Yasha wrote:

Hey lunaopheliac, while I can understand your objections, shutin posted trigger warnings and it's your responsibility to avoid things that might cause you unwanted distress. I don't mean to be harsh, but no one here has any obligation to conform to your determination of what's acceptable as humor.

Could not have said it better myself. Jesus, lunaopheliac, can you Maybe chill?

Man, to think this thread -- especially that bit of drama -- is still getting replies

Ikarikun wrote:

Yasha wrote:

Hey lunaopheliac, while I can understand your objections, shutin posted trigger warnings and it's your responsibility to avoid things that might cause you unwanted distress. I don't mean to be harsh, but no one here has any obligation to conform to your determination of what's acceptable as humor.

Could not have said it better myself. Jesus, lunaopheliac, can you Maybe chill?

Thank you, Ikarikun.  And I hope you get some enjoyment out of my writing

Arale wrote:

"don't look don't read" is not a defense against criticism; that said, to me this feels like fetish fic

Arale, of course "don't look don't read" is not a defense against criticism of a work's "artistic quality."  Then again, if someone has no constructive criticism to give a work, but is just looking to bash something they're already biased against because of personal issues of their own making . . . 

PS. Fic is SKU "parody," its contents inspired by various logic-defying fatlogic statements as spewed by certain people online.  That said, if someone choose to interpret this as "fetish" then well, it's up to the individual reader.  After all, many seems to think the original SKU LGBT elements are fetish-ized as well - and with valid reasoning.

PPS. Please feel free to take a look at Seinen Kakumei if you're comfortable with what's in the warning.

DD, first thing first:  why are some of the punctuations, especially the ( “ )   and ( ‘ )  coming out as something like ( <?> ) on the posts where I’m looking?  Is there some forum post syntax change I’m not aware of? 

Then, in reply to your post . . . it seems only appropriate for me to exit humor mode and reply in a more articulate manner, hoping nothing I write is to be distorted.  And, in writing this post, I will have to quote what’s upthread.  Please do not interpret it as though I’m trying to stir up old drama: I'm just trying to defend myself against certain things you seem to be accusing me of.

Decrescent Daytripper wrote:

Just pointing out, the luna post is two years old.

Yes, the event was 2 years old.  But Ikarikun was commenting on the 2 yr old postings just yesterday.  Arale also wrote what Arale wrote yesterday.  My last post was my thanking Ikarikun (I take their words as support) and also to reply to Arale.  Let's be clear on that.

They got a little worked up, but they did not try to police or regulate anything written or posted. They complained, yes. They suggested a motive for writing the stories. But, "warnings," don't mean that no one can complain or criticize afterwards.

No policing?  Let’s see:

lunaopheliac wrote:

    So, I am genuinely going to try to not be rude here, but... what convinced you that this was indeed A Thing That Should Be Written And Posted? Because this is coming off as somewhat of a rant-y "EVIL FAT FEMINISTS ARE OPPRESSING ME AS A THIN PERSON BY CALLING ME FATPHOBIC" thing. If that is not the case, and there is some sort of actual, non-immaturely offensive satirical context to this, consider my post void. But I am honestly baffled by your intent here. How is this even remotely close to being a good, non-4chan-"humor"-filled parody, I suppose is what I am getting at? Frankly, it is coming off like it is mainly the result of personal bias, grudges, and an apparent need to vent.

Looks like policing by way of “shaming�  to me. 

Another mod has long since since addressed this. 

mod wrote:

    Hey lunaopheliac, while I can understand your objections, shutin posted trigger warnings and it's your responsibility to avoid things that might cause you unwanted distress. I don't mean to be harsh, but no one here has any obligation to conform to your determination of what's acceptable as humor.

Ikarikun agreed with mod just yesterday and I posted in part to thank them.

dd wrote:

"[T]hey're already biased against because of personal issues of their own making," and "inspired by various logic-defying fatlogic statements as spewed by certain people online," seems, to me, more than a little hypocritical. "[F]atlogic statements are spewed," isn't ever going to be anything except a personal bias, or personal issues, and other than "bashing," what are you doing with those? That term, alone, isn't ever going to be neutral, certainly.

I sense a strawman and am now taking it apart.

Your hypocrisy accusation against me will only work if
A) I had promised neutrality between siding with healthy/unhealthy bodies and ways of living.

and

B) What constitutes “fatlogic�  in my story are simply my personal biases.

RE: A)
My fic takes a neutral stance between the dangers of undereating/overeating cause both are damaging.  At no point did I even suggest I’m neutral between healthy/unhealthy bodies and ways of living.  Why should anyone pretend healthy is just the same as unhealthy?  And yes, my writing does “bash�  fatlogic and even its opposite “skinnylogic�  (see Mikage arc). I've even posted warnings for people easily upsetby body issues so they can stay away.  I've done my part, mod. 

RE:; B)
Personal bias/opinons don’t decide whether a statement is fatlogic.  It is only when a statement a) clearly defy known science/logic b) cause believers to resign to living a fattening lifestyle that a statement constitutes true fatlogic.

Clear cut example:  Some people can eat and exercise however they want and not get fat, while others eat nothing and are athletes can get fat.

The above statement goes against known science and factual logic.  Both biology and thermodynamics dictate being fat/thin has to do with the amounts of calories going in and going out of a person.
In other words, the fat/thinlogics in my story are all real-logic-sound to me.  If someone finds flaws with one of my in-story fat/thinlogic examples (aka it’s real!logic instead of fat/thinlogic) they are welcome to point them out to me.  All are welcome to show me the errors in my own logic/fact-checking, if such flaws actually exist.  Educate me, as they say. 

Then, DD, how is it at all "hypocritical" for me to write what I write in this thread?

Which is fine, and not against any rules or anything, but it is open to criticism

Like I said up-post, people can complain about the "artistic quality." of the story.  That's read and review.   But, when someone “complain or criticize�  not about the story quality, but instead "suggested a motive for writing the stories," that's not a review to the story itself: that's already a personal jab at the author No author – no one - is obligated to endure that in silence. 

, perhaps even emotive criticism if you're going to open up the "conversation"/thread with what is almost entirely story-based highly-emotional criticism of others.

If by “emotional/emotive criticism�  you mean “non-valid criticism based on feels not facts,�  I’m certainly not the one in this thread guilty of such.  I’ve written a story that a)  remains logical until proven otherwise b) make no personal attacks against any actual human for the sake of humor.    If someone come into this thread despite warnings and “act offended�  / “make unwarranted suggestions of why I write this story�  then I can only assume they suffer from “personal issues of their own making�  and deal with them accordingly.

A work's quality is open to criticism.  An author's stance and person is not open to unwarranted criticism: it is certainly not open to the blatant shaming I've seen in this thread (see luna's quote in this post.)  Anyone who cross these lines can expect rebuking because authors are people. Posts that support the harassing posts by non-reviewers will also be addressed.

It's smart quotes doing it, I'm pretty sure. If your browser is set to automatically adjust the end of quotation to curve inward.

Urg.  That makes it even more inconvenient to post story type things here than before. 

Nope. "Fatlogic" is a leading and biased term, by its nature and the distinctions it makes. It is neither neutral nor apolitical.

Interesting.  Can you cite sources to back up your above statement?

For now, I'll just try and run this through with my own logical thinking.

Biased is by def. "unfairly prejudiced" for or against someone or something according to Google.

Is pointing out how a statement/belief is illogical/unscientific being "biased" against anyone or anything?

As I've said up-post, I choose the Fatlogic examples in my fic and this thread to be those that I believe cannot stand up to fact-checking to begin with.   What exactly ares my stories/posts "unfairly prejudiced" against?  Falsehoods?  People intentionally promoting known falsehoods?  Remember, "bias" entails "unfairness".

I also have no qualms about referring to the act of voicing falsehoods that the promoters knows to be false as "spewing" - which the "online people" I've mentioned upthread clearly do.

but if not hypocritical, it seems disingenuous for us, as a thread, at least, to accept that you can be emotional, judgmental, and exhibit personal bias in judging things, but that critics must not.

I don't get how you arrive at this conclusion. 

Let's look at what I've actually written.

me wrote:

A work's quality is open to criticism.  An author's stance and person is not open to unwarranted criticism : it is certainly not open to the blatant shaming I've seen in this thread (see luna's quote in this post.)

Unwarranted means "not justified" by google.  Unwarranted criticism mean unjustified criticism, which is what I'm referring to here (see below for example).

Indeed, I get both emotional and judgemental in judging things, but only to support what's true when when there's a clear fact-based right/wrong true/false (ie one plus one has to equal two.)  However, bias require "unfairness" which unless you can point it out clearly to me, I don't see how I'm guilty of it.  The critic(s) upthread gave "criticism" that is unjustified even by your own logic:

you wrote:

even though I do believe their criticism verged in being personally insulting

and this

you wrote:

Any of us in this thread or on this board are open to criticism. Our words and our motives. Not insults, but criticism.

I have indeed been emotional and judgmental when judging "things" like vague groups or their behaviors in this thread.   I have not, however, single out any individual forum member to insult/attack the way i was personally insulted/attacked in this thread.  I do not see how I am being disingenuous at all to say critics who give unwarranted criticism (a polite way to put it) ala luna should expect rebuke, when I myself have not sunk to the same level (personally- attacking-others).

