Log in

No account? Create an account
29 October 2003 @ 10:14 pm
I've got a "Hogwarts headache" all right...  
Today sucked. Have an HP-related link.

And then I made the mistake of clicking on someone's link and ended up reading some fandom wank. Big, huge, nasty mistake.

You see, I really don't understand why people find fandom wank enjoyable. Someone please explain to me why hurting other people or making fun of their problems has become a form of entertainment? People I consider friends, people I thought of as geniunely caring, wonderful individuals, go over there and laugh and mock and point and call names and make fun of whatever and whomever with no shame whatsoever. It's making me think I don't know them at all.

Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I need to get over myself and learn that being crass and rude and saying nasty things about others is where the real fun is at, and I'm crazy for trying to be nice for the most part and thinking the best of people.

And the saddest thing of all? This post about my disgust with fandom wank and disappointment in the people involved with it will likely end up ON fandom wank - this time with me being made fun of and called names. Well, I hate to break it to all of you wankers, but there is nothing could you possibly say about me that would be more painful than the things that have already been said - so go for it if that's what gets you off. -.-
I feel: disappointeddisappointed
I am the man that makes the bhaji go awaymalachan on October 30th, 2003 12:40 am (UTC)
IMO fandom_wank can sometimes be unobjectionable but can sometimes degenerate.

When there's a wank involving, say, Watchful Entity or Darlene Hartsford or a troll or a flamer, then IMO there's nothing wrong in going there to mock someone who everyone agrees is being an asshat.

But when people who have done nothing wrong get mocked, just because they're 'involved'? Or when the same people get mocked incessantly? I'm totally with you.
Turbo Kongtromboneborges on October 30th, 2003 03:54 am (UTC)
Well, and the problem is that I am not sure it is worth it, for me, to try to have it both ways. Because I find that when FW is bad, it's very very very bad, and when it is good it is, eh, mildly amusing.

I've reached the point where I'd rather not ever load a link to anything within the FW journal, ever, because the pain and messiness associated with the FW discussion is typically much much much worse than the actual original situation that was wanked.
furious george: I approve of above ground swimming poolsweatherby on October 30th, 2003 07:59 am (UTC)
I agree totally. Half the wank drags in people who aren't even involved just because they know the person being wanked. Or else because someone there who hates someone else decides to mention them for no related reason whatsoever. And it goes well beyond mocking whatever 'wanky' situation is going on and into "Well, here is why I have decided that I also hate this person's fic, religion and hair colour based upon the fact that they do not like ____."
Turbo Kongtromboneborges on October 30th, 2003 08:18 am (UTC)
Well, exactly. And the problem is not so much the wank as the positive feedback loop of wank. Wank begets wank. And problems that were fairly contained (I mean the recent explosive one involved what, four people? five?) suddenly become wanky, proxy-fight-filled Massive Fandom Issues and people post about how the "fandom is falling apart," all of which is ridiculous.

So for me the amusement of FW is not worth the extent to which it actively makes my experience, and the experience of my friends, of this supposedly fun hobby less fun.
I am the man that makes the bhaji go away: loffmalachan on October 30th, 2003 08:36 am (UTC)
I'm with you on that. In the Huge Wank Post of a few days ago, I lost count of the number of HP fandomers who were name-dropped simply because they had been in some ancient wank in the past. For no apparent reason other than it amused the name-dropper to make these vague references.

And I hear you Josh - I too am unconvinced that the amount of hurtful wank-generating over there makes up for the amusing stuff when there's a Darlene or an Entity being wanked.
Scribere Qui Cupiunt Sensum Deus Augeat Illisthegraybook on October 30th, 2003 10:26 am (UTC)
Right. And a lot of wank is generated by people playing to fandom_wank in the first place, trying to get wanked for the attention, or the validation, or the hope that fandom_wank will "take their side" (which is sort of like hoping a rabid hyena takes your side - it might bite someone else first, but it'll get around to you eventually) - which sort of renders moot much of the point of fandom_wank, which seems to feel it exists to put a check on that kind of behavior.

I can't get behind the "it's about not taking things too seriously" argument either, as I have never in my entire life seen anyone take fandom as seriously as the denizens of fandom_wank.

In the end, it's about watching people be mean to people you think deserve it and about a space where you can make judgements about situations you don't know involving people you don't know doing things you think they might have done but can't be exactly sure since there's no proof but who cares anyway. Few on fandom_wank seem to be able to remember who did what, what points go with which argument, or what the actual facts were in any given situation, so they are not much good as a debate forum either.

I remember someone once posting there that people should quit trying to bring up actual facts because "We are not interested in what's true, just what's mean or funny." Which means I can't really get enjoyment out of any of the wanks, even the ones about other fandoms and total strangers, because I just assume it's all lies and personal axes being ground anyway, and that's fairly boring.

I do not like reality TV, and I don't like fandom_wank for many of the same reasons. If it floats your boat, fine. Like Josh, I won't load any f_w webpage, no matter what the topic, and am happier for it.
That's what she said.: :-?altricial on October 30th, 2003 01:07 pm (UTC)
So like, it is all cool and not nasty to flame the shit out of someone we ALL don't like, but it is apparently wrong to call on wanky behaviours of someone we know? It's better to keep quiet about it until it all blows up one day and people get hurt by things that happened 18 months ago? Where is the logic here? I've never seen anything in f_w half as nasty as the the "nothing wrong" comments on pottersginny's or w_ or whatever the troll we all decided to attack on whatever particular day.
I am the man that makes the bhaji go awaymalachan on October 30th, 2003 01:22 pm (UTC)
I didn't say "flame the shit".

pottersginny used racist abuse (and all sorts of other abuse). And was generally offensive before provocation. And was, well, a homophobic racist bigot and flamed people.

I have no idea what happened 18 months ago so can't comment on the rest of what you said.
That's what she said.: ...altricial on October 30th, 2003 01:41 pm (UTC)
"Flame the shit" wasn't a direct quote from you, but that was exactly what we did. And everyone considers different things offensive and wanky. To say that it is only right to attack someone when the majority agrees that someone is an ass? It reeks of mob mentality. If someone did something I feel is wanky, even if it's a good friend of mine, I'll say, "Dude, that was so wanky it's hilarious." It's really as simple as that.
I am the man that makes the bhaji go awaymalachan on October 30th, 2003 01:56 pm (UTC)
OK, then as John and Odd and others have said, we just have different ideas of what is acceptable behaviour. I wouldn't mock a friend, simply because I don't think friends should. Inconsistent? Yeah, but it's how I think I should behave. I don't have any obligation to W_E or Darlene, I think I do to people I know.

So yeah. Difference in personal values, and we should probably best leave it at that. <3
That's what she said.altricial on October 30th, 2003 01:58 pm (UTC)
Agreed <3
(Deleted comment)
That's what she said.altricial on October 30th, 2003 02:24 pm (UTC)
Actually, I didn't. :-?