?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

More Lameness

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.

Tags:

Comments

( 19 comments — Leave a comment )
hephaestos
Mar. 3rd, 2006 12:31 am (UTC)
Why use lollerskates when you could be drivin' a LOLS-ROYCE? ;)
ravan
Mar. 3rd, 2006 12:38 am (UTC)
Because I'm not sure it would fit as an LJ icon....

But I love the gif!
ladyqkat
Mar. 3rd, 2006 12:52 am (UTC)
*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.
kshandra
Mar. 3rd, 2006 05:11 am (UTC)
dailykitten is better than kittypix, IMO.
hotcoffeems
Mar. 3rd, 2006 04:05 am (UTC)
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.
ravan
Mar. 3rd, 2006 05:12 am (UTC)
I'd venture to say that if you really are spoiling for a fight, she's yer (metaphorical) man.

Nah, if she was, she'd be here herself. It's not like I haven't given her opportunities galore, with a public post and all. But she won't fight where she doesn't "own" the ground.

... it was because the thing had gotten posted about in that community to harrumphs of outrage,...

And advice not to use CF slang in non-CF communities (http://community.livejournal.com/childfree/6934304.html?thread=117760288#t117760288). This was actually my first reaction, before all the wankery.

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?

You are conflating the reaction with the cause. Before she started spewing her hate on the childfree, all I wanted to do was join an interesting community. When she made it plain that she was downright irrational about the subject (with repeated posts in the comunity), she became a flame target there. Before she did that bit of wankery, I would have joyfully debated with her, or anyone else.

IOTW, she made herself fair game for flame in my eyes, by being so chickenshit as to spew hate arbitrarily at an entire group without even giving them a chance to counter and defend themselves. Plus, she didn't just say her little spew and quit, but used a community as a personal soapbox to continue to spew hatred for people that she didn't even know, except as a stereotype based on an interaction with trolls ten years ago!

She is not very mature, and I consider that she deliberately fanned the flames to try and boost her ego. She set out "flame bait", and then whines when people take it?
hotcoffeems
Mar. 3rd, 2006 02:51 pm (UTC)
If all you wanted to do was join a community which sounded interesting (and I have no reason to disbelieve you), you picked the wrong day to do it. She was locking the community down against an influx of trolls from a community you are a member of. Had you really wanted to join on that very day, it probably would have been wise to e-mail her and respectfully request it while assuring her you had every intention of playing nice. She had no reason, nor should she be expected, to divine your motives at random.

As far as “spewing hate,” well…as I’ve made it plain elsewhere, I personally don’t buy the “child-free as oppressed minority” line. That’s a damn insult to people who’ve legitimately been discriminated against for things that they can’t change. Second, when a member of a group whose more rabid element certainly does spew hate claims that they’ve had hostility directed at them for being a member of that group, all I can think is, “You don’t like being called names and having people assume godawful things about you? Well, now you know what it feels like, don’t you?” Surprise – people don’t really like being called names. Like cuntnugget, crotchdropping, moo, and duhddy, maybe? Even if you only do it “in the appropriate forum,” people still might think you’re a bigot. Not unlike the ex-coworker of mine who found it appropriate to sprinkle her daily conversation with “nigger” this and that, until she found out my grandmother was black, and then suddenly, she realized maybe it wasn’t so safe. She too thought she was expressing her particular bigotry in the appropriate forum (she thought I was "Spanish" or something, y’see. She also claimed not to really be racist. Ahem). Racists aren’t sorry they said something racist, they’re sorry they got caught out saying something in a place where it was “unsafe” to do so. But even if they’re saying it somewhere it’s “safe” to “rant”, they’re still showing their bigotry, and the rest of us are free to choose to find their prejudice distasteful, and not to associate with them based on it. Or any person who thinks it’s fine and dandy to express *hatred* of a particular group based on something one has no control over…say, being five years old. I *do* find that distasteful, and can only roll my eyes when someone with such a personal prejudice claims they’re being discriminated against because others choose to judge them based on their prejudice. Sauce for the goose, maybe…BTW, her interaction with rabid CFers may go back 10 years, but it certainly isn't limited to only having occurred ten years ago.

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 – which you can choose to do or not do, but the only person you can demand that of is yourself. If you feel like you must fight, make sure you’ve picked the right battle.
ravan
Mar. 3rd, 2006 05:24 pm (UTC)
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
Mar. 3rd, 2006 05:42 pm (UTC)
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
Mar. 3rd, 2006 07:39 pm (UTC)
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
Mar. 3rd, 2006 07:53 pm (UTC)
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
Mar. 3rd, 2006 09:36 pm (UTC)
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?
kshandra
Mar. 3rd, 2006 05:10 am (UTC)
hotcoffeems
Mar. 6th, 2006 07:23 pm (UTC)
This is waaay long...apologies...
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.

hotcoffeems
Mar. 6th, 2006 07:24 pm (UTC)
So freaking long it's two parts!
All right, now I'm wanking...so sorry, but this is really all I have to say, since I'm answering you:

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? Try being a Muslim convert in America. *wry grin* You learn to try to show truth by example, and try to be the compassionate voice people hear when they think of the word that defines the group. But you still face distrust, the need to justify your ideology, and understand that the zealots who co-opted your belief shout louder. Does that make it right? No. But you find where you need to be at balancewise while understanding why some folk will harbor distrust.

