357
Boycott it! (piefed.cdn.blahaj.zone)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/lgbtq_plus@beehaw.org
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

That's not fantasy? That's pretty much the exact opposite. From Oxford's English dictionary:

"the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable."

E: Are you perhaps thinking science fiction?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    You're talking specifically about a name used to classify a particular genre of stories. The word "fantasy" applies to more than just that.

    Whatever. Seems I unintentionally touched some nerves here (and, unfortunately, I had to work - so I was unable to keep this from going off the deep end), so I'm just gonna walk away before I somehow wind up antagonizing people (and myself) further.

    Let the bludgeoning continue...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    While I appreciate the self-reflection, fantasy literally means shit that can't possibly happen in real life. If it could, well ... it wouldn't be fantasy, now would it?

    Once one veers into the realistic, it's one of a number of genres, wherein "fantasy" is not considered.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    So sexual fantasies can't possibly happen IRL? I think you're too focused on a single definition & perhaps need to try another dictionary. Whatever. I'm going to bed. Good luck with keeping words strictly linked to a singular definition.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And you're entitled to your opinion. I don't need to present my credentials in terms of fulfilling my own sexual fantasies, nor do you need to believe that I had to create a group on FetLife so that the porn I made with my ex actually had a home.

    It's generally not a great idea to tell an editor that he needs to learn how to consult dictionaries, and I hope you don't extend such pleasantries to other members of the Beehaw community.

    Context is king. We're talking about literary genres, and you want to talk sex. I fully approve! This said, get off your high horse. You knew damn well the context and decided to inject irrelevant data to ... I don't know ... "win?"

    We're not here to argue. If that's your goal, Beehaw is not the correct instance for you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I'd say you are indeed here to argue - go back and reread the things you said earlier. Now you're telling me what's a good idea to tell someone in a profession when there was no prior mention of that fact for me to have known it. Methinks there's a good bit of projection, ego-boosting, and other similar subconsciously-driven "high horse" activities happening on your part, but I'm too tired to bother dragging out Lucy's psychiatry booth to address it right now. In lieu of such, I'll simply suggest you go find a mirror in which to bathe in your own awesomeness.

    EDIT: I also shouldn't have to tell someone in your prestigious position in life this fact, but there's "fantasy," and then there's "Fantasy" - the latter of which is capitalized for a reason. You used the former, so don't be surprised that I used the definition associated with that form of the word.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent