cybernautical mode: The Disclaimer
The DisclaimerSince even if I use qualifiers, or if I don't, people still don't grasp that I'm usually talking about the behaviour of a certain group in a larger group, I'm just going to type up one big disclaimer for all the controversial topics I can think of and add more as I think of more
( Read more... )
There are of course other religions that do the same thing I speak of the Christianists doing, but the overwhelming majority of those I encounter online and in person are maligning Christianity. I don't usually personally encounter mean, hateful Muslims, Jews [especially not Jews--and I worked for a Jewish organization for over a decade], Shaolins, Pagans of various stripes.
I can only be speaking based on what my own experiences are.
Xmas has been considered, as far as I know myself, an acceptable abbreviation for Christmas since my mother was a kid. Xtian, however, bugs me because it reminds me of Xtina, which they call that pop singer, and my brain is all, "You're using the abbreviation for Christ-, which I only know one appropriate use for -- for a pop singer?" And I'd never heard Xtian even as a child, and that seemed an abbreviation-come-lately, so to speak.
I mean, okay, yeah, sometimes the marriage doesn't work out, and you have to go your separate ways because otherwise it's cruel to one or both parties [and any kids which may exist] to hold them together. But the problem with divorce these days is that people just don't want to bother doing the work to stay together.
My father is a psychopath, and I'm not exaggerating. Anyone who decides an axe is necessary to underline his points in an argument [and kept said axe behind his bed just in case he needed it] is not right in the head, IMO. So naturally, yeah, a divorce should be granted in cases of abuse or a spouse being a danger.
Reply
Mmm... I don't know that I agree with this. I currently live in a very culturally and racially homogenous area. One of the students I had first semester was, quite honestly, racist. He was very up front about it (although he put it as "I just don't like ___, I think they're ___" etc.), and explained that it was based on his experiences with that racial group. Maybe this is an overly strong parallel. But I think that to speak only based on your PERSONAL experience is very limiting. Your cultural experience (especially for a woman as literate and well-studied as you are) encompasses far more.
"Christianist" stings because of the (likely unintendend) linguistic overtones. If a feminist supports the cause of females, and a racist supports the cause of a particular race, and a scientist supports the cause of science, it seems to follow that a Christianist would support the cause of Christianity. When I see "Christianist" it registers as "extreme Christian." On a good day, that's what I aspire to. And to have that turned into something negative is, to me, extremely profane.
Let me be clear on this - I know, perfectly well, what you mean. That's why I'm mildly offended, not just flat-out pissed. ;D I think most people have certain words that just hit them the wrong way. That's the reason I avoid swearing. It's not because when I swear I'm trying to say something hurtful; it's because sometimes the words themselves can carry an acquired meaning ENTIRELY apart from or in addition to what I mean by them. My husband feels very much the same way about the "f-word" the way I do about "Christianist" (or any permutation of "Christian" that is used in a derogatory way, TBH).
It truly is just the word you've chosen, and not your meaning. If you said "pseudo-Christians" it wouldn't bother me a bit - even though you'd mean the same thing - because the "pseudo" in front is a clear /contrast/ to the "Christian" at the end, frex.
BTW - I'm also not asking that you change your speech and writing patterns on my account. If we saw each other all the time, I probably would. Or if you used it A LOT on your journal, I'd either ask, or stop reading. But as it is, it's just a cringe-in-passing.
PS: It would be nice if we could hang out more! :D
PS 2: Wow, I use dashes a lot...
Reply
I think extremism is bad in any situation. Extreme sports are more dangerous... and extreme actions to support extreme beliefs makes one an extremist. It leads to fanaticism or worse. I think you're trying to turn something negative into a positive. Laudable, but you may find yourself frustrated.
To the people you call pseudo-Christians, they're the real Christians and you're the fake one because you're not shouting the same stuff they're shouting. So that term isn't workable either. I explained the reasoning behind the word. People I describe as Christianists are the ones who use their Christianity as a terror weapon. Which is why to my mind you don't even come close to that definition or distinction.
PS: We can -- we both live in the same area. S'just a matter of scheduling.
Reply
The thing is, Indigo, you saying something shouldn't sting someone doesn't mean that it magically doesn't sting that person.
The fact that you believe something doesn't necessarily make it true. People are infinitely more complex creatures than that. I could say that I'm discussing something with you, and I could tell you that I'm just discussing it with you, but if you feel like you're being attacked, it isn't going to matter what I say or what I believe or how I phrase it.
I think that we're most offended regarding topics that we hold dear, where even if we aren't participating in the behavior of one part of a group that's being criticized, we still feel like we're being criticized by association. And even if *you* aren't doing that, some of us have lots more experience with people who don't try to be careful and put forth tons of disclaimers about which sliver of Christianity / politics / fandom / etc. they're speaking about.
That said, it's nice to know where you stand on a bunch of issues.
Reply
I don't get why if you're not participating in the behaviour of the group being criticized why you feel like you're being criticized by association? It doesn't make sense to me. If I'm especially making clear that the two groups are two groups and you and arcadiangames, among others, belong to a different groups...?
I mean, yes, I've said in the past that I don't get why Christians of the positive stripe don't act more to stamp down the Christian[ists] of the negative stripe, but that's not intended as criticism either, so much as not understanding why anyone would want to sit still while a minority makes the whole larger group look bad. I've said the same thing about women, and about my own ethnic group.
As for the disclaimer, thanks.