I say “you” there, because I’ve had to think about that a lot.

And I’m not sure that choosing to not have children really is analogous to one’s religious beliefs. You can disagree.

By the way, in the state I live in, TANF, as you say, is only open to those with children. You know what the guidelines for TANF are here? “A family of three (mother and two children) may qualify for TANF if their gross income is below $784 a month and assets are worth less than $1,000.” (Poverty level for a family of three: $1,157/month.) The maximum benefit for a family of three? $280 a month. People who swear it’s like free money for people squirting out kids really haven’t been there. Do the math and tell me who’s getting fat off that. Anymore, social programs to help the needy – anyone needy -- really are so stingy and so limited in who they help that they’re rather horrifying.

Problem with having any discussion about privilege, power, discrimination, etc., is that no one ever agrees. I reckon it’s because we have too many different life experiences to really necessarily all see it the same way. I think discussions can be productive about it, but it’s hard to arrive at any kind of agreement. Hell, even on basic things like working definitions (I’ll tell you now I’m wary of dictionary definitions as the Last Word, since they lack nuance). I can respect your right to disagree completely with me, because realistically, I figure we ain’t going to agree.

OTOH, this has probably been a more productive, polite, and interesting discussion than it might have been, so thank you for that. At least it has me thinking…
ravan
Mar. 7th, 2006 12:30 am (UTC)
Re: So freaking long it's two parts!
Anymore, social programs to help the needy – anyone needy -- really are so stingy and so limited in who they help that they’re rather horrifying.

Agreed on that. But two adults, sans kids, who are even more destitute, get *nothing*. Then again, homelessness and starvation are becoming more and more prevalent, thank to "compassionate conservatism".

IMO, birth control ought to be free and easy to get, just to encourage people to use it. IMO, being homeless sucks, being homeless with kids sucks worse.
hotcoffeems
Mar. 7th, 2006 05:13 pm (UTC)
Re: So freaking long it's two parts!
Ah, we are in agreement here. At laaaast:P!

IMO, being homeless sucks, being homeless with kids sucks worse. And I suspect that this is why the brutal triage exists which prevents childless adults from getting anything (and all but the poorest of the poor from getting any more than a pittance which doesn't even bring them up to poverty level). Because not only does it suck even worse, but the social costs (not just the financial ones) wind up being higher. There is so little allotted for *anyone* anymore, and it's submoronic because the final costs for not providing are so high.

I bet you probably know that the Shrub cut all federal spending for any BC programs that weren't "abstinence only". Including a singularly sane one here in GA which allowed new moms on Medicaid (provided to expectant mothers who were working poor and without insurance) to get birth control for free for two years after the birth of their children. You know, exactly the demographic likely to benefit from self-righteous "abstinence only" lectures. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of this tomfoolery; I just know of that one firsthand.
ravan
Mar. 7th, 2006 10:58 pm (UTC)
Re: So freaking long it's two parts!
Abstinence only - uuuuurgggghlehackspit! I hate that kind of self-righteous bullshit. It's a sick joke, and coupled with BC restrictions and abortion bans it's hypocritical, at best, and a recipe for breeding a generation of discontent, at worst.

I actually end up encouraging people who are ambivalent on the kids question to get sterilized. If they want kids later, they can adopt the kids that the "pro-life", "abstinence only" hypocrites have dumped on the gutted and non-existent safety net.

My own sister, who has turned into a religious right dittohead like her husband, doesn't want real sex ed for her kids. Even though she had the truth about birth control and STDs. She thinks it "gives kids permission". Nevermind that the forbidden fruit is always sweeter to a teenager. I end up incoherent with anger at the stupid every time she comes up with that tripe.

I wish I was really, really rich. I would start a fund to provide BC and sterilization services for *anyone* who wanted it - kids, no kids, young, old. I'd partner with PP, and just provide the finances. Then I'd advertise it in all of the kid hang outs - myspace, LJ, etc, even buy keywords on Google.
hotcoffeems
Mar. 8th, 2006 08:48 pm (UTC)
Re: So freaking long it's two parts!
My own sister, who has turned into a religious right dittohead like her husband, doesn't want real sex ed for her kids. Even though she had the truth about birth control and STDs. She thinks it "gives kids permission". Nevermind that the forbidden fruit is always sweeter to a teenager. I end up incoherent with anger at the stupid every time she comes up with that tripe.

I hear ya. Because we all know that providing a kid with information about BC is going to result in some kid out there going, "Well, hot diggity damn! I was fixing to sign that 'Jesus wants you to wait' abstinence pledge thing, but then I found out about rubbers, and now I can’t wait to go out and get all jiggy with anyone who’ll poke me!"

Providing information does not make people who would otherwise not have sex have sex. And denying access to birth control does not prevent kids from having sex. Particularly if they’ve been filled with misinformation, or given *no* information.

The high school I went to refused to teach sex ed, claiming it would “give good kids bad ideas.” Of course, during my time there, 1 out of every 32 students there was a *parent* (no, I’m not guessing on that statistic). They already had their own bad ideas.
( 19 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

October 2017
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner