(no subject)

Date: 2008-11-25 09:21 pm (UTC)
What really truly honestly amazed me were the people who came to her defense. I never saw anything Corby said as attacking anyone, or in fact expecting anyone to undergo any deprivation whatsoever. Her (and others') insistence that he was somehow exclusionary and spiteful came as a surpise to me.

Redsonja suggests that people who took offense at her post cannot be anything other than vicious, spiteful Authenticity Nazis, and that anyone else could not possibly find fault with her meek-and-mild, butter-won't-melt-in-my mouth helpful suggestion. She was only insulting those who so desperately need to be insulted.

Perhaps we can look at the other side of this equation; those who so strongly took offense at Sir Corby's post are so deply defensive because they have something to be defensive about. It gets harder and harder to pretend that you are a contributing memeber of the SCA when the level of authenticity as a whole progresses, and you wilfully refuse to progress with it. Instead, you cling to a ring belt, a peasant blouse, and a broomstick skirt out of a spiteful refusal to do anything other than the bare minimum, and when someonme calls you on it, you go spare.

There's no sense in arguing with someone that tetched.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

chargirlgenius: (Default)
chargirlgenius

October 2011

S M T W T F S
      1
2345 678
9101112131415
1617181920 2122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios