It's Sunday...

[shipperx]

So as a summation of stuff...

* Turns out my participation in the response thread of one of the current kerfuffles resulted in the "you support rape!" accusation thrown at me after I disagreed to the "Spike manipulated Buffy in Season 6" argument . (I didn't actually know that I had been accused of supporting rape until someone else told me about it. After seeing the person had responded with a detailed double post itemized hissyfit, I stopped reading and responded with "I'm not going to hijack someone's LJ to have a useless debate" response. I didn't actually read the person's entire, long winded argument because I don't actually care. Really, it's not like I take it personally that someone apparently watched an entirely different show than I did, and I'm not going to change my mind because someone throws the "you're not a feminist" schtick at me.

Anyway, having been told that accusation was lobbed at me... shouldn't there be a Spike-fen codicil to Godwin's Law? I think so. This hysterical accusation should bring the immediate end to a debate and cause a loss by default since it's just an inflammatory, desperate grab for a trump card.

I didn't bother to debate the ridiculous accusation. The person vastly overestimates whether I give a damn about what they think about me, or what I think about their arguments. This is a tired old debate that's been had a billion times before. Let's not delude ourselves that we're going to talk someone into a different position. Save yourself the breath, the energy, and the bandwidth. You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to be shivering in my boots thinking I've betrayed feminism or condoned rape (Wish I had an eyeroll emoticon). And if you really are set in a certain mode of thought, I do not believe that I can talk you around to seeing my point of view.

And, ultimately, it all boils down to one insurmountable obstacle -- the show is over! No amount of brow beating, breast beating, or arguing is going to change a damn thing so, again, save your breath, the energy, and the bandwidth.

* And on a related note. Heh. Someone who decided that they hated me years ago because of BtVS kerfuffle, apparently still holds me in contempt as 'one of those horrible people' (and told me so in someone else's LJ). Dude, if you're still obsessing on my being 'teh evil' 3+ years later... that's just sad.

* I had one of those "I hate my clothes" moments this weekend so I went shopping today. Got these pants in charcoal, and these pants in chocolate. A deep royal blue, 3/4 sleeve sweater, and a red striped shirt. (Yeah, I'm kind of boring).

* Finished editing Chapter 5 of "Perfect Vengeance" so when I get it coded, I'll be posting it.

Comments

[rowanswhimsy.livejournal.com]

Anyway, having been told that accusation was lobbed at me... shouldn't there be a Spike-fen codicil to Godwin's Law? I think so. This hysterical accusation should bring the immediate end to a debate and cause a loss by default since it's just an inflammatory, desperate grab for a trump card.

Can't we just yell 'spousal abuser!' at them instead? It'd be more fun.

[paratti.livejournal.com]

Or 'pedophile' in the case of a Bangel.

[rowanswhimsy.livejournal.com]

Or 'drug-addicted mass rapist' in Willow's case.

Ah, good time, good times.

[paratti.livejournal.com]

Don't forget the pyromaniac murderer liar lovers for the Xanderite nutters.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

And of course his near rape of Buffy is entirely forgivable.

[sp23.livejournal.com]

Aw, but he was possessed by an evil hyena demon and so therefore not respons... Wait, Spike's possessed by a demon. No wait, that's not the bloody same, AT ALL!

Heh.

[rowanswhimsy.livejournal.com]

Hee -- I had forgotten that, lol!!!!

[paratti.livejournal.com]

It's not surprising, everyone else did. Especially the hypoctitical lying attempted rapist himself

[spikeylover.livejournal.com]

Giles fans condone murdering humans.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

They also support practicing black magic, enslavement (or at least servitude) of young women, and oppressive patriarchy!

(Hee. Who said hyperbolic accusations can't be fun?)

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

But she's a core four! Plus, she was just in a 'dark place.'

[rowanswhimsy.livejournal.com]

I think that's spelled 'pwace'.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Heh. I stand corrected.

[paratti.livejournal.com]

And a girly, so of course it wasn't her fault.

Silly me for thinking men and women should have and bear equal responsibility for their actions.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

She's this petite little girl. Of course she's blameless for everything, you idiot! Don't you see how doe-eyed and anorexic the is?!

