More Lameness

[ravan]

Aww, gee, I'm special! Fuckwit elorie has decided to refer to me by name in her little fief. That means I got to her, pricked her in the ego! I should have saved the comment for posterity! That's a better prize than having a community named after me!

Awww, and she accuses me of conflating '"debate" with "verbal abuse"'. Stupid girl. I wasn't trying "debate" with her, I don't think she has the intellect to comprehend it, much less respond to it in a rational manner. Her knee jerk stereotyping is proof of that, along with her innane "They say *all* the same things...almost word for word...and make the same specious arguments that are either blatantly untrue, make no damn sense, or BOTH." Sorry, but it's only 'the same' if you are unable to consider and comprehend things other than your own narrow, knee-jerk, point of view. So no, I was not attempting to debate with her, I was flaming her. Too bad she's too dumb to realize it.

Furthermore, she is responding to a comment that she did not allow to be seen by anyone else, thus looking even more capricious and insane. ROTFLMAO!

I was wondering if she was smart enough to cut her losses and get back to her regular community business. She's not - she won't be happy unless she thinks she's "won" by having the very last word, and can get all of what she believes are her fans to help. What a little wankette. The "neener, neener, neener" at the end is just classic wank, too.

Dang, I need to filch kshandra's "LOLLERSKATES" icon. May I? Pleeeeease?

BTW, I will probably still read note_to_asshat from time to time, as well as note2asshat. Some of the posts in there are great, prime snark, quintissential flambe. Why? For the same reason I read kittypix and kitty_luff_only - it makes me smile. Why should I let the fact that the moderator is immature and chickenshit bar me from reading fine snark by other people?

Note: this post left public out of fairness. Apologies to those who are tired of the wank stuff.

Comments

[ravan.livejournal.com]

But really, I sense this has more to do with bruised ego and the unwillingness to back out of a fight. While I can empathize, I suggest it’d be more productive to actually discuss rather than freely flame and insult...

Bruised ego? Naaah. Smackdown on a person who took a ripple and is trying to turn it into a federal case? Yeah.

elorie has repeatedly stated that she feels there is nothing to be discussed with the childfree, that it's (paraphrased) "all the same bullshit". People with closed minds are not worth trying with - just mocking for their hypocrisy.

You see, I'm not a rabid, foaming CF'er. But because I'm CF at all, she tars me with the same brush. That's like saying all blacks are thieves because you only ever encountered blacks who've been arrested for robbery, shoplifting or burglary, or all whites are bigots, because you've only ever met bigotted ones. It's bullshit, and it pisses me off.

CF is a lifestyle choice. Non standard religion is a lifestyle choice. Both encounter discrimination from people who follow the status quo. Neither encounters as much abuse as those who are racial minorites or homosexual, but what they do get still hurts, especially when it's from your own family.

While no one seems to get beaten or killed for being CF, a lot of social sanctions, harassment and shunning happen on a regular basis. I'm lucky, my family doesn't have a problem with it, or my religion.

Also, most minorities have a slang used to refer to majorities. What do you think "honky" and "gringo" are?

[hotcoffeems.livejournal.com]

Also, most minorities have a slang used to refer to majorities. What do you think "honky" and "gringo" are?

Ummm...and do you think for a minute either of those carry the kind of social force that "nigger" and "wetback" might? What social forces do you think might have propelled minorities to come up with epithets of their own? You're not going to use the words "reverse racism," are you? Please don't.

You really don't see the difference between someone harboring mistrust for you because of the general hostility and downright ugliness of the average zealot in the CF movement, and actual discrimination? It's a little different from someone being hated because they wear a yarmulke. The Judaic faith is not predicated on displaying hostility to another group. Unfortunately, the CF movement *has* been co-opted by those whose primary goal seems to be hatred of children. If you don't like that, change it.

I am going to assume from your equating the occasional social boobery of some idiot whining at you the "Why don't you have children? What's wrong with you?" kind of silliness with actual discrimination (NO -- just because you do not get the child tax income credit doesn't make you socially oppressed) that you are indeed not a member of any oppressed minority -- racial, class, or otherwise. I imagine it does hurt, but it ain't the same thing. Having been the girl with the pink hair who looks a little freaky no matter what, I've gotten singled out for that rather hurtfully. Is it in any way in the same league as receiving the cold hate stare or under-the-breath comments of those to whom you're not white enough to be "good enough" for them? I can tell you definitively it's not -- and I'm fortunate[!] enough to "pass" without scrutiny to many bigots. *That* could be a life-saver.

Please tread very carefully on equating the two.

[ravan.livejournal.com]

Read for comprehension, please. As in the entire comment! You missed:
"CF is a lifestyle choice. Non standard religion is a lifestyle choice. Both encounter discrimination from people who follow the status quo. Neither encounters as much abuse as those who are racial minorites or homosexual, but what they do get still hurts, especially when it's from your own family."

