Sometimes, there are no words.

_dahne_ writes a screed about how being "PC" has gone too far.

I don't even know what to say about this, other than someone needs to have their privilege checked. Badly. (Except, of course, that "Privilege, like 'troll' or 'fail' can now mean whatever we want it to mean, so my little statement there is apparently OPPRESHUN of her truth. Or something.)

I count sexism, ablism, heterocentrism, and I'm pretty sure racism in this one sentence alone:

The male side of fandom runs around calling each other niggerfaggots while the female side has earnest ten-page debates on whether calling something crazy is ablist.

(Emphasis hers)

Because the boys doing that is totes okay, y'all, and the girls should be doing the same thing. And men never, ever talk about whether what they're saying is hurtful to other people or not, 'cause that's girly stuff. (Hey, wankaboys, come and sit in the invisible corner with us bisexuals, English majors, and ampersands.)

And then there's this:

Like the idea of "tone argument." At its core, this makes sense; it's meant to address the idea that abused classes of people shouldn't have to be deferential to their abusers in order to be listened to.

In practice, what it means is, "I'm allowed to be an asshole as long as I'm really, really sure I'm right."

I just...I can't. I mean, the tools of the master will never tear down the master's house, but come on. By refusing to accept the tenets of the tone argument, we're bullying the people in power?

Whut?

And both examples are from the first seven paragraphs of her little screed. There's also kind of a priceless gem in there about Fandom_Wank being a "prime vector" for "too much" political correctness.

And I think the worst bit is (as far as I could tell before the comments were pushing me to the ragey point) she's not getting any disagreement.

I would love to be able to write a thoughtful rebuttal that might be as widespread in fandom as this one's (apparently) getting, but I'm afraid my brain keeps hanging up on What Is This I Don't Even.

ETA:

t_boy found swordygardner's response which is a breath of fresh air in amongst all that fail. ETA 2: In fact, pretty much all of page 2 of the comments (which is about the point she turned off anon commenting, I'll bet you), is pretty awesome.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

staroverthebay
2011-01-22 03:11 am UTC (link)

I admit that I was at first kind of swayed by what _dahne_ wrote, because she wrote it so matter-of-factly. I found myself nodding in agreement and thinking "This isn't all that bad at all!" However, swordygardener's piece-by-piece rebuttal revealed the writing for what it really is -- sugar-coated-and-frosted shitcake.

Good lord. I feel unclean now for having agreed with _dahne_ prior to reading swordygardener's response. I think I'll go take a very long, very hot shower.

Also, heaven forbid the Republicans should be "right" on anything! D: They're not the fucking Ku Klux Klan, for fuck's sake. They might have some prejudiced views and intolerant policies, but they are not founded on the very idea of intolerance. (For the record, I don't really like the GOP, but dear lord, I know better than to blame the entire party for loudmouths like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin!)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	ekaterinv 2011-01-22 04:01 am UTC (link)
	The Republican Party wanted Sarah Palin to be vice president. She's a plausible nomination for president next time. They've been sucking Limbaugh's teat for decades now. They loooove the Tea Party, Fox News and Glenn Beck. So basically: give me a break. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	staroverthebay 2011-01-22 04:19 am UTC (link)
	I understand, but to blame ALL Republicans for the extreme is seriously overgeneralizing and oversimplifying, as well as demonizing a group. Not ALL Republicans are as extreme as the aforementioned ones. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	melyanna 2011-01-22 04:51 am UTC (link)
	They're really not. Not even all of them agree with or like the aforementioned Republicans. It's a problem that those are among the loudest voices in the Republican party right now, but it's not entirely the fault of the people who don't like the extremists. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	eleutheria 2011-01-22 10:53 am UTC (link)
	And yet they keep voting for people who either are extreme, or who turn a blind eye to those who are. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

silrana
2011-01-22 08:04 pm UTC (link)

Well, there is the problem of only being able to vote for who is on the ticket. The extremists get voted for because the primaries usually present us with Extremist Candidate vs. Democrat Lite. It comes down to, "Do I vote for someone who represents some things I am for and some things I am against, or someone who every once in a while gives lip service to what I am for and votes with the other side anyway?"

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	spawn_of_kong 2011-01-22 10:52 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, AFAIC, in any election you have to hold your nose, no matter who you vote for. (Reply to this)(Parent)

queencallipygos
2011-01-24 08:38 pm UTC (link)

And yet they keep voting for people who either are extreme, or who turn a blind eye to those who are.

I'd say that's more a problem of voter/media apathy about the party primaries.

I almost always vote for my party's primary, but -- there have been times I've almost missed it because I didn't even know when it was, because unless it's a really sexy election year, it doesn't get covered in the media. And I'm seriously in the minority -- in New York, only 11% of the eligible voters turned out for the 2010 primaries in their parties.

And that's not even getting into whether the guy I vote for in the primaries makes it. About 70% of the time, my choice in the primary loses.

Not hard for me to imagine that there are Republicans in similar straits as I. And if that's the case, I wouldn't consider those Republicans to be "turning a blind eye" to the extremists, because "but....I didn't vote for them in the primary! WTF?"

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	sandglass 2011-01-22 05:32 am UTC (link)
	They're not the Ku Klux Klan, they're just the new KKK. They might not be founded on the idea of intolerance, but right now they're based on it. That and selfishness. Not all Republicans are bad, but the politics of the party are. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sandglass 2011-01-22 05:37 am UTC (link)
	I'd like to point out: Talking about the current party especially. You know, the one that supports torture, scapegoats undocumented immigrants, and is attacking health care reform just because they can. I know a lot of Repubs who are good people and are dying for their party to go back to just being kinda selfish and insensitive. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ecchaniz0r 2011-01-23 02:55 am UTC (link)
	having agreed with _dahne_ I'm not surprised you did. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	phosfate 2011-01-23 08:57 pm UTC (link)
	:D (Reply to this)(Parent)

kumquat_of_doom
2011-01-24 03:45 am UTC (link)

Riiiight. Hey, I'm not from the US, so if there's something I've missed feel free to let me know what it is, but look: at least since Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party has housed people who despise gay people and non-WASPs, people who actively vote against women's rights, against gay rights, against measures to help the poor and every other marginalised group in society.

No, not all Republicans are Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or evil incarnate. BUT, they *are* people who've looked at the racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, classist policies of this party and decided that this was the political movement for them. Even if they don't agree with ALL that the GOP does - I accept that plenty of GOPers don't - the fact that they are prepared to ally themselves with such a party tells me all I need to know about them, frankly.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	napalmnacey 2011-01-24 06:31 am UTC (link)
	This X big arbitrary number that expresses my extreme agreement. (Reply to this)(Parent)

snarkhunter
2011-01-24 07:50 pm UTC (link)

the Republican Party has housed people who despise gay people and non-WASPs, people who actively vote against women's rights, against gay rights, against measures to help the poor and every other marginalised group in society

...as has the Democratic party. There are multiple right-of-center Dems who do exactly all of this, and yet no one seems to hold the party at large responsible for this, even though I'd argue the party is different only from the Republicans in degree.

Frankly, I'm sick of the lot of them, but I continue to vote Democrat b/c I'd rather choose the lesser of two evils than vote for the third-party candidate who will definitely lose and in doing so my vote will not effectively count against the greater evil.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -