I'm here via metafandom, and I see that you (understandably) filter anonymous comments, so no worries if you don't want to let this comment go through. But I wanted to thank you for posting this
( ... )
I only filter specifically for spam. Thank you for commenting. I'm glad I saw this before I went to bed.
You can feel free to make your points here under anonymous if you'd feel comfortable doing that. I pretty much speak for no one but myself, so multiple points of view are encouraged, if for no other reason than knowing what they are and where they come from makes a better middle ground possible.
In any case, I'm very glad you spoke here. Thank you for taking the time to do so.
Same anon as above (and after this, I'll probably bow out). Thanks for approving my post! I don't know why, after a year of sitting on my hands silently feeling more and more alienated, I happened to snap when I saw your post - maybe because you were so open-minded? But now that I've started, it's such a relief being able to vent, I'm going to just go ahead. (And thanks for your welcoming reaction.)
My trigger - and here I go confessing! - is suicide. I suffer from (now well-managed) semi-chronic (but these days non-acute) suicidal ideation. Not because of any trauma, but simply because of brain chemistry/inborn inclination. Depictions of suicide in fiction can be triggering for me. But warnings (or even worse, AO3-style tags) can make things even worse! This is because when I was in the throes of a suicidal episode, I often felt compelled to seek out depictions of suicide, even though it dangerously exacerbated my negative mental state. There were times when I did Google searches for suicide in fiction because I wanted to
( ... )
So very much of this. Yes. Thank you. Is it wrong to want to bring up the fact that an argument is not perfect or misses out some data point, for the sake of pushing through a solution for some people faster? I know the perfect can be the enemy of the good if you spend too much time stalling over it, and I'm not saying don't implement the solution anyway, but... at least consider the available data points, even if you ultimately don't end up giving them weight.
I so often feel like this. And sympathise with so much of your post, in general. Have an internet-unicorn.
from metafandomtangyabominyJuly 8 2010, 12:06:52 UTC
D: D: D: *happy tears* YES. ♥ ♥ ♥ Thank you. So very much.
In many of these debates - not just this one - I'm in the middle, seeing value in points made on both sides and desperately wanting to negotiate, or see negotiation, between the two. But when I try to help explain one aspect of the debate to people taking the other side, from a point of view that acknowledges that both have merit, I seem to end up the enemy of both, as if by saying that I can see some aspects of the other side's POV that make sense, I'm taking that POV, enabling that POV. You're either all aboard the bandwagon boat, full steam ahead, or you're holding things back. But I'm not against progress. I'm not. I just feel like both sides have legitimate concerns, often.
I've been afraid to say much for the most part, outside of a few comments, for fear of being jumped and completely mis-read completely, or misunderstood.
Compromise is seriously needed when so many people are involved and you cannot possibly address every person's individual needs 100 %.
You make references to radical conservative rhetoric. Notice that a major tactic of radical conservatives is to shift the middle ground. Suddenly, the fringe is "put gays into camps", so "not allowing them marriage or legal protection" becomes the compromise - when it actually is the fringe, too
( ... )
In a surprising turn of events, all sides think they are the middle ground and compromising. That's kind of the point. If you know you're right, anything given up is leaving the "middle ground".
A major tactic of radical liberalism is also to shift the middle ground. Example: PETA. Example: most radical environment groups. Example, example, example. A major tactic of human civilization is to pretend they are the center of the heart of right and anything less than that is evil.
And since most compromises in this debate ended up this, on either side of the debate, well...the compromise-yay seems to be a bit misplaced.So the whole point of comparing whether or not people can have warnings on vids at a two day con to "put gays into camps" was to say--you don't agree with some of the discussions because they were a.) too compromisy or b.) it's like a gay person being a second class citizen in the country
( ... )
I normally avoid joining in with the various on-line debates I've come across because most of the time what I see are folks yelling *at* each other rather than talking *with* each other. A knockdown drag out rather than an actual debate.
On the rare times I've made that observation in a thread I usually got vilified by both side of the argument.
Comments 29
Reply
You can feel free to make your points here under anonymous if you'd feel comfortable doing that. I pretty much speak for no one but myself, so multiple points of view are encouraged, if for no other reason than knowing what they are and where they come from makes a better middle ground possible.
In any case, I'm very glad you spoke here. Thank you for taking the time to do so.
Reply
My trigger - and here I go confessing! - is suicide. I suffer from (now well-managed) semi-chronic (but these days non-acute) suicidal ideation. Not because of any trauma, but simply because of brain chemistry/inborn inclination. Depictions of suicide in fiction can be triggering for me. But warnings (or even worse, AO3-style tags) can make things even worse! This is because when I was in the throes of a suicidal episode, I often felt compelled to seek out depictions of suicide, even though it dangerously exacerbated my negative mental state. There were times when I did Google searches for suicide in fiction because I wanted to ( ... )
Reply
I so often feel like this. And sympathise with so much of your post, in general. Have an internet-unicorn.
Reply
In many of these debates - not just this one - I'm in the middle, seeing value in points made on both sides and desperately wanting to negotiate, or see negotiation, between the two. But when I try to help explain one aspect of the debate to people taking the other side, from a point of view that acknowledges that both have merit, I seem to end up the enemy of both, as if by saying that I can see some aspects of the other side's POV that make sense, I'm taking that POV, enabling that POV. You're either all aboard the bandwagon boat, full steam ahead, or you're holding things back. But I'm not against progress. I'm not. I just feel like both sides have legitimate concerns, often.
p.s. Have a unicorn.
Reply
I've been afraid to say much for the most part, outside of a few comments, for fear of being jumped and completely mis-read completely, or misunderstood.
Compromise is seriously needed when so many people are involved and you cannot possibly address every person's individual needs 100 %.
Reply
You make references to radical conservative rhetoric. Notice that a major tactic of radical conservatives is to shift the middle ground. Suddenly, the fringe is "put gays into camps", so "not allowing them marriage or legal protection" becomes the compromise - when it actually is the fringe, too ( ... )
Reply
A major tactic of radical liberalism is also to shift the middle ground. Example: PETA. Example: most radical environment groups. Example, example, example. A major tactic of human civilization is to pretend they are the center of the heart of right and anything less than that is evil.
And since most compromises in this debate ended up this, on either side of the debate, well...the compromise-yay seems to be a bit misplaced.So the whole point of comparing whether or not people can have warnings on vids at a two day con to "put gays into camps" was to say--you don't agree with some of the discussions because they were a.) too compromisy or b.) it's like a gay person being a second class citizen in the country ( ... )
Reply
On the rare times I've made that observation in a thread I usually got vilified by both side of the argument.
Reply
Leave a comment