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



Little Valkyrie ([info]waltraute) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2010-09-18 12:28:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
This feminist blog which depends on your donations is not here to educate you!
Thanks to the anon at wank_report for the bulk of the writeup, with its singular virtues.

S.E. SMITH accuses Lady Gaga of appropriation:

It's been pointed out that she appropriates a lot of things from musical traditions created by people of colour and nonwhite people. That her work contains transmisogyny. That she appropriates the experiences of people with disabilities. These are all things that I don't think of as feminist acts—note that I am not saying that Lady Gaga is not feminist (because I don't think it's up to me to decide that), but rather that I am saying that her actions do not always mesh with the identity she has chosen to claim. The same could be said of many other people who identify as feminist, including myself, however. Let those in glass houses...

(bonus points for the excellent use of praeteritio here.)

A commenter asks for references and explanation. According to Snarky's Machine, late of the now-closed Shapely Prose, asking for sources is derailing and oppressive:

I can't be arsed to unpack and respond to your comment except to say you're trafficking in copious amounts of derailing for dummies. Your inability to "see" how Gaga misappropriates says everything about YOUR own privilege and inability to google "Grace Jones" and nothing else. If concepts are unfamiliar to you instead assuming the concepts themselves are wrong, you might want to hit up Professor Google. Because the argument, "you're wrong because I don't know what you're talking about." just does not cut it.

Comments defending that commenter get deleted (although some are reposted in the anon threads below). Mods claim to be "reviewing the situation" (i.e., pretending to do something about it). "Open thread" disappears after 20 minutes after irate commenters leave comments there. The current status is "please email the mods directly if you want to talk about comment policy", which couldn't possibly have a chilling effect--not at all.

Snarky's Machine has another reply to that initial commenter on Twitter:

Ha. I love how some weird ass creepy e-troll named whitney is stalking my feed and tattling cause I'm so mean. Who are these people.

People take refuge to complain in several threads in the sfd_anon community. (Which are now locked; possibly accessible if you're a member of the community.) Worth noting are the ones about how Bitch magazine aggressively solicits donations to support their journalism, which puts a special irony gloss on the "we're not here to educate you" rebuttal.


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

Re: At risk of being THAT WANKA:
[info]witty
2010-09-19 01:00 am UTC (link)
Really? Recently? I was surprised that absolutely nothing about the June/July VVC discussions made it to UFB: clearly it was a topic fandom needed to talk about, and UFB had in the past (a year previous) been a venue for exactly that kind of talk. The rumor has been going around for a while now that the mods delete almost everything fandom-related from the queue.

Which basically means that fannish unfunny business is spilling out all over the place, for lack of a place for it. OTF_wank being only one of a whole bunch of places in the past couple of months.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: At risk of being THAT WANKA:
[info]blue_penguin
2010-09-19 01:27 am UTC (link)
No, not recently. I don't know if the mods are secretly deleting fandom-related things; it's just that your initial comment made it sound like it was actually against the rules, which as far as I know it's not.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: At risk of being THAT WANKA:
[info]cygnia
2010-09-19 04:16 am UTC (link)
I know I posted a non-fandom thing to UFB a couple of days ago and got the notice it was in the queue, but nothing about it being rejected yet. But nothing new has been posted there since the 13th. Hence my "backlog" comment from earlier. :-/

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: At risk of being THAT WANKA:
[info]magnetic_regina
2010-09-19 09:53 am UTC (link)
Does it notify when a post you submit gets rejected, though?

I sent something in months ago and received an "In Queue" notice but no "Rejection" notice.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: At risk of being THAT WANKA:
[info]snarkhunter
2010-09-19 12:25 pm UTC (link)
It does. At least, when I've been rejected for a double post, I got a notification.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: At risk of being THAT WANKA:
[info]snarkhunter
2010-09-19 12:26 pm UTC (link)
Huh. Well, they did let the stuff on Runaways and the last Failbender through this summer, but I have no idea about fandom at large.

What's VVC stand for?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: At risk of being THAT WANKA:
[info]witty
2010-09-19 12:47 pm UTC (link)
VVC is Vividcon, about which incredbly contentious argument (and some wank, which was hilarious, but the arguments were intense and unfunny) this past late June and early July. It was happening in lots of personal journals and not in comms, and was hard to keep track of, and was about warnings for vids and con accesibility, so it had a lot of pan-fannish relevance.

If the posting queue is literally months long for fannish material, then UFB may finally hear about it come the new year.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: At risk of being THAT WANKA:
[info]gerorin
2010-09-26 05:42 pm UTC (link)
the one where a group of people was supposedly making snide remarks in Q&A sessions and the likes? (I also remember there's unfunny things about that one, but my head only retain the wanky details, apparently) If yes, I did remember reading about it, and I'm pretty sure it's already on UFB. I wouldn't have heard of VividCon otherwise.

(I also remember a few people in the comm cracking about 'what? I thought it was wank about vivd entertainment, heh'. See what I said about only retaining the silly stuff?)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: At risk of being THAT WANKA:
[info]gerorin
2010-09-26 05:43 pm UTC (link)
Wow, pardon my grammar. -_-;;

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map