Hatred/Tolerance and the hijacking of online communities
I don't talk about such things much, especially not online, but I am an active member of the Unitarian Church of Edmonton. I'm a member of the choir, and I serve as one of the youth advisors, as well as running occasional summer services, and being one of the people that the minister knows he can count on to give a reading for a service with little to no advance warning (and that goes both ways; I once asked him to give grace at my wedding reception, without warning, and after he had already started his second beer....)
The other day, something happened on our Facebook group that made me very angry. Someone who I do not know, but who has been a somewhat active poster on the Facebook, posted a rather angry rant about being approached by two consecutive pairs of Jehovah's Witness missionaries while waiting at her usual bus stop in the city. Now, she and the missionaries both seem to be the victims of bad luck, here, that she be approached by the second pair so soon after making her lack of interest clear to the first and sending them on their way, but she seemed to have taken it as some form of persecution or harassment, despite the fact that her description of the events made it clear that neither pair was particularly insistent once she told them she wasn't interested, but she was just as clearly incensed by the experience.
Now, the first post had very minimal engagement from other members of the group. A few Likes, no comments, and a couple hours later the original poster posted again. She gave more detail about what had happened, and expressed her feelings about it in even stronger language. This time there were comments. Some were commiserative, from others who had had bad experiences with religious missionaries themselves, but a few people posted comments that urged tolerance, which is one of the central tenets of Unitarianism.
There followed a THIRD SEPARATE POST where the original poster ranted at some length (and apparently used up the thesaurus entries for "disgust" and "disappointment") about how upset she was that her posts were not being met with wholehearted agreement. The post received no reaction whatsoever, and I can't help but feel that I wasn't the only one torn between shocked disbelief at the sheer crazy, and snickering up my sleeve at the poor writing. There were a couple of places where she finished a sentence with more than 10 exclamation points (17 and 23 respectively) and I was reminded of Terry Pratchett's assertion that six was a sure sign of somebody who goes about with underpants on their head.
Finally, a FOURTH post followed, and I had had enough. Keeping the worst of my snark to myself, I simply commented that the original poster had made her feelings on this subject abundantly clear, and asked if it really warranted four separate consecutive posts. Now, I thought by this point, that the original poster had gone well and thoroughly off the deep end. I was wrong.
The reply to my comment ranged all over, but had absolutely nothing to do with the content of my comment. She finished off by identifying herself as a survivor of domestic abuse, and I was honestly not sure if she was saying that being approached by Jehovah's Witnesses was tantamount to domestic abuse or if it was having a group of religious liberals refuse to join her in vilifying an entire religion based upon that experience. I was going to keep my mouth shut at that point, having said my piece, but that is when one of the group admins stepped in. He politely asked her to refrain from posting any further on the subject on the group, and then copy-pasted the entirety of the Unitarian statement of Beliefs and Principles, likely lifted directly from the church website, although that is far from the only place to find it on the internet.
By this point I had been contacted privately by a friend who is also a member of the church, who was justifiably confused and upset about the whole thing. I explained the progression of events as best I understood it, and she told me that the poster had stopped attending the church some DECADES ago amid some drama, but she could not recall the details of what had happened. We were both relieved that the admin had stepped in, and felt that his post was something of a mic drop to the subject.
Wrong.
The following morning the original poster had posted one more comment to the fourth post where she came right out and said that she was appalled that "the Unitarians of today" would condone such a flagrant violation of her constitutional right to be free from harassment. At that point, the post was removed by admin. However, the first three posts are still up, and one of them, which had had no comments before now has some. At one point the original poster had identified herself as a neo-pagan, and now some other members of the church who are also pagan are asking if their voices are less valid than the voices of others. The real issue here, as I see it, though, is the fact that this person IS NOT A MEMBER of the church, and apparently hasn't been for a VERY LONG TIME, so what right does she have to come into OUR little piece of the internet, expressing hatred, and then heap abuse upon our members for daring to suggest that a little tolerance, one of the central tenets of our faith, might be in order?
Yes, the original poster does have a right to be free from harassment, but I do not thing being spoken to by a stranger on the street constitutes harassment, even if it was on a subject that did not interest her!
I could go on about this, but I think I'm going to stop now.
The other day, something happened on our Facebook group that made me very angry. Someone who I do not know, but who has been a somewhat active poster on the Facebook, posted a rather angry rant about being approached by two consecutive pairs of Jehovah's Witness missionaries while waiting at her usual bus stop in the city. Now, she and the missionaries both seem to be the victims of bad luck, here, that she be approached by the second pair so soon after making her lack of interest clear to the first and sending them on their way, but she seemed to have taken it as some form of persecution or harassment, despite the fact that her description of the events made it clear that neither pair was particularly insistent once she told them she wasn't interested, but she was just as clearly incensed by the experience.
Now, the first post had very minimal engagement from other members of the group. A few Likes, no comments, and a couple hours later the original poster posted again. She gave more detail about what had happened, and expressed her feelings about it in even stronger language. This time there were comments. Some were commiserative, from others who had had bad experiences with religious missionaries themselves, but a few people posted comments that urged tolerance, which is one of the central tenets of Unitarianism.
There followed a THIRD SEPARATE POST where the original poster ranted at some length (and apparently used up the thesaurus entries for "disgust" and "disappointment") about how upset she was that her posts were not being met with wholehearted agreement. The post received no reaction whatsoever, and I can't help but feel that I wasn't the only one torn between shocked disbelief at the sheer crazy, and snickering up my sleeve at the poor writing. There were a couple of places where she finished a sentence with more than 10 exclamation points (17 and 23 respectively) and I was reminded of Terry Pratchett's assertion that six was a sure sign of somebody who goes about with underpants on their head.
Finally, a FOURTH post followed, and I had had enough. Keeping the worst of my snark to myself, I simply commented that the original poster had made her feelings on this subject abundantly clear, and asked if it really warranted four separate consecutive posts. Now, I thought by this point, that the original poster had gone well and thoroughly off the deep end. I was wrong.
The reply to my comment ranged all over, but had absolutely nothing to do with the content of my comment. She finished off by identifying herself as a survivor of domestic abuse, and I was honestly not sure if she was saying that being approached by Jehovah's Witnesses was tantamount to domestic abuse or if it was having a group of religious liberals refuse to join her in vilifying an entire religion based upon that experience. I was going to keep my mouth shut at that point, having said my piece, but that is when one of the group admins stepped in. He politely asked her to refrain from posting any further on the subject on the group, and then copy-pasted the entirety of the Unitarian statement of Beliefs and Principles, likely lifted directly from the church website, although that is far from the only place to find it on the internet.
By this point I had been contacted privately by a friend who is also a member of the church, who was justifiably confused and upset about the whole thing. I explained the progression of events as best I understood it, and she told me that the poster had stopped attending the church some DECADES ago amid some drama, but she could not recall the details of what had happened. We were both relieved that the admin had stepped in, and felt that his post was something of a mic drop to the subject.
Wrong.
The following morning the original poster had posted one more comment to the fourth post where she came right out and said that she was appalled that "the Unitarians of today" would condone such a flagrant violation of her constitutional right to be free from harassment. At that point, the post was removed by admin. However, the first three posts are still up, and one of them, which had had no comments before now has some. At one point the original poster had identified herself as a neo-pagan, and now some other members of the church who are also pagan are asking if their voices are less valid than the voices of others. The real issue here, as I see it, though, is the fact that this person IS NOT A MEMBER of the church, and apparently hasn't been for a VERY LONG TIME, so what right does she have to come into OUR little piece of the internet, expressing hatred, and then heap abuse upon our members for daring to suggest that a little tolerance, one of the central tenets of our faith, might be in order?
Yes, the original poster does have a right to be free from harassment, but I do not thing being spoken to by a stranger on the street constitutes harassment, even if it was on a subject that did not interest her!
I could go on about this, but I think I'm going to stop now.