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)

	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)

(Read comments) -