I'd unfortunately grown tired of having to defend myself no matter what I say or how carefully I say it, what modifiers I use or don't use. It was frustrating to feel like I should just never give my opinion because somebody would always get pissed off and take me to task for things I didn't say or didn't mean the way the other person perceived them.
I don't know how to make myself any clearer.
Reply
I don't get why if you're not participating in the behaviour of the group being criticized why you feel like you're being criticized by association? It doesn't make sense to me. If I'm especially making clear that the two groups are two groups and you and arcadiangames, among others, belong to a different groups...?
The thing is, you don't have to get it. You probably won't get it. :) It's just how I am about certain things.
I mean, I usually get offended when people joke about rape. I've never been raped, and I don't have any close friends who have been raped. [I take that back-- I do *now*, but this knee-jerk reaction was formed waaaay before that.] I don't have any concrete reason for it. But where some people can hear jokes about rape and shrug it off, I have a very difficult time doing that. There's just some kind of emotional response there. It doesn't matter whether someone would preface it with a disclaimer or not. If I stumble across it by accident, I'll still have that offended reaction.
[to be continued]
Reply
Back in March, IIRC, someone posted a metaquote with a comment that sort of went "tsk tsk" about people posting to LJ from work. Soon afterwards, you posted a rant wherein you described your pet peeve of people who admonish others for looking at LJ from work. It seemed to me that one was a direct result of the other. [And I apologize if I'm wrong in these conclusions; I couldn't find the damn metaquote!] You seemed angry that people would, even jokingly, or based on their work rules and experiences, tsk people for surfing on work time.
Now, you're allowed to surf on work time, so it seems that according to your "I exclude myself if I'm not a part of it" practices, that the person's comment about surfing during work shouldn't have bothered you or offended you, since you *are* (or were) allowed to read LJ during work. But still, it bothered you. We were able to discuss it civilly, I thought, even though we disagreed on a few points. The comment still bothered you. And that's okay. I don't need to agree with the fact that it bothered you, and I don't need to understand it. It's your reaction and your emotion. However, it would be nice of me to try to see your side of things, and it would be nice of me to acknowledge that you feel that way, even if I don't understand it, support it, get it, etc.
In another vein, I don't really get your reaction to Halle Berry. She hasn't done anything to you personally. So to me, it seems like a huge bunch of fuss for nothing. I probably won't agree with your viewpoint on her, or your insistance that We Do Not Speak Her Name in your journal. That said, it would be nice of me to acknowledge that you feel that way, even if I don't agree with it.
[I'm also reminded of a girl who went to my church, who believed that there were "black people" and "niggers." The former were those who "acted like her," and the latter were those who behaved loudly, outrageously, promiscuously, etc. Even though she labeled both differently, I can't see how most African Americans wouldn't be offended by her descriptions, even though most wouldn't fall into the description of the latter group that she was criticizing.]
[Offensive stuff section over now.]
I don't expect people to do what I tell them to do. I don't expect people to "get" my beliefs, my emotions, my passions, my reactions, or any of that stuff. It's nice if they do get it, and it's nice if they try to get it, and it's nice if they allow me to try to explain myself even if I doubt they'll ever get it. -shrug- The best we can do is to try to acknowledge those strong reactions and strong feelings, and respect the right of each of us to have those feelings.
I don't think that you should have to defend yourself against all comers. I don't think it's possible to go through life without offending people, whether purposefully, accidentally, or unknowingly. What I try to do if someone is offended by something I've said or done is pretty simple. Instead of bluntly saying that it's wrong for the other person to be offended, I simply apologize for any offense, state that I didn't mean to hurt the other person's feelings, and caution that I might offend in the future but that it probably isn't intentional.
-shrug- But that's just how I see things. You probably see things totally differently. And that's okay. :)
Reply
It wasn't a direct result, exactly. It was the result of that being the latest in a series of posts about the subject there and elsewhere. And the problem it caused me was that it didn't seem joking. It seemed to me more a justification to not denote NSFW because people might be at work. It seemed to me more an occasion to intentionally be rude just because some people can surf from work and some people can't. And worst of all, it seemed to me casting aspersions on my work ethic -- that anyone who surfs from work has to be goldbricking. Or worse, that anyone who surfs from work is definitely goldbricking, rather than doing it on their allotted breaks and/or lunches. It was that combination of things that eventually set me off after a long simmer. Your remark that it was tantamount to stealing was also a barb to me. Which I guess makes me guilty of the whole perceiving "all" without the modifier, but I also didn't attack the OP for it. I ranted about it here on my own space.
In another vein, I don't really get your reaction to Halle Berry. She hasn't done anything to you personally. So to me, it seems like a huge bunch of fuss for nothing. I probably won't agree with your viewpoint on her, or your insistance that We Do Not Speak Her Name in your journal. That said, it would be nice of me to acknowledge that you feel that way, even if I don't agree with it.
She's done a lot of keeping Hollywood's cliches of women in their place. She's played a whole lot of negative stereotypes, propagating them. She's also ruined the cinematic version of a character I grew up with in an age when there were very few female black heroes. That character meant a lot to me, and she pretty much spat on it. And she lies about her disdain for it because she knows the kind of reaction it gets. *shrug* If you don't get it, you don't have to necessarily interact with me on the subject. I tend to avoid commenting when I don't think I can contribute to somebody's strong feelings. Like I said, I don't go into the LJs of my religious friends and make anti-religious remarks.
In general I don't make attempts to offend, and I warn if I think I'm going to. But that doesn't always work either.
I guess I just find it frustrating to make an effort not to offend and to still offend anyway.
Reply
Leave a comment