One Wank After Another

[coalcube]

A blank assignment is a funny thing, isn't it? When you have it, you don't appreciate it, and when you miss it, it's gone.

Wednesday 10 December: Default deadline (9pm UTC)
Wednesday 17 December: Assignment deadline (9pm UTC)
Wednesday 24 December: Main collection works reveals (9pm UTC)
Thursday 25 December: Madness collection works reveals (9pm UTC)
Thursday 1 January: Author reveals, end of event (9pm UTC)

Mini-Challenges:

Crueltide | Femslash Festivus | Yulebuilding | Three Turtle Doves | Two for One | Yuleporn  
Family Matters | Queering the Tide | Yuletide Madness Drabble Invitational | TransTide 
Chromatic Yuletide | Unconventionyule | Wrapping Paper | Babytide | MultiLingYule 

Yuletide Discord for Hippos & Exchanges After Dark for namespace drama 18+ discussion.

yuletide | yuletide_admin | yuletide_pinch_hits | App

2025 Collection | 2025 Madness | Tagset | Letters

Flat / Recent | Top-Level (Last) | FAQ | Search

 

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

You sound like every run-of-the-mil anti bending into pretzels to justify posting on AO3 despite AO3 being morally reprehensible.

If you think the recip is a creep and Yuletide allowing the fandom is not justifiable, then you need to put your money where your mouth is and distance yourself, not write for this person and then try to wash yourself clean by publicly deriding them.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

And incidentally, I just went on your AO3 profile to block you, and I'm boggling at the fact that someone who has fic featuring Patrick fucking Kane on their works page would throw this fit. Like, what the heck?!

[(Anonymous)]

Aww man I thought this was a Spongebob WWE crossover for a sec.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh ho ho the truth will out. Patrick fucking Kane, rapist and abuser? Well, well well.

[(Anonymous)]

Ok now when did they write it? Was it before that came out or after?

[(Anonymous)]

PKane fic from 2013, oh noooo, that's just like writing Prince Andrew fic in 2025 ur so right

[(Anonymous)]

bro come onnnnn, "try to wash yourself clean" is a completely ridiculous characterization, you made that up! you are throwing a fit over someone fulfilling their exchange obligations and then complaining about them because the event allowed a creep and their reprehensible fandom in. you have not actually mounted an argument about why this is so bad, only whined and bitched and moaned and insisted it's self-evident that your preferred course of action is the superior one. how convenient that such a course of action reduces friction for the gross pedophile stan and increases friction for the person who thinks being a pedophile stan is gross.

[(Anonymous)]

Here's your pacifier, now you can have a nap and write more fic about your chosen rapist, Patrick Kane, in peace.

[(Anonymous)]

no this isn't about hrpf. this is about your weird obsession with caping for prince andrew stans.

[(Anonymous)]

This is really pathetic.

[(Anonymous)]

scintillating rebuttal

[(Anonymous)]

I’m sorry you have no friends.

[(Anonymous)]

Just a wall of text to warm themselves at night.

[(Anonymous)]

If you think the recip is a creep and Yuletide allowing the fandom is not justifiable, then you need to put your money where your mouth is and distance yourself, not write for this person and then try to wash yourself clean by publicly deriding them.

Why, though?

I get it, you think it's extremely risible to trash talk your recip on public socmed. But unfortunately for you, fandom is not a monoculture. We've never had 100% alignment on the idea that ever talking negatively about individuals or a fandom is bad. Talking publicly about your choices and why you find someone's fandom so objectionable is something people have always done, and personally I do think of social media as more a coffee shop friend meetup type place. This person didn't (to my knowledge, but you're clearly the expert; feel free to correct me) directly @ their recipe, they didn't call for harassment, they simply talked about their unsatisfying experience and made it clear they didn't agree with their recip's choices.

Now, you can think that's rude all you want, but if you insist rudeness is such a sin that this person must be subjected to attempts to correct their behavior - which is how various people have framed discussion here, the obsessive following of this person's Twitter, as a "lesson" they need to learn about using public social media in a way you disapprove of - then my question becomes, why are you so determined to preserve a fannish environment wherein rudeness towards a fan of a pedophilic monarch is viewed as more worthy of censure than being a fan of a pedophilic monarch?

It is reasonable, in my opinion, to profoundly disapprove of this sort of fandom, to think it should not be permitted in Yuletide, and to still prioritize your own completion of Yuletide to your satisfaction over a gesture of protest that would not meaningfully alter Yuletide's rules or this person's participation. Yet you treat the correctness of such a gesture of protest as an a priori assumption, and the use of social media to discussion one's experiences as another a priori assumption - respectively, that one is morally correct and the other is morally incorrect. But I disagree with this, I don't think either is so obviously true. In fact rudeness towards people who have earned it is a fairly normal and accepted aspect of functioning social groups. It's strange that someone such such firm opinions on what someone should do with their fannish participation is unaware of this dynamic; because of this, I doubt you lack awareness.

