![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Why it's called "wank"
Nov. 7th, 2007 02:56 pmFor anyone who may have read some of the same sentiment I've seen floating through a few linked journals here and there, communities, lately that it's unreasonable people who call any discussion of the following "wank" - just a general thought:
Discussing racism, sexism, ageism, class, genocide, anything - productively - is not wank. Having a minor disagreement where both sides make small compromise and remain civil is not wank. There is no wank in making friendly progress in understanding between sexes, cultures, races, ages, and classes of people.
Constantly telling people they are wrong in a discussion, or lack of both sides coming to an understanding as to why the other person thinks the way they do, or continually insisting on one's own infallibility on such important topics, is called "wank" because the mental image is of someone beating themselves off while reading it. It doesn't take much thought to constantly say "no" "yes" or "you're wrong again" - sort of like watching porn, it's just the tits and cocks that change.
I'd like to say I'm not qualified to render an opinion, but sadly I am. Because, I've been in the middle of wank; I've read wank; I've written wank; and I've swallowed a lot of crow, especially on LiveJournal discussions. It's a bad way to debate with anyone you don't know in person - without the lack of face time or voice tone, it's hard to tell what is really being communicated, sometimes. This is why many of us can't put up with dissension on LJ the way we can with real people we see and hear and feel empathy with; there's some basic, necessary sensory information lacking online.
I also don't buy the argument that just because a post is about racism, sexism, ageism, class, genocide, etc., that it automatically renders it sacred and valid - it's how it's conducted that makes it a productive exchange. Invoking a curse word doesn't render an argument invalid, though using it to call one's opponent a name is tacky. On the other hand, remaining calm and unflappable doesn't guarantee productivity, if it also means one is completely inflexible on even minor points.
Discussing racism, sexism, ageism, class, genocide, anything - productively - is not wank. Having a minor disagreement where both sides make small compromise and remain civil is not wank. There is no wank in making friendly progress in understanding between sexes, cultures, races, ages, and classes of people.
Constantly telling people they are wrong in a discussion, or lack of both sides coming to an understanding as to why the other person thinks the way they do, or continually insisting on one's own infallibility on such important topics, is called "wank" because the mental image is of someone beating themselves off while reading it. It doesn't take much thought to constantly say "no" "yes" or "you're wrong again" - sort of like watching porn, it's just the tits and cocks that change.
I'd like to say I'm not qualified to render an opinion, but sadly I am. Because, I've been in the middle of wank; I've read wank; I've written wank; and I've swallowed a lot of crow, especially on LiveJournal discussions. It's a bad way to debate with anyone you don't know in person - without the lack of face time or voice tone, it's hard to tell what is really being communicated, sometimes. This is why many of us can't put up with dissension on LJ the way we can with real people we see and hear and feel empathy with; there's some basic, necessary sensory information lacking online.
I also don't buy the argument that just because a post is about racism, sexism, ageism, class, genocide, etc., that it automatically renders it sacred and valid - it's how it's conducted that makes it a productive exchange. Invoking a curse word doesn't render an argument invalid, though using it to call one's opponent a name is tacky. On the other hand, remaining calm and unflappable doesn't guarantee productivity, if it also means one is completely inflexible on even minor points.
