coaltide | One Wank After Another

Entry tags:

2025

One Wank After Another

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

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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

Ironic!

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

you're so fucking insufferable

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.

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.

the difference ime is a whole forum of anons trash talking you is honestly really upsetting in a way a blockable individual doing so isn't lmfao

nc

Disagree. What do I care about an anonymous mass that could be anywhere from 1 to infinite number of people I will never know (or at least never know that I know)?

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.

DC If it's dull, why are you talking so much?

I'm arguing about the choice to wank, and specifically the justification of wanking. The topic of the wank itself isn't interesting to me.

CYRT

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"?

No. I wouldn't say it on my alt either, even though that account is not associated with me and saying it there would have zero repercussions for me. It's not about accountability.

Which part of "I would not trash talk a fellow exchange participant in public namespace because I believe doing so is rude" is so difficult for you to understand?

(Also, LOL at the idea that saying something on coal is more visible than saying something on Twitter. How many people do you think come here???)

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 mean, that's a whole other issue. Yes, I also disagree with that. But that's not my actual motivation for thinking complaining about your recip or your assignment in public namespace is bad. Those two things can and do exist entirely separately from each other. We might as well have the above discussion re: rudeness about Duckgirlie bitching about the person nominating their own fic for Yuletide. I also think that's rude af, and it has nothing to do with criticising someone's behavior because of who and what they choose to stan.

Which part of "I would not trash talk a fellow exchange participant in public namespace because I believe doing so is rude" is so difficult for you to understand?

I understand that's your belief. You haven't come close to articulating why. Why do you believe non-anon criticism is worse than anon?

(Also, LOL at the idea that saying something on coal is more visible than saying something on Twitter. How many people do you think come here???)

Mmm, bad math. I think it's absolutely believable that more people doing Yuletide are aware of this space (or FFA) than follow DG on Twitter. The wank only blew up after her comments were posted on anon forums.

But that's not my actual motivation for thinking complaining about your recip or your assignment in public namespace is bad.

I don't believe you, specifically because of your failure to articulate any reasoning for your belief.

cyrt

No, I've said it, you just don't get it.

I salute your efforts, coalie.

nc

I understand that's your belief. You haven't come close to articulating why.

Sincerely, why do you need them to articulate the way behind a belief? If that's their baseline, I don't understand how it matters why they believe what they believe just that they do and that's where the disagreement stems from.

sc

The WHY behind a belief, good lord.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

One Wank After Another

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject