Mea Culpa

[tikvah]

I've been criticized, and rightly so. I was unduly harsh and judgmental.

The quote itself might have been snark-worthy, but everything else I said was inappropriate.

I'm sorry.

Comments

[shantih]

Actually ... the fact you were dogpiled here in dot_poly_snark bothers me.

In pretty much every snarkable situation, the people being snarked have their own reasons for doing what they're doing, and it seems reasonable to them. Maybe they're too young, maybe they're in a toxic or abusive relationship, maybe they don't know how to get out, sure. EVERYONE has reasons.

And what the outcry against your post said to me was that a significant subset of dot_poly_snark is only okay with those reasons being snarked when they don't hit too close to home.

That, to me, is hypocritical.

The quote you posted was funny. The other things you said about the post -- harsh and judgemental, maybe, but this is not dot_poly_compassion. Whether you feel okay with what you posted or not is on your conscience, and I can understand how you might feel badly about it, having been so ... strenuously educated? ... by people whose experience mirrored the OPs. BUT. You shouldn't owe dot_poly_snark an apology. What you posted was not inappropriate to post here

[papertigers]

What you posted was not inappropriate to post here.

the vocal majority of the community disagrees with you, and that's the standard that does (and IMO, should) decide here. oh, and if the "dogpiling" bothers you, you know the way out.

[shantih]

oh, and if the "dogpiling" bothers you, you know the way out.

Oh please. That was a rather unnecessary bit of posturing, there. Yes, I know the way out. If I felt the need to leave over comments to a single post in d_p_s, I'd have used it.

[papertigers]

actually, it was a sincere suggestion, worded snarkily. if a comment exchange of that nature that doesn't involve or affect you bothers you that much, you're probably in the wrong place. the person it was directed at didn't seem to find it objectionable, whether or not s/he agreed with the opinions bein expressed. all of the dot_snark communities share one concept in common with their sire, dot_cattiness; if you dish it out, be prepared to take it. you obviously aren't, even to the extent of just watching.

[shantih]

Heh. So am I too insensitive for the standards of your 'vocal majority', or too sensitive to weather snark? (No, your suggestion didn't read as snarky to me. It read as blunt and emotional.) Meanwhile, you're the one sufficiently bothered by tikvah's post that you can't sit by silently and watch me write that it wasn't wrong for her to post it here -- and sufficiently bothered by my disagreement with your 'vocal majority' that you feel I ought to leave. Does that mean you're too sensitive for this community?

I'm left with the impression the content of my comment didn't sink in for you. You're telling me if you dish it out, be prepared to take it. My own comment boils down to something similar but more fundamental: if you're in a snark comm, be prepared for people to dish it out. Be prepared for them to dish it out whether you resemble the person being snarked or not. Whether your best friend resembles the person being snarked or not. Whether what's being snarked maps onto part of your life story or not

[kaligrrrl]

see, I think there are some things that it's inappropriate to snark about. and partner abuse is one of them. a lot of other people seem to agree.
it's called having boundaries and generally, it's a good thing.

[shantih]

I think that a lot of the poly trainwrecks snarked about here could be considered to involve an element of emotional abuse. I am not aware as to whether you have also objected strenuously to those. If you have, then you are being consistent, and my objection does not apply to you. If you have not, and you are only objecting to the one that involves a situation similar to your own life, I'd like to know why it's okay to snark everyone else but not you and people like you.

[papertigers]

Meanwhile, you're the one sufficiently bothered by tikvah's post...

I didn't comment to tikvah's original post, and I wasn't bothered by it. I just disagreed with you.

[shantih]

Aaaaand your disagreement was such that you felt the need to comment in reply to me. Point still stands.

[papertigers]

... not really. making a comment in and of itself doesn't mean someone is "bothered" or "sensitive" about what they're commenting on. I wasn't commenting based on an emotional reaction to the post or your reply; you said yourself that you were, and your phrasing suggested you weren't responding casually. and you were commenting based on a negative emotional reaction to what is, frankly, SOP for most snark communities in general and this one in particular.

[danger0usbeans]

if a comment exchange of that nature that doesn't involve or affect you bothers you that much, you're probably in the wrong place.

Oh, the irony.

[shantih]

Glad someone else saw it!

[papertigers]

not so much. commenting because I disagreed with a statement is a far cry from commenting because I'm "bothered" (which parses to me as upset/concerned/worried in some way) by someone's opinion or behavior.

[dda]

...you know the way out.

It's a it off-topic but whenever I see that phrase, I tend to think of the Ringo Starr song lyric, "...and then it makes it hard to find the door." :-)

tangent

[shantih]

Which pair of associations then yielded for me an earworm of the Beatles' "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)". XD

Re: tangent

[dda]

I do apologise for any earworms caused; it is bad enough that I have these sorts of associations.