Also

me wrote:

Posts that support the harassing posts by non-reviewers will also be addressed.

I've merely stated that any critic who criticize an author's stance and person "can expect rebuking", which is completely different than me saying others are "not allowed" to criticize.  What I mean is that if someone comes in her stating/insinuating me to be a _________, they can certainly expect that I will rebuke - not personally insult - as is my right.

Luna went too far. I think everyone has agreed on that.

I do hope so.  I sense certain "language" in-thread that seem to be "subtly condoning"/"partial towards" the old Luna posts, which I find troubling.

Any of us in this thread or on this board are open to criticism. Our words and our motives. Not insults, but criticism.

If by criticism you mean criticism not personal insults or unexplained label-slapping then yes, that's fair.

DD . . . by persisting with this, you’re only leaving your 2016 posts in this thread, and yourself, open to “legitimate criticism or commentary.�  (your own wording)

DD wrote:

And, please, luna's post, while ill-advised, was not nearly as "shaming" as your story stacks up. Let's really not go there.

There is a difference in levels between me posting a story and luna bashing me for doing so.  It's a difference that got Luna mod-warned 2 years ago; a difference you now appear to be willfully ignoring since re-entering this thread. 

The difference lies in "personal" vs "non-personal" attack/fun-poking.

At no point does my story "personally" attack any "named" member(s) of this forum, least of all luna.  Luna had "personally" attacked me because she - not me - decided to make this "personal."  Her posts are not mere "criticisms", they are all rude assumptions that amounts to "personal" insults even by your own definition.
   

DD wrote:

even though I do believe their criticism verged in being personally insulting

And this forum do not tolerate personal insults, I assume?

Now, let's go back and look at your other quote:

DD wrote:

I still don't see where that poster attempted to police or regulate you

Other Mod upthread has the following to say about Luna's posts 2 yrs ago:

mod wrote to luna:
   I don't mean to be harsh, but no one here has any obligation to conform to your determination of what's acceptable as humor.

Other Mod was clearly addressing luna's police/regulating me back then.  DD, are you now trying to say, 2 yrs after the fact,  that Other Mod's statement back then was uncalled for?

Seems to me you’re being disingenuous here, DD.

In every example you just gave, though, you're assuming that you are, without examination or proof, the irrevocable voice of reason and logic and the other side is wrong and stupid.

“without examination or proof�  are strong words.  You need to have something factual to back them up prior to using them.

If you are capable of proving one fatlogic example I gave in this thread to not be logically sound then please do so.  This will totally prove that what I deem as fatlogic cannot stand up to “examimation or proof� .  Do go on: prove yourself right, and me wrong.  I am open to facts.

Failing that, you are simply undermining factual logic “without examination or proof�  yourself.   

Seems to me your hypocrisy is showing, DD.

Words have both defintion and context.  Let’s see what started this recent post-surge.

Ikarikun said (clearly referring to luna)

Could not have said it better myself. Jesus, lunaopheliac, can you Maybe chill?

Arale said (I can only assume they’re referring to luna due to post’s timing.)

"don't look don't read" is not a defense against criticism; that said, to me this feels like fetish fic

I said (“someone�  refers to luna, plus my take on why luna posted what they did)

of course "don't look don't read" is not a defense against criticism of a work's "artistic quality."  Then again, if someone has no constructive criticism to give a work, but is just looking to bash something they're already biased against because of personal issues of their own making . . .

DD then comes in with a number of posts framing me first as hypocritical.  Upon my rebuking, as disingenuous.  However, they appear to be guilty of both themselves.  Such is my criticism against this seemingly hypocritical, disingenuous critic.

The latest from DD:

DD wrote:

You wrote a story to make fun of people with problems or lives you don't have.

That's the problem with throwing out assumptions "without examination or proof".  What makes you think I have never had weight/eating issues myself? Get your facts checked before making such statements about a named forum member, please.

DD wrote:

That's fine. Lots and lots of potential comedy in that. But, you are making of fun of people. You are making fun of real life issues and using teenage characters to do so.

DD's wording seems to suggest that it is "not fine" for me to use fictional!teenage characters to showcase of real life issues.  DD is entitled to their opinion.  But I have to wonder: is DD trying to "police or regulate" what is or isn't "fine" for me to write?  Policing and regulating both can be executed in veiled manners.  The line is thin, and crossing it could have consequences.

The entire point of your story is to make fun of people.

My story speaks for itself.  The reviews and support it has over at FFnet and even parts of this thread shows how there are people - some having experienced weight/body-image issues themselves - capable of enjoying the comedy within.  I'm open to valid criticisms if they have valid factual basis. Personal-attacks (should the mods allow them to show on this forum), labeling-slapping, assumptions without "without examination or proof" will be rebuked as per my right.  As even DD had said:

Any of us in this thread or on this board are open to criticism. Our words and our motives. Not insults, but criticism.

So yes, "critics" can also be "criticized."

On a related note, Revolutionary Fit Girl Utena is getting new update requests plus new fav/follows on FFnet.  There'll be an update after I work more on Seinen Kakumei.

Just like my story, the public posts here on the forum will speak for themselves.

gorgeousshutin wrote:

But I have to wonder: is DD trying to "police or regulate" what is or isn't "fine" for me to write?  Policing and regulating both can be executed in veiled manners.

DD wrote:

Because I'm trying to police and stop you.

I think I'm witnessing “stories transform" in action. 

"Stop" and "regulate" have completely different meanings.  I did wonder if you were trying to “regulate�  up-post.  I never did have to wonder if you were trying to “stop�  me.  You did not stop me as I was not breaking forum rules.  What you did instead was telling me what kind of writing is or isn’t “fine�  and/or � open to criticism� , in a language that cast me and the story in a supposedly negative light.  Is that policing / regulating?  I don't know for sure; I can only "wonder."

DD wrote:

Or, you could just make a note that you aren't looking for criticism and continue to post.

People looking to be publicly offended will find ways around such a note, just like they do the story's warning. As I've said:

me wrote:

I'm open to valid criticisms if they have valid factual basis. Personal-attacks (should the mods allow them to show on this forum), labeling-slapping, assumptions without "without examination or proof" will be rebuked as per my right.

(Goes off to thank Tumblr followers for supporting RFGU's recent update.)

I wonder . . . will this thread actually grow into page 3 with this post?

Hmm . . . episode 34 allows for great parody potential.  But there's so much content . . . I don't want it to end up disproportionally long versus the other chapters.  Must find a way around this.

ETA: Nah.  Still Page 2

P.S.  Googled "rude assumptions" and came up with some sweet finds. Will try incorporating into fic.

Last edited by gorgeousshutin (12-02-2016 09:36:15 AM)

UPDATE!!!

Warning: This parody fic has trigger-y elements including but not limited to fat logic, eating disorders, body image, misogyny, misandry etc so read at your own risk.

All characters belong to their respective owners.

Note: Updated for Morte Mistrata, CelianAdellanie, King81992, Wiratomkinder and ofinsanitiesss951  XD

Episode 33: The Stomach That Rumbles in the Night

While scooter-riding about at night, Akio calls a local radio show “I Wonder?�  accusing them of bias for telling people fat is unhealthy.  To that, the trio of female hosts give him the following multiple choice quiz:

(//“I wonder, I wonder, do you know what I wonder?
Multiple choice. Which of the following three things is actually biased?
1.    Personal Feels.
2.    Scientifically proven facts.
3.    Promotion of unhealthy living habits as acceptable.� //)

Akio dodges the question, and instead accuses the show hosts of being disingenuous for saying the term “health-damaging living habits�  when they sound like anorexics themselves.  To that, the trio of female hosts give him the following multiple choice quiz:

(//“I wonder . . . .  Multiple choice again. Which of the following three actions is truly disingenuous?
1.     Making rude assumptions about others with no facts to back it up.
2.    Voicing scientifically proven facts.
3.    Promotion of unhealthy living habits as acceptable while aware of their ill-effects.� //)

Again dodging the question.  Akio now claims that the show itself is “not fine�  for casting fat people in a negative light and is thus “open to criticism.�   To that, the trio of female hosts give him the following multiple choice quiz:

(//“I wonder . . . . Multiple choice again. Which of the following is really ‘not fine?’
1.     Anti-smoking ads 
2.    Health shows voicing scientifically proven facts.
3.    Platforms or individuals promoting unhealthy living habits as acceptable.� //)

KO-ed, the FA / feeder double-threat terminates the call and instead refocuses on the second passenger upon his scooter.  It is Utena, currently gorging uncontrollably on cinnamon roll buttercream sandwiches.   (“Please tell me . . . what is healthy?�  / “I never intended for this to happen.  I’m only here to deliver the rolls to Akio-san for Himemiya.� )

Updated to EP 34 over at FFnet, where punctuation formatting is possible.  Go there!

Link:
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/10131019/1 … Girl-Utena

Oooh, am getting more requests to continue this   For now, I still have to put Revolutionary Human Leon and Seinen Kakumei Utena in higher priority, though.  Let's see if I can put up something up maybe next month.  *can't promise anything*