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

It's always fun to pull out the California law concerning Statutory Rape and watchy them go nearly non-verbal with fury.

[paratti.livejournal.com]

Attack is not only the most effective form of defence, it's also by the most fun.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

That's because we're evil, serial killer, 'rappist' lovers.

[paratti.livejournal.com]

Actually setting it all to a rap beat would be funny.

You missed out 'soulless things' from the chorus.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

LOL! I always wonder why we're such terrible people who "blame the victim" but they will defend with great self righteousness their position that Spiked DESERVED to be beaten to a pulp... Gee, where's a sense of irony when you need it?

[herself_nyc]

Urgh. I got that 'you're not a feminist, you condone rape' thing hurled at me after I posted “What She Deserves.”

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

The thing is, I always have to resist near overwhelming urge to say "Why, yes, I do support rape." I have to continue to remind myself that they would not catch the heavy sarcasm in the statement. Then I would be quoted everywhere. "See! They admit that they support rape!"

[spikeylover.livejournal.com]

My stock answer to "I support rape" is that they support Murder and torture. (apparently, that doesn't count because Buffy jumped on Spike's poll and rode him like a pony, so she shouldn't forgive him for his unsouled crimes.

[mlgm.livejournal.com]

This is exactly why I so despise the soap overly done "Rape to redeem the bad girl" storyline Marti used in Season Six.

I almost always end up feeling sorry for the male character and despising the female character even more.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

And I admit my history of soap viewing makes me very, very, very cynical of this particular plot device. Because that's exactly what it was. It's exactly what soaps use it as too. And it never works.

[kellyhk.livejournal.com]

Turns out my participation in the response thread of one of the current kerfuffles resulted in the "you support rape!" accusation thrown at me after I disagreed to the "Spike manipulated Buffy in Season 6" argument

So said idiot never read one of your many posts back in the day to the contrary? Sheesh, idiots.

Hey, embrace your eV0lness!!Talk about ridiculous grudge wank. Sheesh.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Two different people.

One was in the kerfuffle thread the other day. One of the respondents in the kerfuffle posted how Spike manipulted Buffy sooooo much in Season 6. A couple of people backed her up. I said that I'd be the naysayer in the group. Spike didn't "manipulate" Buffy. Buffy was in the power position in the pairing both emotionally and physically. For Spike to "manipulate" he would have needed to have been in the power position. He wasn't. Spike wasn't the manipulator. He was the co-dependent. Now, yeah, Spike's screwed-up-edness was definitely a factor in the big ol mess of Season 6 Spuffy. It was a dysfunctional/co-dependent relationship. But Spike was the sub in it, one who sought to become whatever was needed to suit whatever Buffy signalled that she wanted. He was desperate to be whatever it was Buffy needed at that moment in order to have her attention. So Spike constantly responded to her feedback. When she gave reaction to "bad Spike" Spike fed Bad Spike back to her, because he was taking any attention as positive attention. Spike, as a soulless being, could not grasp at a very fundamental nature of what Buffy was doing. Spike, as a soulless being, could NOT understand self-loathing and self-hate over your own desires. Buffy hated herself for wanting what she wanted. She used Spike as a form of self-punishment (in a twisted, "I want it, but I want take responsibility for wanting, so I'll say Spike is responsible for all those bad things I do... and I hate myself for doing those bad things 'he makes me do'." Which, dude, isnt' a stretch as that's what she was saying in Dead Things when she was weeping about just having beaten the shit out of him. So, no, that's not saying that she arranged the Seeing Red incident.) The entire dynamict was destructive to them both. However, soulless Spike couldn't "get" what Buffy's real motivation was in the relationship. Spike interepreted it as her wanting him but fighting it... because as a soulless being he couldn't get that you could really be ASHAMED of yourself and HATE yourself for what you desired. Spike interpreted things wrongly (such as "We're alike in the dark" -- not as manipulation but as his actual point of view. He became whatever Buffy signalled she needed. Buffy gave positive reinforcement for negative traits and Spike, sans moral compass, couldn't identify that it was a disastrously negative dynamic that was being set into motion...one that did significant damage to them both. He didn't have the independent moral compass to realize that this was incredibly destructive, and giving Buffy what she wanted wasn't the right thing (for her or for him). But that's not manipulation. It's sad. It's tragic. It's co-dependenvy and dysfunctional as hell. But he wasn't in the power position in the realtionship. SHE was. (Which, unlike this reactionary purpose does NOT mean "she deserved to be raped." Of course I would outrage them if I got into my actual feelings regarding Seeing Red, but I never addressed that issue even obliquely because it IS a hot button issue.) What I said was saying that the woman was complicit in the dysfunction of the relationship. It means that she started the ball rolling in a disastrous way that then snowballed out of control and got beyond her control. Which only someone incredibly dim or blinkered would say is saying she 'deserved to be raped.' No, it doesn't. But it doesn't absolve her of her actions, choices, and pathologies within the relationship. But then either it's a case of incredible naivete on their part (which I don't believe) or it's really just a hobby horse to blame Spike for taking advantage of poor wittle Buffikins who had no responsibility whatsoever for her own choices and actions (*spit*) Anyway, this happened just the other day.

