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

[hephaestos.livejournal.com]

Why use lollerskates when you could be drivin' a LOLS-ROYCE (http://www.najakito.com/~john/etc/4post/lolsroyce.gif)? ;)

[ladyqkat.livejournal.com]

*whimper* I want a kitty, but I promised Mike (Mr. OCD himself) that I would wait for a while after 'Tasia passed.

So, now, thanks to you, I can drool over baby kitties.

[hotcoffeems.livejournal.com]

I don't normally just pop into people's journals at random, particularly if there's conflict and I know someone at the center of it, so apologies in advance for the unsolicited 2 cents.

I know elorie well, and have known her IRL for a good 12 years. "Chickenshit" is not a word I'd use to describe her; I'd venture to say that if you really are spoiling for a fight, she's yer (metaphorical) man. Seems awfully silly though, to keep it going for the sake of something as twee as an obnoxious deleted post that even you seemed to think was inappropriate.

While I wouldn't unhesitatingly and knee-jerk defend a friend's actions ("OMG! u dont no her!11!1! u r sooo mean!!11!1") I think you've missed her point (bear in mind that I can't speak for her or act as her interpreter or tell you what she *really* meant or thought, or whatever, and she's probably going to whack me but good for even showing up here.) Her not approving people who were members of childfree who tried to sign up for the community on the day she deleted that post and all the tempest-in-a-teacup occurred was NOT because of innate prejudice on her part against "people who choose not to have kids" (even if she does make no secret of her distaste for the hardcore child-hating CF types; hell, neither do I) -- it was because the thing had gotten posted about in that community to harrumphs of outrage, and she says at least a dozen folk from CF tried to sign up then and there. The post itself used language that was objectionable and outside the scope of the community; you seem to grok that, at least. It was entirely appropriate for her to remove it. I personally believe it was also entirely appropriate for her to try to minimize any attempts at trolling and whatever by excluding members of a community, once it was clear the issue had been taken up within that community (and said community seems to attract a fair number of folk who *do* like to flame and troll).

Especially because you point out in this post that you weren't interested in debate; you only wanted to flame. Why would you take it personally that she froze you out, if your intent was to troll, not actually add to any discussion?

Anything personal between you and her, well, that's y'all's own business, but I think it's fair to say that the exclusion of new CF members after the shitstorm was prudent moderation, not kneejerk bias or chickenshit wankery or whatever.

[kshandra]

http://www.rofl.name/asciiart

This is waaay long...apologies...

[hotcoffeems.livejournal.com]

I was offline all weekend, sorry. I did want to respond.

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"?

Whoa, there, no. I see where I may not have made myself clear (trouble with language, especially when you’re thinking fast). I apologize for that. Just because it is now against the law for a landlord to discriminate, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, nor does it mean it’s no longer systemic. By “systemic”, I mean firmly entrenched in society whether or not it’s codified into law. We all suck in plenty of messages that teach us racism and classism and homophobia simply because we live in a society where now it’s quieter, but it’s still SOP.

I don’t buy childfree discrimination as being systemic. While the “standard” held up is that you will marry and produce offspring, what is held up as “standard” or “ideal” still leaves a lot of wiggle room. It may or may not be the assumed default. There is a lot of stuff in this country geared toward people without children. For every instance of “What the hell is wrong with you for not having children you barren sideshow freak” there is the landlord who won’t rent to people with kids (even if that’s not the stated reason. For every benefit extended only to working parents, there is the secretary who can’t get her bosses to give her the afternoon off to deal with a kid with chicken pox. BTW, I’ve noticed those family-oriented work benefits tend to only be extended to people not in support positions – the lower you go on the corporate food chain, the less leeway you have on “family time.” It works both ways in this society. There are enough people without children who have enough clout that system-wide discrimination isn’t really effective. And that’s an important component of systemic discrimination: power. There must be some element of power behind the prejudice for it to have real clout. Given how many of the previous generation (the Baby Boomers) chose to forgo having kids at the “normal” age in order to work on career advancement, it’s not at all socially unusual to find people in their thirties and forties without kids. Hell, there were so many of them they practically made it a new social norm, especially among the upper economic classes.

Which doesn’t make it hurt any less if you’re faced with someone’s personal bullshit; I don’t wanna sound like I’m telling you “Oh, you shouldn’t feel bad; lots of people have it so much WORSE.” But it’s not the same as systemic oppression. You are not low man on the totem pole because you have no kids. If it sounds like I was waving my hand and going, “You have no problems”, I apologize for that.

Everyone gets the sting of some kind of prejudicial treatment in their life. Can it be painful? Oh, hell, yeah. Is it a sign of oppression or systemic discrimination? Depends on what force there is behind it, what power there is to reinforce it socially.