Social shunning and continual comments from family and coworkers can create a hostile environment, albeit not lethal. While this is more prevalent in certain environments (the south, religious communities, etc), it's not zero anywhere. It's actually easier to avoid discussing your religion that discussing whether you're married and/or have kids. Just because it isn't likely to get you killed doesn't mean that it isn't discrimination.

BTW, Judaism is a more standard religion than paganism. Plus, it's an ethnic identification as well as a religion.

I have a odd mix of 'maybe' stuff in my genetic woodpile (including either black or amerind, and jewish), which makes the ostensibly white me very reluctant to make any pronouncement on ethnic minorities. My grandmother was ffv/dar eligible, and a lot of certain bloodline factors weren't talked about back then. As a true heinz 57, I don't have any room to slam any minority.

Also, there's no such thing as "reverse racism". Racism is racism.

Unfortunately, the CF movement *has* been co-opted by those whose primary goal seems to be hatred of children. If you don't like that, change it.

Oh, yeah, I'm going to change the whole CF "movement", including its lunatic fringe, with a whisk of my pen. Not. The actual "movement" is pretty diverse, and it's just the lunatic fringe that has the hardcore hatred of kids. This crap is like judging all of Christianity by radical fundamentalists. While many do, it doesn't make it right.

Please tread very carefully on equating the two.

Again, read for comprehension. While the one type of discrimination (ethic/racial) *does* *not* *equal* the other (lifestyle), the fact that one is greater does not make the lesser suddenly equal to zero. Binary thinking is silly in human affairs.

Also, my hair is purple, and I'm 44.

[hotcoffeems.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah, I'm going to change the whole CF "movement", including its lunatic fringe, with a whisk of my pen. Not. The actual "movement" is pretty diverse, and it's just the lunatic fringe that has the hardcore hatred of kids. This crap is like judging all of Christianity by radical fundamentalists. While many do, it doesn't make it right. Nope, but open intolerance and bigotry tends to breed mutual intolerance and bigotry, as is the case with the fundamentalist right as well.

Change it by finding like-minded types instead of rabid nutjobs. Then those who simply want respect for their decision to not have children can disassociate themselves from those who genuinely hate children, by creating their own damn movement. If that is, in fact, what you want.

Until then, until you have clearly set yourself apart, the simple fact is you WILL be tarred with the same brush as the child-hating sort. And you can blame them for that as well as those who tar you.

And we will have to agree to disagree on "CF as oppression" because I simply don't see any evidence of it as a systemic form of discrimination. A social difficulty, yes, a prejudice encountered on a personal level. But systemic oppression? No.

(Observation: I have lived in the Deep South virtually all my life, and up until I was 30 -- which is pretty damn late in my social milieu -- I was childless, and unsure about having a child. And I don't recall ever having gotten hassled for saying that. If someone seemed overly pushy about it, they would have been told to mind their own business. No social *force* behind that, even if it made me uncomfortable.)

[ravan.livejournal.com]

Change it by finding like-minded types instead of rabid nutjobs. Then those who simply want respect for their decision to not have children can disassociate themselves from those who genuinely hate children, by creating their own damn movement. If that is, in fact, what you want.

Should Christians have to form their own new religion, by a different name, because of the intolerance of the fundamentalist wing? Or is it better to be moderating voices of sanity in the existing religion?

Until then, until you have clearly set yourself apart, the simple fact is you WILL be tarred with the same brush as the child-hating sort. And you can blame them for that as well as those who tar you.

Oh, I do blame them for that. That's why I'm not a member of cf_hardcore. They're out on the fringe, and a lot of them are jerks, too.

But that's the same thing that happens to whites, gays, Christians, parents and any other group: they get tarred with the same brush (stereotype) as their lunatic fringe. "rednecks", "queers", "fundies" and "moos" are all labels for these fringes.

A social difficulty, yes, a prejudice encountered on a personal level. But systemic oppression? No.

So by your estimation, bigotry and prejudice are trivial and can be ignored or mocked if they are not "systemic oppression"?

By that estimate, unless a thing is against the law, or otherwise codified in an institution, it's not *systemic* oppression, it's just "social difficulty" or "prejudice encountered on a personal level". Is this your demarcation line? So is an individual landlord discriminating against a renter on the basis of being black, perceived homosexual, or whatever just "prejudice encountered on a personal level" or is it oppression? What makes a thing "systemic"?

Also, how do you answer the fact that some social services currently are completely unavailable in some places (educational grants, food stamps, rent assistance, etc) - unless you have at least one child? Is that institutional enough?

The idea of bias being inconsequential and ignorable unless it is "systematic" and "oppression" just makes me angry. After all, one person's oppression is another person's status quo. Who decides how much is too much?