[petzipellepingo.livejournal.com]

Exactly and why on earth are they still shrieking about it three years later. Do they expect Joss to re-write all of this in his musical version? Enough already.
Nice pants btw.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Because apparently, being 'right' is a moral imperative. It's not a matter of they think what they think. They firmly believe they have the moral high ground and they are going to beat us over the head with it until we SURRENDER and acknowlege that Buffy was a blameless pretty pink princess that Spike EVILLY took advantage of. Spike should be shunned and hated for the evil corrupter that he is. Buffy is perfect, ya know. It's all Spike's fault. Bastard.

... or something like that.

[quinara]

Of course I would outrage them if I got into my actual feelings regarding Seeing Red, but I never addressed that issue even obliquely because it IS a hot button issue.

What are you're actual feelings on Seeing Red? I'd be interested to know.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately there's no quick and tidy answer. I'll try to come up with some cogent response and post it later.

[quinara]

I look forward to it.

[timeofchange.livejournal.com]

You lay this out very clearly. Any misunderstanding would have to be wilfull, IMHO.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I took it as being willful. It is possible that the person is so indoctrinated into one point of view that it's a purely knee-jerk reaction that has nothing to do with what I posted other than an assumption of what I posted.

But, really, I took it more along the lines of someone trying to stake claim to a moral high ground choosing to insult me until I either felt shamed or admitted that she was right. As neither of those things was ever going to happen, I opted out of the debate. I've been in these flamewars too often. I know the path they take. If I continue to 'debate,' it's going to devolve into a slingfest, and in slingfests, only the most vicious 'wins' (i.e. runs the other person off). And the thing is... I'm disturbingly good at verbally decimating people if I really choose to. I honed flamewar skills on Usenet back in the early 90s where friends would actually beg me to go on a board to run trolls off. It's not a skill I'm proud of. I can win a pissing contest, but the only way to do so really skirts into fighting dirty (as in fact I believe this person is. Claiming someone has a moral or emotional problem is a classic flamewar tactic, and it's just not worth it. It's a pointless, ugly debacle that accomplishes nothing. I know this.

I will defend a point of view and I will do so vocally (which some hypersensitive people can take as personal attack in and of itself--but that's another issue. I always want to tell them, if I personally attacked you, you'd know it. I do not personally attack people). I don't get into personal flamewars. It's not worth it. Just isn't. The better part of valor is sometimes to walk the hell away.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

The person who has hated me for years now, hates me for being "one of those terrible people" for being a negativista, not for being a Spike fan. (Of course they also hate me for having a negative view of Buffy the character, but that's a story in and of itself). I just happened to cross paths with them in someone's LJ and the person is still pointing fingers of "Those terrible people..." and that I'm the prototypical example 'those people,' telling me it's something of an ongoing discussion (which I already knew). I just find it funny because it's clear that this person has no idea of exactly how pathetic it sounds to be obsessing over me as "teh evol" three years after the kerfuffle.

[kassto.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of how I got into awful strife on the Buffistas for saying that I thought my exhusband, who had an affair then left me and the kids, had betrayed me a lot worse than Spike ever betrayed Buffy.

