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]

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.

And that's what I wanted to say. I'm not up for parsing your attempts at an artful GTFO. (And, sorry, also not up for G'ing TFO.)

[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.