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)]

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)]

It's okay nonny, functional illiteracy is a common problem. If you google "adult literacy centers near me" you'll be able to find some help <3

[(Anonymous)]

Will they be able to give me material that you can take home to look up the meanings of words so you don't waste other people's time on thesaurus vomit?

[(Anonymous)]

You're soooo mad, I definitely think you read more of it. But the question is in the first graf, and you won't answer! Interesting.

[(Anonymous)]

Look at this baby trying to be smart. It’s so cute.

[(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)]

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

I'm not sure what difference it's supposed to make to me if you agree with me or not. Plenty of coalies do appear to agree with me, but since we're all anon here, that's not really something that matters much either.

what she did is something some people here will likely find fine under certain circumstances

Almost (!) every behaviour is fine "under certain circumstances".

In this case, the place and banner where she posted the rant makes all the difference. Absolutely no one would have blinked an eye about her saying the same thing on FFA. Her trash-talking the person nomming their own fanfic for Yuletide was also generally in line with what some anons said on FFA and coal. But there is a massive difference in saying something in namespace vs. on an anon meme.

Like, most people understand that standing up in the middle of the cafeteria at work and saying "Kenny from accounting is an asshole, he should fuck himself!" is a bad idea. Posting the same thing on your public RL social media will possibly also have negative consequences. Saying it to a friend on the phone or posting it in the venting thread on FFA is fine. Same action, different circumstances, different results.

Duckgirlie chose to gossip and bitch about fellow participants on her namespace social media, and now some people think she's a rude-ass wanker and she just has to accept that.

[(Anonymous)]

You can think it all you want and the rest of us still don't care please find something more interesting to talk about for fuck's sake

[(Anonymous)]

But there is a massive difference in saying something in namespace vs. on an anon meme.

Yeah, in one people know you said it and in the other you get to maintain a face as someone who doesn't make waves while participating in the same behavior anonymously. I simply do not think there is much moral difference here, and your analogy is a bad one: she did not say this in the same venue in which the activity occurs. She said it on her own social media. I likened this to talking about an issue in a public place like a coffee shop and I stand by that simile.

Duckgirlie chose to gossip and bitch about fellow participants on her namespace social media, and now some people think she's a rude-ass wanker and she just has to accept that.

Again, you are avoiding the core of my point with this linguistic grandstanding. I understand that you think obsessing over her behavior is totes righteous because she committed the sin of criticizing someone with her name attached. But we don't all think she's a rude-ass wanker; I don't, I think she seems basically normal and surveilling her social media is pretty silly (and boring!). You seem very fragile in this specific area: you cannot accept that the distinction which you believe is natural and inherent to our shared social space, that anon vs namespace makes certain expressions of dislike or distaste justifiable or nonjustifiable, is neither natural nor inherent; in other words, you seem to struggle understanding the more basic point that, DG aside, some people simply do not agree with you about what's okay to say anon vs in namespace.

And, indeed, you previously said people don't "earn" rudeness, then claimed that people think DG is rude and therefore nonnies obsessing over her posts is a consequence of DG's behavior.

You're embracing a disciplinarian role as an anon and justifying it by saying "well, I'm anon". And, sure, you can do that. But I'd stand by my statements here with my name attached. Would you?

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry people are judging you for the things you posted in namespace even though even though everyone! totally! supports! you! there!

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry for whatever disorder makes you incapable of understanding people argue for reasons other than being the person under discussion :(

[(Anonymous)]

But coalie, their follower count isn't dropping! Surely that means no etiquette violation was committed!

[(Anonymous)]

But we don't all think she's a rude-ass wanker

This is the second time you claimed I was talking for everyone. I'm not. I literally said (and you even quoted it!): "SOME PEOPLE think she's a rude-ass wanker". I don't think everyone agrees with me. This should also have been evident from where I said that it doesn't matter to me that several coalies appear to agree with me and that it also doesn't matter to me that you don't, so your whole point re: "you seem to struggle understanding the more basic point that, DG aside, some people simply do not agree with you about what's okay to say anon vs in namespace" is really head-scratch worthy.

But I'd stand by my statements here with my name attached. Would you?

I mean, I also literally just posted a whole comment talking about how I feel some things are inappropriate to say in public namespace. Did you even read the comment you replied to?

Yes, I would say everything I said here in a locked post in namespace. Yes, I would also say them directly TO duckgirlie in a DM if we were close enough that approaching them through DM was appropriate. But no, obviously I would not say "Duckgirlie is a rude-ass wanker" on my public socials, because then I'd be doing the exact same that I was judging her for.

[(Anonymous)]

nc

If you're the wank subject tho, what's the difference between anons trash talking you vs people doing it in namespace? If anything this response kinda makes me think you should be willing to have the nerve to shittalk in namespace if you do so anonymously.

[(Anonymous)]

You're still not getting it. You insist upon specific baseline assumptions of behavior that we don't all agree with. They are assumptions inherent to your reasoning which you do not bother to explain, justify, or even acknowledge as assumptions. Given that you've essentially told me this is a byproduct of poor argumentation on your part, rather than a genuine lack of understanding, we can let that rest.

But no, obviously I would not say "Duckgirlie is a rude-ass wanker" on my public socials, because then I'd be doing the exact same that I was judging her for.

You're doing the same thing you're judging her for now, you just can't admit it, because you feel the ability to dodge accountability creates an inherent difference in the activity. But it doesn't. Saying it with your name attached vs not really doesn't matter that much, you've still said it - on a forum, even, rather than an individual Twitter account, which raises the visibility of the criticism quite a bit.

Like, come on, we're in fandom. Would you say it on an alt? If you said it "friendslocked" and someone reposted it, what then? Do you truly believe the most important thing to weigh here, ethically, is "can this public statement be attributed to me"?

I will say again that I think your actual motivation here is reflexive pushback against the idea that it's okay to criticize someone's behavior on fannish grounds (because of who and what they choose to stan). I think you've demonstrated that handily in this thread, and I think it's ridiculous. Again, she shittalked an asshole who is a Prince Andrew stan. It's not that deep, and putative surveillance is both unnecessary and, frankly, dull.

[(Anonymous)]

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