Branch (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot) wrote2005-03-05 01:40 pm
branchandroot) wrote2005-03-05 01:40 pm
Entry tags:
Manifesto on Wank
So, the discovery that Frienditto is run by the same people who run ljdrama and Encyclopedia Dramatica, and the accusations currently being tossed back and forth over the fd service, have finally crystalized some thoughts I've been turning over for a while. I want to try to get them down in a moderately coherent form, despite my own outrage.
*wishes self luck*
There is no excuse for wank comms.
I'm not going to phrase this in "I believe" terms, because I'm laying out an ethical judgement, here, and while that is invariably a personal endeavor, it is one that, by its nature, extends beyond just myself. I apply this to everyone, and not just as an opinion. There is no excuse.
The people who participate in wank comms, such as Fandom Wank, insist that they merely display a healthy sense of humor. That they are perfectly happy to have their own wanking mocked just as they mock others. And that anyone who posts on the internet should only expect to be targeted, because the internet is a public place.
The sense of humor argument is the one I find hardest to refute, actually, because it has a grain of truth. If, in the middle of some wank explosion, someone were to speak up and say "you know, we're all getting kind of shrill and behaving foolishly, and blowing the original disagreement out of proportion to the point where I'm laughing; congratulations, everyone", that might indeed have some beneficial effect on the wank in question. But only if it comes from the inside--from a participant in the forum affected. Because it isn't the business of anyone who is not affected. For a participant to go outside that forum to another, one which is not affected or involved, to say such a thing is not 'having a good healthy laugh at ourselves'. "Ourselves" does not apply when the participant has removed herself from that context. Instead, this is making fun of other people.
And that's a cruel thing to do. No matter how great or small, it is an immature activity and a cruel one.
That people like the FW members understand this perfectly well is demonstrated by their use of counter-wank as a disciplinary measure. Someone who posts something considered unacceptable is, in turn, mocked. For them to do this, and then say that they are happy to take what they dish out, is extremely disingenuous. To say that they can laugh at themselves, and why can't the people they mock just do the same, is verbal slight of hand that turns attention away from the manifest hurtfulness of what they are doing. That they all seek to avoid being mocked, and use mockery as an internal punishment for their own, shows very clearly that they know it hurts to be the target.
So why do they do it?
I have, by the way, no sympathy for the suggestion that FW is not as bad as it was two years ago, and that it's mostly a social comm now, where people compliment each other's icons. That's a load of bullshit, and the merest skim through the latest posts will show it.
Likewise, any statement that they confine themselves to mocking people who make public fools of themselves is, if not a technical lie, certainly just as disingenuous as the second argument. There is, for example, mockery posted, fairly recently, of some extremely personal matters that one of the members found on a couple of personal journals. When the embroiled parties protested, they were told they had invited this treatment by posting publically and unlocked, as if posting unlocked in an obscure individual journal were equivalent to posting in a community forum. It was implied that the insults levelled at their romantic lives and psychological stability, and the links back to the personal journals, posted in such a high-traffic community as FW, were exactly the same as those same comments and links would have been if made in the FW members' own personal journals.
I am reminded of this argument by the statements now being made that anyone who posts anything on the net, even locked, has no right to protest if the information becomes public. Because the net is a public place, and anyone who posts anything there, no matter how secured, is just asking for it to be publicized.
I am reminded of other arguments about victims "asking for it".
Nor do I consider this an unreasonable analogy to make. There is a voilation of personal integrity invovled. And the perpetrators are denying their responsibility by insisting that it is the victim's job to be aware of all risks and guard against them with such vigor that even the most aggressive perpetrator has no opening. That it is only the utterly, inhumanly blameless who have the right to respect.
And you know what pisses me off even more? If I posted this publicly, I have little doubt it would be pounced upon as Wank! and Drama! and promptly linked and reposted for mockery by people who would say "My God, she's so serious about it, can't she take a joke?" As if to make light of the pain they have caused. As if to say that, because it is "humor", they cannot be held culpable for the cruelty of it. As if to say the cruelty is deserved, because the target didn't behave with irreprochable reserve and purity.
Anyone who works with sexual assault issues or with women's rights issues should recognize this pattern. The fact that it is applied, here, to emotional rather than physical assault, and, usually, assault on a lesser scale, does nothing to alleviate my disgust with anyone who would employ the pattern to excuse themselves.
There is no excuse, and I'm sick of hearing people who have indulged their own pettiness and cruelty claim that they have done nothing wrong, and that it is the victim's fault.
*wishes self luck*
There is no excuse for wank comms.
I'm not going to phrase this in "I believe" terms, because I'm laying out an ethical judgement, here, and while that is invariably a personal endeavor, it is one that, by its nature, extends beyond just myself. I apply this to everyone, and not just as an opinion. There is no excuse.
The people who participate in wank comms, such as Fandom Wank, insist that they merely display a healthy sense of humor. That they are perfectly happy to have their own wanking mocked just as they mock others. And that anyone who posts on the internet should only expect to be targeted, because the internet is a public place.
