(no subject)
Apr. 1st, 2007 09:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I am not sure I need to say anything more than this:
My name is
vaznetti. I am an active participant in Supernatural fandom. I don't like Wincest of any variety.
I like this fandom very much, and would be sorry to find that this opinion meant that I could not be part of it. That has certainly not been my experience so far, and I hope that the fandom will remain tolerant of both pro- and anti-wincest opinion.
My name is
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
I like this fandom very much, and would be sorry to find that this opinion meant that I could not be part of it. That has certainly not been my experience so far, and I hope that the fandom will remain tolerant of both pro- and anti-wincest opinion.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 02:00 pm (UTC)I think I would have more sympathy for the posts which annoy me if I had seen the anti-Wincest post that set all this off in the first place; what I've seen instead is what looks to me like the attempt to silence any discussion of wincest that isn't fully supportive and positive. Indeed, I've seen it stated outright is that there is no possiblility of rational but negative discussion of wincest. Personally, I've been in fandom long enough to have a good sense of what's appropriate and what's not.
My original, cranky reaction is that I've been told up to shut up, and that I need to be tolerant of other people but other people don't need to be tolerant of me: that's the sense of entitlement that irritates me. Obviously, your mileage may vary, and as you say, you try to avoid and ignore wank. I mostly do the same, but in this instance felt the need to speak out.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 03:07 pm (UTC)http://azewewish.livejournal.com/535924.html
in the fifth paragraph, although the fourth paragraph contains some of the same thing about another fandom I'm not familiar with.
(and I just noticed from other posts in
The "raping canon" is in a comment reply from her in this thread:
http://azewewish.livejournal.com/535924.html?thread=6467444#t6467444
The other one, let's see if I can find that, it was more recent but I caught only bits of it...
And sense of entitlement - imho, that was
But turning around and making big statements about what one likes or dislikes just tends to draw a line in the playground and make for an "everybody choose sides" thing - which is why I have specifically NOT mentioned my fic preferences.
It doesn't matter, imho, whether I like Wincest or not, you have a right not to like it and so-and-so over there has a right to like it and *neither of you* has a right to dictate to the other what either of you can read or write or feel or think.(1) If you not liking Wincest bother so-and-so a whole bunch, so-and-so can unfriend you. If so-and-so liking Wincest bothers you a whole bunch, you can unfriend so-and-so. Otherwise both of you can simply skim past the LJ entries you're not interested in and read the stuff you are interested in.
It all goes back to that old thing we used to say before the intarwebs, don't like that show on TV??? You have these things called fingers and feet and there's knob on that TV that will allow you to CHANGE THE CHANNEL. Works the same on the intarwebs too. ;)
Signed,
old decrepit cat lady
(1) I'm not talking about the US Bill of Rights Free Speech thing which does not apply here, I'm talking basic human rights that apply all over the world and thus on the internet too.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-04 06:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-05 03:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-05 04:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 03:32 pm (UTC)http://impertinence.livejournal.com/222782.html
Alot of people understood what she was sort of getting at - trying to get more people to read fic by different, perhaps less popular, newer authors - which just about everyone agreed is a good idea. But she used the BNF term which has gotten a sorta of derogatory connotation lately and she named names which also detracted from her point. There were some additional somewhat wankish posts by others but this was the initial post in that particular wank.
This particular author is 16 - some people got upset about that and felt that because of her age (and they being much older) they shouldn't even talk to her which was rather silly I think. If they don't like her because she's immature, fine, don't friend her LJ. But saying that she's too young to be friends with someone in their 30s or 40s just because she's 16 is crap, imho. (Personally I think older friends can be good for teenagers, expand their horizons beyond lip gloss and glitter pens and let them see a wider world but that's jmho and people should be friends because they *like* each other, not because someone is a certain age.)
Somewhere in these various wanks and the replies, people also got all upset that random people from meta-fandom and fandom_wank were reading their *public* LJ posts and leaving comments. So there was also a side-kerfluffle about expectations of privacy on public LJ posts.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 03:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 05:04 pm (UTC)LOL! yes definitely fandom years ago! but good wanks never die, they just get dragged up again and again!