I'm left to conclude you don't think this person has earned it, that you view public grousing about them as unfair specifically because you don't think their fannish activity has earned rudeness, or indeed any botheration at all. Is this true?

[(Anonymous)]

That's not what risible means

[(Anonymous)]

You're right, I cut a clause but didn't edit it well enough. The clause originally read something like "you think it's risible to shittalk your recip on socmed and claim it's okay because their fandom fucking sucks", IOW that it's farcical to claim this as a motivation because the recip's behavior doesn't warrant such a thing.

[(Anonymous)]

That's still not what risible means

[(Anonymous)]

Uh-huh. So the answer to "why, though?" really is just "because I said so", then?

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't read your essay because I stopped in the first paragraph after I saw you misusing words to try to make your babble look smarter than it is.

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

It is reasonable, in my opinion, to profoundly disapprove of this sort of fandom, to think it should not be permitted in Yuletide, and to still prioritize your own completion of Yuletide to your satisfaction over a gesture of protest that would not meaningfully alter Yuletide's rules or this person's participation.

And that's what I disagree with. Like I said, that's the same as antis claiming that AO3 hosts pedophilia and still posting and reading fics on AO3.

I'm left to conclude you don't think this person has earned it, that you view public grousing about them as unfair specifically because you don't think their fannish activity has earned rudeness, or indeed any botheration at all. Is this true?

Rudeness isn't something you "earn". Now, if you're asking me if I think Andrew should be allowed as a nominated character on Yuletide? No, I don't. At the very least, it's inconsistent. Do I writing RPF about Andrew outside of Yuletide is wrong? No, because I don't equate RPF with attitudes about the real people. Do I think actively standing Andrew and defending him - which this person clearly does - is wrong? Hell, yes! Would I want to write for this person? No. Would I default if I matched to them? Honestly, I don't know. Maybe I would also be selfish enough to think "whatever, they're just a deluded loon and they are a dime a dozen; I'm not risking my own gift for this twat". Maybe I would say "this crosses a line for me, I don't want to associate with this person" and hit the default button.

You know what I would definitely never do? Write them nice gift fic and then trash talk on Twitter.

But considering that Duckgirlie has also been trash talking random other Yuletide participants and their entirely harmless requests for reasons that have nothing to do with moral objections on their Twitter, clearly that part is not an issue for them. This isn't a one-off. They're not a great crusader against sexual assault and pedophilia, they're just a wanker who likes to gossip about other people's requests and nominations they don't like in public.

[(Anonymous)]

If it were an otherwise nonwanky person publicly bitching about how their recipient is a nonce stan I do think people would be more on their side.

[(Anonymous)]

Like I said, that's the same as antis claiming that AO3 hosts pedophilia and still posting and reading fics on AO3.

But you haven't actually justified or explained this opinion at all and I do not agree the links are self-evident. One is about usage of a platform which detractors claim disseminates harmful material, one is about completing your exchange assignment with non-harmful material, given to someone whose choices you disagree with. I don't think the claims of harm are really meaningfully equivalent, nor are the activities - Yuletide isn't a platform. So it's on you to demonstrate how these are equivalent.

They're not a great crusader against sexual assault and pedophilia, they're just a wanker who likes to gossip about other people's requests and nominations they don't like in public.

And here we arrive at it: you don't think that the fandom in question is particularly awful (I strongly disagree) even if you condemn the individual, but you also don't care because to you, the problem here is DG conducting themself in a way you disapprove of, and because of this, you think surveilling their social media and discussing it here is appropriate, and them locking because they're uncomfortable with such behavior is a deserved, justifiable outcome.

But you're just doing the same thing DG is doing, the thing you think is so beyond the pale. Can you see that? The exact same thing. That your name isn't attached is really immaterial. You even ascribe specific motivations to them ("great crusader") that they haven't, to my knowledge, expressed, and use the delta between their assumed motivations and their behavior to justify the trash talking.

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

So it's on you to demonstrate how these are equivalent.

It's not "on me" to demonstrate anything. It's not my job to convince you.

But you're just doing the same thing DG is doing, the thing you think is so beyond the pale. Can you see that? The exact same thing. That your name isn't attached is really immaterial.

Honey, we're on coal. Of course we're doing the same. We're all wanking our heart out. If we said the shit we routinely say here about our assignments, our gifts and our Yuletide experiences in namespace, we'd be shunned because that's what happens when you're rude in namespace. That's the whole reason why this comm (and FFA, to a degree) exists.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not my job to convince you.

I thought you'd be able to pick up on the implied "if you want agreement" but I guess not.

Of course we're doing the same.

Sure, so then we agree, what she did is something some people here will likely find fine under certain circumstances, and thus the approbation directed towards her to be baffling/stupid/ridiculous - like me.

"We'd be shunned if we behaved this way in namespace" - well no, not me! And not DG either, judging by follower count, because you see, not everyone or even most people agree with the frankly ludicrous ethical framework you've insisted is both true and universal.

[(Anonymous)]

Wow, that’s a lot of supercilious word salad.