Well, WELL, well

[neadods]

Remember when I asked "does this make me famous or does this make me fandomwank?

The answer turns out to be fandomwank.

I hope the folks mining my LJ for wankability enjoyed the boring stuff about my cold and my cats.

Comments

[havocthecat]

I hate to break this to you, Nea, but I was kind of doing a mental Countdown To Fandom_Wank as soon as you posted about RPF in your journal. :)

[lizbetann]

Dude! And I got my very own little sub-thread.

*feels the wank*

[lizbetann]

Another thing... I'm having serious brain whiplash because everyone there seems to be focused on "Well, if ginmar is on one side, ALL THINKING PEOPLE are on the other." Whereas the people I've hung around with tend to respect Ginmar nigh onto pedastal status (no offense intended, ginmar).

The frell?

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole thing where the "if they wanted privacy" analogy means you're saying that RPS is the same as rape. Especially with the part where you said immediately thereafter that it's NOT. *boggle*

I dunno about anybody else, but I immediately saw it as taking issue with the logic formula itself, i.e. "Harmful action X is okay because Victim Y 'invited' it through Action Z." If people want to argue that the truth or falsity of this logic is different for different values of X and Y, fine. But at no time did you say that all values of X are the same.

[zinelady.livejournal.com]

Okay, I know I'm new to LJ, but I'd never heard of wanking someone, other than jerking them off, which is usually a pleasant experience ...but apparently, it gives some 'people' the right or duty or whatever reason they need to mock other people's opinions. Personally, I don't find them funny or witty. They kinda do what they call a wank, 'self-aggrandizing posturing' but they do it at the expense of others. Just pitiful. I wouldn't give them the time of day, Nea.

[twistedchick]

Well, if you're freaky and sad then I'm over the edge insane. But that's been said before, and for less reason.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

There's a reason it's called "fandomWANK". That's because most of the people who post on it are, frankly, wankers. Entitlement whores. Bullies, who believe that anything you can get away with doing is JUST FINE, and no one else has any right to hold a different opinion. Under other circumstances, such as Iraq, this is called "arguing that might makes right" -- but they'll never get it, because of course when THEY'RE doing it, well, That's Different.

[shawan-7.livejournal.com]

Eh, they're wastes of time. Go back to writing and having your own opinions. You make more sense (even if I don't agree half the time.)

off topic - book question

[sceptre1067.livejournal.com]

Since you mentioned the anthropological angel...

Have you've read Textual Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Culture (Studies in Culture and Communication) by Henry Jenkins?

It's been a while so I can't provide much of a review, but you might find it interesting in relation to fanfic and slash.

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

Over here from metafandom

Don't worry about it. FW is sometimes amusing, but a large number of the regular posters are headbangoing sexual libertarians who believe that if someone is getting in orgasm over anything it is, by definition, good and anybody who criticises them is an evil repressed conservative who wants to put women in burkas. All you need to know is that a few weeks ago there was actually an argument among the regular posters about whether it was wrong for a man to have sex with his teenage daughter if she claimed to be enjoying it.