy of no comment. The shows will not actually come out and say sexual perversion has no bad side effects. They won't actually lie and tell you homosex won't destroy your life. But they will imply the lie. They will play along.

Homosex. It's almost kind of catchy!

I'd like someone, anyone, to explain to me how my culture reached a position where a public entertainment company can be criticized for failing to contribute to the moral decay of the land, and that the criticism would be taken seriously, and the company would cringe and promise to do better.

Someone explain to me by what series of events persons with serious sexual-psychological malfunctions would somehow be awarded the status of moral arbiters, something like priests and confessors and sages -- except that the passkey to being a guardian of public conscience in our age is the absence of moral value, not the presence.


Explain they do. As soon as the post is referenced in a MetaQuote, the dissenters are off to reply to Mr. Wright. The initial reaction is small, but promising. Most responses are rational and non-inflammatory. Others are quite succinct and curt. A number of users coming in presumably through MetaQuotes announce Mr. Wright's loss of a potential customer, as long as Mr. Wright does indeed use their filthy, filthy Leftist dollars.

Come, my liberal leftist comrades! You openly boast of your superior intellectual power and more profound moral sobriety than we mere working Joes of flyover country (including working Joes like me with a doctorate in law who works in DC). You have anointed yourselves our superiors: that means you are smart enough to explain it. By what logic is the sole and single standard of virtue in your world view an absolute devotion to vice? By what logic is the sole and single sin the sin of having standards of virtue, what you call being intolerant?

'dem sure be fancy words.


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]alya1989262
2009-08-13 02:55 pm UTC (link)
Someone should create [info]food_wank, for funny otf_wanks.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sevendeadlyfun
2009-08-13 03:01 pm UTC (link)
People would just use it as a dumping ground for discussing PETA. I'm beginning to wonder if we should have a comm dedicated exclusively to explaining the difference between funny and unfunny.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]bizzle
2009-08-13 03:08 pm UTC (link)
Then it is here that I will state I found this man's ranting to be funny. If this post is brought to the attention of a moderator and said moderator believes this to be off topic for the community, then I would approve heartily of it being deleted.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]phosfate
2009-08-13 03:19 pm UTC (link)
That's not how we work. We vet the posts for spam and paragraph after paragraph of FUCK YOU. If something is really, really obviously in the wrong place ("I know this is technically OT, but I have a friend with a dachsund who needs surgery..."), we'll reject it. But generally, if you post here, you're left to the tender mercies of the members. And, as you can see here, the members do not always agree.

*rubs hands together, cackles*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[MONOCLE POPS OFF]
[info]bizzle
2009-08-13 03:22 pm UTC (link)
WELL I NEVER. I SAY GOOD DAY TO YOU.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: [MONOCLE POPS OFF]
[info]phosfate
2009-08-13 03:25 pm UTC (link)
*fucking dies laughing*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: [MONOCLE POPS OFF] - [info]bizzle, 2009-08-13 03:29 pm UTC
Re: [MONOCLE POPS OFF] - [info]phosfate, 2009-08-13 03:32 pm UTC

[info]ashenmote
2009-08-13 05:37 pm UTC (link)
Oh no, the poor dachsund! Do you have no heart at all?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]phosfate
2009-08-13 05:38 pm UTC (link)
Fuck those stupid weiner dogs! Fuck them in the face!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mister_terrific, 2009-08-13 05:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rimrunner, 2009-08-15 08:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]librarianmouse, 2009-08-17 07:20 am UTC

[info]cmdr_zoom
2009-08-13 09:14 pm UTC (link)
and while we're at it, a comm dedicated to determining whether something is or is not porn.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sevendeadlyfun
2009-08-13 09:17 pm UTC (link)
I heartily approve of this idea.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cmdr_zoom
2009-08-13 09:31 pm UTC (link)
That's funny... or maybe it isn't. Because I meant that as a joke, and you took me seriously. Or maybe I was trying to make a serious point, and you thought I was just joking. Hm.

Now I'm all confused. What were we talking about?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sevendeadlyfun
2009-08-13 09:53 pm UTC (link)
Either porn or kittens. Those two things are the entire foundation of the internet.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cmdr_zoom, 2009-08-13 10:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]_goblin_, 2009-08-13 11:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2009-08-17 05:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yoritomo_reiko, 2009-08-14 08:48 pm UTC

[info]platedlizard
2009-08-15 12:24 am UTC (link)
We would need lots and lots of examples for examination and study. Lots of study.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]serai
2009-08-15 05:20 am UTC (link)
Maybe the problem is that "funny" means different things to different people. You think?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sevendeadlyfun
2009-08-15 05:24 am UTC (link)
Nothing funnier than some gay bashing, amirite?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]serai
2009-08-15 05:33 am UTC (link)
No, nothing funnier than some SELF-DEVOURING IDIOCY.

Sorry, but funny is a matter of viewpoint. You think there are things that can't be laughed at. I don't believe that and never have. Humans are always ridiculous, whether they're good or evil.

You deal by getting mad. I deal by laughing. Which of us gets to decide how the world runs?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


tree
2009-08-15 01:36 pm UTC (link)
I subscribe to your points.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]snarkhunter
2009-08-17 11:32 am UTC (link)
I actually share your perspective on this--I sort of laugh while gritting my teeth--but this should still be in unfunnybusiness.

I go there *because* I can mock AND discuss shit like this, which is somehow both funny in its insanity, and sad and horrifying in that it brings out people who agree.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]beccastareyes
2009-08-13 03:16 pm UTC (link)
But that would leave out craft wank. (Maybe garden wank? I remember seeing some minor freakouts when a study was published showing that growing things organically didn't magically make them tastier and contain more vitamin C*.)

* Funny, I thought the point of eating organic was that you preferred trace amounts of bugs and manure to trace amounts of pesticides and fertilizers.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ellensmithee
2009-08-13 05:08 pm UTC (link)
Hahaha, this doesn't surprise me. I can't eat organic because it usually contains much higher levels of mold (mold allergy) than non-organic fruit and veggies by the time it hits the shelves. A lot of people refuse to believe that organic could possibly be unhealthier than non-organic for some people.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]phosfate
2009-08-13 05:31 pm UTC (link)
That's ridiculous. Next thing you'll tell us is that some people cannot digest nature's wholesome milk.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sistercoyote
2009-08-13 06:35 pm UTC (link)
Wait.

I am...

- bisexual
- a female gamer
- an English major
and
- lactose intolerant.

So that's four ways I don't exist?!? Who the hell is sitting in my chair, then, typing this?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mercutia, 2009-08-13 07:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mmanurere, 2009-08-13 08:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-08-13 09:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cmdr_zoom, 2009-08-13 09:17 pm UTC

[info]ellensmithee
2009-08-14 07:28 am UTC (link)
If they drank human breast milk like nature intended, they wouldn't have this problem!!!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]pariforma
2009-08-13 06:21 pm UTC (link)
You said "craft wank" and I thought, "Yeah, we don't get enough Wiccan and pagan wank around here."

Could apply to Masonic disputes, too.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]evilsqueakers
2009-08-14 09:44 am UTC (link)
Nancy versus Sarah. Who would win? Oh, wait. Canon said so. Hey, there could be more "Canon got it wrong!" wank in an obscure fandom.

Don't mind me. The internet is dangerous when you're not sleepy at 4:45am and Animal Planet is on.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map