The sense of humor argument is the one I find hardest to refute, actually, because it has a grain of truth. If, in the middle of some wank explosion, someone were to speak up and say "you know, we're all getting kind of shrill and behaving foolishly, and blowing the original disagreement out of proportion to the point where I'm laughing; congratulations, everyone", that might indeed have some beneficial effect on the wank in question. But only if it comes from the inside--from a participant in the forum affected. Because it isn't the business of anyone who is not affected. For a participant to go outside that forum to another, one which is not affected or involved, to say such a thing is not 'having a good healthy laugh at ourselves'. "Ourselves" does not apply when the participant has removed herself from that context. Instead, this is making fun of other people.
And that's a cruel thing to do. No matter how great or small, it is an immature activity and a cruel one.
That people like the FW members understand this perfectly well is demonstrated by their use of counter-wank as a disciplinary measure. Someone who posts something considered unacceptable is, in turn, mocked. For them to do this, and then say that they are happy to take what they dish out, is extremely disingenuous. To say that they can laugh at themselves, and why can't the people they mock just do the same, is verbal slight of hand that turns attention away from the manifest hurtfulness of what they are doing. That they all seek to avoid being mocked, and use mockery as an internal punishment for their own, shows very clearly that they know it hurts to be the target.
So why do they do it?
I have, by the way, no sympathy for the suggestion that FW is not as bad as it was two years ago, and that it's mostly a social comm now, where people compliment each other's icons. That's a load of bullshit, and the merest skim through the latest posts will show it.
Likewise, any statement that they confine themselves to mocking people who make public fools of themselves is, if not a technical lie, certainly just as disingenuous as the second argument. There is, for example, mockery posted, fairly recently, of some extremely personal matters that one of the members found on a couple of personal journals. When the embroiled parties protested, they were told they had invited this treatment by posting publically and unlocked, as if posting unlocked in an obscure individual journal were equivalent to posting in a community forum. It was implied that the insults levelled at their romantic lives and psychological stability, and the links back to the personal journals, posted in such a high-traffic community as FW, were exactly the same as those same comments and links would have been if made in the FW members' own personal journals.
I am reminded of this argument by the statements now being made that anyone who posts anything on the net, even locked, has no right to protest if the information becomes public. Because the net is a public place, and anyone who posts anything there, no matter how secured, is just asking for it to be publicized.
I am reminded of other arguments about victims "asking for it".
Nor do I consider this an unreasonable analogy to make. There is a voilation of personal integrity invovled. And the perpetrators are denying their responsibility by insisting that it is the victim's job to be aware of all risks and guard against them with such vigor that even the most aggressive perpetrator has no opening. That it is only the utterly, inhumanly blameless who have the right to respect.
And you know what pisses me off even more? If I posted this publicly, I have little doubt it would be pounced upon as Wank! and Drama! and promptly linked and reposted for mockery by people who would say "My God, she's so serious about it, can't she take a joke?" As if to make light of the pain they have caused. As if to say that, because it is "humor", they cannot be held culpable for the cruelty of it. As if to say the cruelty is deserved, because the target didn't behave with irreprochable reserve and purity.
Anyone who works with sexual assault issues or with women's rights issues should recognize this pattern. The fact that it is applied, here, to emotional rather than physical assault, and, usually, assault on a lesser scale, does nothing to alleviate my disgust with anyone who would employ the pattern to excuse themselves.
There is no excuse, and I'm sick of hearing people who have indulged their own pettiness and cruelty claim that they have done nothing wrong, and that it is the victim's fault.
no subject
The example I used today was the whole sports mascot issue, since a few years of teaching freshman comp left me painfully familiar with that argument. But one of the trends that kept coming up was the way these young, white, male students would write so passionately about what these oversensitive Indians should and shouldn't be offended by.
Guess what - you don't get to make that call. You don't get to tell someone else whether or not they have the right to be offended or take something personally. Just because you don't feel hurt or threatened or offended by something doesn't mean that another person, with a very different background and set of experiences, shouldn't feel threatened either.
You make a choice. That choice has consequences. Those consequences may include someone expressing and feeling disgust, anger, or any number of things. Regardless of whether you think those things are justified, those feelings are a consequence of your choice and your actions. Try taking some God damned responsibility, people.
I may be overly sensitive on this issue right now... We just got a lawyer bill for $4000 because a certain person feels that the court should have forced him to take a lawyer, even though he didn't request one and chose to try to argue his case without one. Now he's appealing because, as a result of that choice, he got his ass royally kicked by our own (expensive as hell) attorney. Naturally, it's our fault and the fault of the court. In no way could he have any responsibility for his own stupid-ass choice.
Yup. Definitely getting off on a tangent. I'll stop now :-)
no subject
And Butthead sucks. I mean, there's someone who's just begging to be naturally selected.