``Heh,'' they said to me. I hate it when people say ``Heh'' to me. ``Obviously you've never been the victim of a sexual attack.'' An argument designed to shut you up, if even I heard one.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Which is, of course, the origin of "the Rape Cliche" as used in melodrama. A few months ago someone was describing it in the TWoP General Hospital thread. Headwriters use it to shut people up for criticizing a "heroine" they don't want criticized. If the woman was insulted, you'd cheer the person who did the insulting. If the person was hit in a car accident on screen, you'd be allowed to cheer on the the car. If the woman was even menaced by rabid wolves, you'd be allowed to cheer on the rabid wolves. But if they introduce a sexual attack, it corners you. Now to in any way side against said "heroine" you are open to a whole host of insults. You are NOT allowed to NOT be on the heroine's side. You're trapped.

Of course what the writers who employ this tactic (and the fans who like to use it as a trump card overlook) is that a these incidents do not ABSOLVE the female character of SQUAT. The female character is responsible for all her own actions. So if you disliked that woman BEFORE the assault, you still dislike her afterwards. And it doesn't absolve her of her wrongs (which is why it's called the "rape redemption" cliche. It's using rape to redeem a heroine for other transgressions because if she's raped all other crimes are now instantly overlooked. But it simply doesn't work that way. Such an incident doesn't change who a person is. You can PITY her for being attacked, but pitying someone doesn't mean you like them one iota more. Pity also doesn't absolve a female character of her own bullshit. So it's perfectly possible to pity Buffy for the bathroom scene, and STILL find her to be a selfish, manipulative bitch in the rest of the stuff.

Yes, it's Spike's responsibility that he lost control.

However, Buffy is responsible for a whole shitload of crap and Seeing Red doesn't sweep it under the carpet no matter how much Marti and Buffy apologists thinks that it does or that it should

[fishsanwitt]

*Very* nice pants :)

I'm all kerfuffled out!

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I tend to wear pants to work a lot so I felt in desperate need. Of course I feel in desperate need of clothes a few times a year some it's not really 'desperate' so much as 'I want.'

And kerfuffles are silly -- easy to be dragged into, but silly nonetheless.

[shapinglight]

Totally agree with you about the whole what's the point of arguing thing? What is the point now, 3 years later? I am certainly not going to change my view (especially not after reading such a nasty, ill-tempered rant, by which I mean the person who responded to you at such length in Kantyra's LJ, and no, I didn't bother reading all she said either because :Yawn: who has the time?) and the ill-tempered-ranter isn't going to change her mind.

She must know that she's not going to alter your view, so engaging in such a long rant has only one purpose; to insult you and attempt to hurt your feelings. Congrats for brushing it off like the nonsense it was.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Well, really, people overlook the part where it reaches a point that no one is going to change someone else's opinion.

But, yeah the intimidation tactics are something of a spectacle. It's just that sometimes I don't want to play. (Because I don't delude myself that you're actually going to change someone).

[shapinglight]

Well, she either went away disappointed because she was spoiling for a gifight or self-satisfied - but again, either way, who cares? I still feel that we Spike fans ended up the winners, even if it was in spite of ME rathe rthan becuase of them.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's the way that I look at it.

[spikewriter]

Gah. The moment an argument devolves to the responses of "You support rape!" "You're not a feminist!" "You're not a true fan!", I'm out of there because those peope are not interested in a discussion, just that they're right and we should acknowledge their rightness and wisdom and our obvious inferiority/evilness at having a different position from theirs..

::clears throat:: Sorry. One of my buttons just got hit.

And someone still holds you in contempt because of a BtVS kerfuffle that happened three years ago? As you said, sad. I'll admit that I have some people from BtVS whom I think are batshit insane and I stopped speaking to several years ago, but it's not because of the BtVS incidents anymore; it's the fact that every time I run into them on the internet, no matter the subject, they're still pulling the same old shit. I do not, however, feel compelled to tell them to their face because it's better for my blood pressure just to avoid them.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Heh. Yes, it's part of the positively ancient kerfuffle where apparently by posting my own point of view I was in some way silencing the opposing one... because only complete consensus is allowed. Or put another way, they support free speech... as long as it's only what they want to hear. If you disagree with them you're oppressing them. . . or something.

And yeah, I'm for a codicil to Godwin's Law stating at as soon as you resort to outrageous statements like "You support rape," you lose by default.