Current mood:	Snarl
Entry tags:	fandom is fucking stupid, it's okay if i don't like you, jesus wept

At least SA goons are honest trolls, or, Fandom double-standards FTL
Over the years, the unspoken rule of fandom "What happens in fandom, stays in fandom." You don't contact a fan's place of employment, university, etc. unless it's serious shit -- "serious shit" meaning illegal or life-threatening, not fannish wars or bruised egos.

Apparently, not anymore.

hypersurfaces posted a con report about WisCon that focused on the obesity of the con attendees on the Something Awful board . The post is seriously unfunny and full of fail. She later had the post deleted, but it was later reposted at a related site, Something Awful Sychophant Squad.

Attendees on Wiscon discover the post, and all hell breaks loose. Massive amounts of rage, including posts (locked and the source for this didn't get caps) of several people threatening hypersurfaces about how they would hurt/STAB her if they saw her on the street. hypersurfaces is forever and ever banned from WisCon. But not content with that, people -- including badgerbag -- find her real name, her school, and write to her dean saying she was violating the schools sexual harrassment policy. I'm not posting the link because it has her real name in it, and I like my permanent account here too much to risk the ToS.

hypersurfaces real name and real info are posted all over by fen who have previously rallied against that sort of thing - because in this case, she clearly deserves it. The casual threats of violence are astounding, and now apparently people are writing her and saying they're going to hurt/kill her - using the real name/addresses so thoughtfully provided by the angry wisconners. Kudos to the mod there for at least stepping up and telling people to knock the shit out.

But nada about this behavior from fen normally so worried about community standards, like coffeeandink.

So it's okay now to post people's real names and similar information, as long as they do something that really, really pisses you off. Because they deserve it.

ETA: Clarified where hypersurfaces's post originally went up.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	t_boy 2008-05-29 10:38 am UTC (link)
	O-kay. Maybe it would help if I said that it was a 'you' that not aimed at pyratejenni. And I'm getting this feeling people are getting upset because I'm being bigoted against Muslims. People, I'm a Muslim. It's something I'm ashamed of. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

imp
2008-05-29 10:51 am UTC (link)

No, I was definitely talking about the second sentence.

You're a Muslim... And yet you cheerfully promote the idea that uses of violent Jihad terrorism is an Islamic concept, and not a radical one? And imply that it's cute to joke that using death threats to solve problems, which is obviously something someone would get from Muslims, because apparently this whole religion is all about those, and it is in fact the first religion that comes to mind with that sort of thing, because no other religions have ever used their beliefs in warfare?

I'll stop rambling and get to the point: That was a hideously ignorant comment, no matter what religion you follow.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

t_boy
2008-05-29 10:58 am UTC (link)

What?

I cheerfully promote the idea of the use of violent jihad? What? What makes you think I think it's a fine idea? Central idea in Islam? What?

JIHAD means STRUGGLE! STRUGGLE NOT NECESSARILY AGAINST WORLDLY FOE! KILLING INFIDELS is NOT a GOOD idea!

SENTENCE WAS MEANT TO BE TAKEN IRONICALLY! Because, you know, I can't not literally mean what I literally say.

Good god I'm so angry I'm shaking. When the whole Jyllands-Posten thing went up, I felt a deep abiding shame when I saw my brethren go apeshit like a bunch of fucking rubes.

Now I get lumped with them. Geez. I'm walking away from this conversation right now.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	imp 2008-05-29 11:03 am UTC (link)
	...We're not exactly having the same conversation here, are we. I never said you promoted Jihad - I said you promoted the idea that it was a fully Islamic concept, and that the two could be lumped together. Did you like... Completely read my post as the opposite of what I was actually saying, or what? Was it my bad use or sarcasm, or your initial bad use of sarcasm? (Reply to this)(Parent)

herongale
2008-05-29 11:27 am UTC (link)

The term "Islamist" is analagous to "Christian Fundamentalist." Or even better, analagous to the term "Dominionists," which denotes a certain radical, militant faction of the Christian faith. I've seen it used as a way to describe the the pro-terror faction of the Islamic faith, and in the right context it's a completely non-controversial term.

I'm pretty sure posts on Journalfen re: fandom persecution would not be the appropriate context, however.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

imp
2008-05-29 11:36 am UTC (link)

Is that so...? I've heard that it could be used in that context, but that it was primarily just a term that referred to the faith in general. I guess I failed at terminology there.

Comparing fandom loonies to a radical religious group with a lot of controversy (and prejudice, much of which is inappropriately pinned on Muslims) still seems pretty tasteless to me, but that does make it slightly less wtf-worthy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

herongale
2008-05-29 12:00 pm UTC (link)

I have seen it used more in non-American political commentary about Islamic terrorism. I wouldn't say it is widespread: it's far less ambiguous to say "Islamic terrorist," no? But the term "Islamist" has a specific utility, because it encompasses the sort of Islamic fundamentalism that includes oppression of women and anti-Semitic bigotry as specific hallmarks of its warped interpretation of the Koran.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't used that terminology amongst people who are likely to be unfamiliar with it. It IS tasteless, because it is needlessly provocative. I sometimes think that people do that sort of thing just so they can say, "Gotcha! You think I am a (racist, sexist, homophobe, etc) but I CAN'T be because I AM (member of highlighted oppressed group)." Outside of the appropriate political contexts, a word like "Islamist" is a trap, or bait... using it seems to be designed to draw out negative reactions.

Can't say for sure that this is what

t_boy is doing, but I get a disingenuous feel from his replies that makes me suspect it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	herongale 2008-05-29 12:05 pm UTC (link)
	Also, what does Islam, fundamentalist or otherwise, have to do with the whole sordid issue of the OP? By bring it up and attracting a negative response, it seems like he's using a completely unrelated post as a sounding board for his own personal rant. Very. Very. Tacky. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	imp 2008-05-29 12:59 pm UTC (link)
	I agree SO freaking much with everything you said. (Reply to this)(Parent)

ladybirdsleeps
2008-05-29 06:01 pm UTC (link)

I've heard that it could be used in that context, but that it was primarily just a term that referred to the faith in general.

I see it used the most by right-wing political commentators, have have done a fine job of loading it up with their bigoted attitudes towards Muslims in general. It may have been a perfectly neutral term to describe a particular sect to begin with, but now it's seen as part of the vocabulary of anti-Muslim sentiment even though it still doesn't mean "Muslim" in general.

People who are trying not to seem bigoted against Muslims use different vocabulary for the same sort of thing--"Islamic Extremist" or "Radical Islam" or the like.

In the United States, at least. It's probably very different elsewhere.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -