This week in The Slacktiverse, May 7/8 2011

The Blogaround

Last week Sarah posted a follow-up to hir Slacktiverse article Camden Resurrected.

aravind reports: I wrote up a bit of a unitarian response to a lot of comments I've seen lately (including David Barton the daily show) that really equate unitarianism with trinitarian Protestantism (or view unitarianism solely through trinitarian Protestantism).

mmy posted a number of book reviews this week including Ankle Deep and further (and less measured) take on the recent Canadian election, On the inside looking out.

Nick Kiddle writes: I have an allusive post trying to compare the celebrations of bin Laden's death to my own attempts to find satisfaction in the humiliation of someone who hurt me.

This week Lunch Meat posted two articles Victory, yes, but for whom?, which challenges the claim that Osama bin Laden's death is somehow a victory for Christianity, and Table for Two: A Parable (Part 1), which is the first part of a parable sort of inspired by the idea that Jesus returns as a woman.

This week Sarah posted a reflection on Osama bin Laden's death.

In an open letter to her Congressional representatives, Literata proposed the No Taxpayer Funding for Viagra Act. This satire was the only way she could think of to express her anger, fear, and frustration about the fact that a similar bill manipulating the tax code to make abortion care unaffordable and less accessible recently passed the US House of Representatives. She also explained why some advice about how to deal with potential "curses" is harmful.

Michael Mock wrote a book review on David Roche's The Church of 80% Sincerity, which Slacktivites might find of interest.

Ana Mardoll posted a new Twilight entry on her blog Twilight: First Impressions, Rigid Judgments (Trigger Warnings: Infertility, Miscarriage, Stillbirths, Racism.):
Is it narrative convenience or human frailty that prevents Bella from ever revisiting her initial judgments of her classmates and the lovely Cullens? Whatever it is, you never get a second chance to make a first impression on Bella Swan! Come join us as we plumb moral relativism and the many and varied motives behind the action of adoption. (Trigger Warnings: Infertility, Miscarriage, Stillbirths, Racism.)

The former conservative blogger writes: This week I criticized a blog poster's critique of Rob Bell, which ended up with him coming and commenting on my blog, which started a long and very interesting discussion on hell which went for over 100 comments, took a look at one of the more ridiculous reactions to Bin Laden's death and a delicious muffin recipe, critiqued someone's rather impassioned feelings about the KJV and of course another Mike Savage piece.

Laiima posted adventures in amplitudifying my comfort zone, and reaping the benefits thereby in journeying to self acceptance and most things don't work.

This week Ruby continued her review of Soon. Paul is continuing to be an emotionally abusive jerk in Soon: Chapter 13, so a poll is up to vote on Paul's worst statements. And Ruby is giving away an audiobook of another Jerry Jenkins book, Riven, in a drawing!

This week Leum posted G-spots and experiencing the divine which suggests that experiences of the divine are of something subjective, not objective and a follow-up post Being Respectfully Skeptical of the Divine which examines ways skeptics of the supernatural can respond to someone who's had a divine experience.

In case you missed this

mmy writes: This article about the lack of clear and definitive regulation of the "gluten-free" label on foods sold in the United States 3 years after deadline, FDA still hasn’t defined ‘gluten-free’ will be of interest to anyone to anyone who is (or has a family member or friend who is) a celiac and who in the United States or plans to visit the country.

(Trigger Warnings: Rape, Rape Culture, Misogyny, Victim Blaming.)

Launcifer submitted a link to an article about the Supreme Court of the United States refusing to hear the appeal of young woman who protested having to cheer her rapist.

CZEdwards writes: This article, Phoenix Gay Dads Adopt, Raise Twelve Happy Kids, is pretty interesting on its own, but Arizona does not allow same-sex marriage, same-sex adoptions, nor second-parent adoptions.

 

Things you can do

Derek writes: a self-proclaimed Baptist VP at a public university has acted to deny tenure to a qualified faculty member because of her transgendered status. More specific information can be found at the following links:
Trigger Warning: Transphobia
(Transgender Oklahoma professor denied tenure and terminated
and
Public University in Oklahoma Openly Discriminates Against Trans-Gendered Faculty Member in Tenure Decision
To sign the petition protesting this action click here

Médecins Sans Frontières encourages people to celebrate Mother's Day by making a donation that will help to provide obstetric care to women who would otherwise received none. Click here to send a Mother's Day e-card and make a donation at the same time.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________

The Board Administration Team
(hapax, Kit Whitfield and mmy)

Comments

[Andrew Glasgow]

Boobies!

[Andrew Glasgow]

Derek writes: a self-proclaimed Baptist VP at a public university has acted to deny tenure to a qualified faculty member because of her transgendered status. More specific information can be found at the following links:

Ugh. Given that this college's administration seems intent on ignoring the recommendations of their faculty, I doubt that a petition will convince them otherwise. Horrible, horrible people.

[Mmy]

@Andrew Glasgow: Horrible, horrible people.

Yes. This.

Question to everyone out there:

Just finished completing my Canadian Census (2011) online. We noticed the following (and remember there are possible penalties for filing out the form incorrectly):

The question is, of course, how is one supposed to answer this question if one is a transgendered individual (especially if one is still transitioning) and presents as one gender but has acitizenship/passport/birth certificate that declares a different gender.

We wrote in that question/complaint on our census form when we submitted it.

[MercuryBlue]

I like this icon I saw on Dreamwidth. Trigger: swearing.

[Nick Kiddle]

Apologies if this isn't the place, but I have an allusive post trying to compare the celebrations of bin Laden's death to my own attempts to find satisfaction in the humiliation of someone who hurt me: http://ksej.livejournal.com/273138.html

[Mmy]

@MercuryBlue: Yeah -- I like it too. I understand "why" the census needs some of the data it asks (especially in a country with government funded health care delivery knowing some basic stats is important) but I think that there needs to be room for "other -- it's more complicated than that" at the very least.

Interesting aside/detail. The census form as it arrived was just announcement of your "code" without the form. The regular census itself is now collected on the net. This should not only save on paper but cut out a lot of intermediate steps of data entry. Bad side: people got jobs doing that. Good side: every step introduces the possibility of error.

[MercuryBlue]

I think you got 'bad' and 'good' the wrong way round.

[Mmy]

@MercuryBlue: I think you got 'bad' and 'good' the wrong way round

I meant that it is bad that the people who used to do that work no longer have jobs.

It is good that there are fewer steps and therefore less chance of error being introduced.

[The Board Administration Team]

@Nick Kiddle: Apologies if this isn't the place, but I have an allusive post trying to compare the celebrations of bin Laden's death to my own attempts to find satisfaction in the humiliation of someone who hurt me

We think of the "This Week" post as a way to help the people who read The Slacktiverse to connect with other people who read The Slacktiverse. So this is most definitely "the place." We have added your comment to the body of the regular post in case people don't catch it in the comments.

[Zigforas (who is not late to the conversation today)]

Interesting aside/detail. The census form as it arrived was just announcement of your "code" without the form. The regular census itself is now collected on the net. This should not only save on paper but cut out a lot of intermediate steps of data entry.

That is interesting. I wonder if the U.S. will ever conduct the census online? I worked a part-time temporary position for the 2010 U.S. Census, and I know that one reason the U.S. mails out forms and hires people to go door to door (and canvas tent camps, etc.) is because only a small segment of the population has the Internet literacy and access to successfully complete an online form. Is this less of a concern in Canada?

[Brin (not Meir)]

Re: Canadian census

I came in at religious affiliation (Mom was considerate and asked me for my religion instead of assuming Jewish), so I don't think I saw the bit against transgendered people. I did see the bit against people with irregular working hours: we don't and can't know exactly how much money Dad is going to make May 1st - 7th when it's only May 4th. (As far as I know (and they may not have told me), they haven't gone back and finished yet. The census had better not have updated for the new week.)

[Mmy]

@Zigforas: I know that one reason the U.S. mails out forms and hires people to go door to door (and canvas tent camps, etc.) is because only a small segment of the population has the Internet literacy and access to successfully complete an online form. Is this less of a concern in Canada?

Long story short -- yes.

Long story long. To quote the Canadian Census the website.

Starting May 3rd, Canada Post will deliver a letter to 60% of Canadian dwellings. This letter replaces the traditional paper questionnaire and provides information so respondents can complete the questionnaire online. The letter also contains a toll-free number respondents can call to request a paper questionnaire.

About 20% of dwellings will receive a questionnaire package by mail.

The remaining 20% of dwellings will have questionnaires dropped off by enumerators. At a small number of dwellings enumerators will conduct personal interviews. Personal interviews are normally conducted in remote and northern areas of the country and on most Indian reserves. They are also conducted in large urban downtown areas where residents are transient.

In the (not particularly large) city in which I live you can go to the local federal office and they have a bank of computers that people can use to do online work and a staff of people who will help. There is also a room at the library dedicated to nothing else.

But (warning -- an incoming torrent of data about Canadians) yes -- Canadians are far more "online" than the residents of many other countries. In fact the average Canadian spends 43.5 hours a month on the web (the worldwide average is 23.1.) The gender split is almost 50/50 and the fastest growing demographic of web users is the "over 50s"

Comparatively few Canadians live in "access deserts" -- according to the CRTC (the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission)

Approximately 95 per cent of Canadian households can access broadband services using land-line facilities. Satellite facilities extend this reach to virtually all households and are only limited by capacity constraints.

The Globe and Mail ran an article about this fairly recently.

[Mmy]

@Brin: The transgendered question was just ours -- nothing on the census.

Since you got asked the "religion" question your folks must have gotten the "long form" -- we got the short one and it took more time to type in the website address and the "secret code" than it did to fill out the census.

[Zigforas (who is not late to the conversation today)]

Is this less of a concern in Canada?
Long story short -- yes. Long story long...

Fascinating. Thanks for the comprehensive answer, Mmy!

Good side: every step introduces the possibility of error.
Definitely agree with you here. I worked in the initial geographic data-checking part of the 2010 U.S. Census--we travelled around verifying that maps and addresses had been recorded correctly by the first set of people hired to gather and verify this information, to make sure that every possible domicile was identified for the mailed census forms and so that the next wave of census workers--the actual enumerators--would have correct data to use as they went door to door. Unfortunately, I found lots of errors, and more than once had to completely re-canvas an area--which takes FOREVER, and left me wondering just what on earth the person who had supposedly originally canvassed the area was doing. (Driving in circles listening to an iPod, perhaps.)

[MercuryBlue]

mmy: ah.

[Mmy]

@Zigforas: I worked in the initial geographic data-checking part of the 2010 U.S. Census--we travelled around verifying that maps and addresses had been recorded correctly by the first set of people hired to gather and verify this information, to make sure that every possible domicile was identified for the mailed census forms and so that the next wave of census workers--

Never did census work but I did work as an enumerator for the Canadian government

Digression[note for Americans: basically in Canada it is government's job to find everyone and put them on the voting list. We don't do it every election anymore, just update it periodically. You knock on the door and ask who in the house can vote, note their names down and move on. If no one answers at one house and the neighbours are in you ask the neighbours. Due to children's misunderstandings and the Canadian sense of humour this is now animals with human sounding names have been known to get on the voting list]

Back to comment. One year an entire short street was missing from the enumeration list. I was one of the team who went back to investigate missing homes/streets and such teams were always made up of people from more than one of the political parties.

Team member and I arrive at the street, get out of our car and the team member turned to me and said "I'm not going to knock on that door" and got back in the car.

So I went alone up the front walk (overgrown with weeds), up the porch steps (dilapidated), across the porch (littered with cigarette and other butts), and knocked on the door (which was painted black except for the white death's head.)

The door was opened by a unkempt man wearing black leather and chains.

He was perfectly polite and gave me all the information I needed. Then he nodded in direction of the other team member sitting stiffly in the car, tipped me a wink and closed the door.

And yes, there were some "interesting odours" emanating from within during our conversation.

[aravind]

What sort of interesting odors, I wonder, perhaps not really wanting to know.

[Mmy]

@aravind: What sort of interesting odors, I wonder, perhaps not really wanting to know

Aside from urine and feces (which aren't really "interesting" are they?) motor oil, wet dog, cat spray, wood rot, weed, meth, cigarettes, the sickly sweet smell of decomposition and the (at least to me) slight "red" smell of blood.

[Mmy]

addendum to the previous post -- to quote my mother "you never can really the smell of urine out of leather, can you?"*

------------
* on the occasion of walking through the room as I was watching Jim Morrison on TV.

[Literate, who wants advice]

My post on curses has ignited a teeny tiny mini blog fire. I'd like the advice of the community wisdom. One commenter has gone ad hominem, and the owner of the blog with the original posts has published an open letter asking why I didn't contact her first instead of writing a critique on my own blog. I'm thinking of writing a post explaining that a) asking me to contact her first is weird, b) I don't need to justify my critique based on experience when the argument stands on it's own, and c) um, I never said that thing y'all are upset about.

[Literata, who wants advice]

Heck. New iPad keeps auto-correcting my name. Literata, with an a! Grr.

[Mmy]

@Literata -- you know the link isn't working properly with your name right?

And I'll head over and take a look (which sounds like I am some sort of net-cop which I am not) but generally speaking if you write something and post it to the internet you can expect to be slagged -- you are fair game.

Did you by any chance is the author meltdown that John Scalzi linked to on his blog? People can get amazingly "backs up" about things like this.

[Literata, who wants advice]

Thanks for telling me to fix the link. I hear you on the author meltdowns, and it's ironic that this is happening on the same day that I overreacted to language that I felt was othering me in the comments section on yet another blog. So I've got great evidence of people getting their backs up. And after a few well- justified sharp critiques have been aimed at me, I'm trying to be respectful of authors' feelings unless they give me good reason otherwise, which hasn't been the case here. It might be that I'm just not going to make friends by offering even well-reasoned, respectful critique, but I always appreciate a reality check and advice.

[Mmy]

@Literata: I'm just not going to make friends by offering even well-reasoned, respectful critique, but I always appreciate a reality check and advice

I read over your original post and felt that you were rather even tempered (far more than I would be in your place.) The owner of the site seems to expect the right to "okay" and "control" responses. Doesn't work like that. People get to say what they like of you when you put your work out publicly.

(BTW, in the process of going through the archives to hand them over to Patheos I came across a fine, fine collection of attacks on me. For example, I quite unreasonably used sarcasm and logic and as a result (by undermining the arguments of my opponents) I "meanly" made them look silly.

[Nick Kiddle]

//We think of the "This Week" post as a way to help the people who read The Slacktiverse to connect with other people who read The Slacktiverse. So this is most definitely "the place." We have added your comment to the body of the regular post in case people don't catch it in the comments.//

Thanks :)

I'm pretty sure this isn't the place for what follows, but I'm badly in need of prayers or thoughts or just people I can rant to about how viciously unfair this is. It's complicated, so the explanation is going to be long...

[Trigger warning for transphobia, depression]

I mentioned a while back that I'm just beginning to come to terms with the possibility I have PTSD. I start therapy next week, and I've been on meds since last December. For the first time, I have the feeling the meds are actually making a difference to my mental state, but they have an incredibly unfortunate side-effect. My motivation has dropped to approximately zero, to the point where even something as simple as getting up on time or eating a meal in the middle of the day is a major challenge. The xCLP is regularly late for school, which I'm well aware is a bad thing, but I'm struggling to improve.

Meanwhile, xCLP has decided to identify as a boy. Since his birth certificate, not to mention his school records, identify him as female, and since he's even femmier than his mother, this has utterly confused his classmates to the point where they're calling him a liar. His class teacher doesn't see it as a problem - certainly not a problem with him - but some anonymous person has got Children's Service involved.

So on Friday they dragged me into school for a meeting which was almost literally torture for me. They kept telling me again and again how terrible it is that he calls himself a boy, that it's not possible for a child to know such a thing at that age (many trans people of my acquaintance could contradict that one), suggesting that I've either brainwashed him into thinking he's a boy because I don't like girls or just given him the impression that girls transform into boys as a matter of course by talking about my transition.

At the point where they said that gender at such a young age is a matter of biology and biologically he's a girl, I couldn't stand it any more. I pretended to have remembered an urgent appointment and basically ran out of the room. My dad, who is awesomely supportive at times, agreed to be the urgent appointment if they checked up later.

It feels trivial compared to the transphobia, but their attitude to my meds really annoyed me too. It's a very difficult balance, whether I'd rather put up with the side-effects or trigger to the point of suicidal ideation over incredibly small and unpredictable things. They almost seemed to be treating me as using the meds as an excuse, and they wanted me to go back to my doctor straight away and ... I don't even know what. Cut the dose back to the level that didn't have much effect? Try a different medication, even though this is the first antidepressant I've ever tried that seemed to be working? I hate the way people think there's a happy pill that makes everything fine with no messy side-effects and that if it's not happening you must be doing something wrong. They keep claiming they want to support me, but it feels like they're trying to complicate what's already a difficult decision.

[renniejoy]

{{{{{{{{{{Nick Kiddle}}}}}}}}}

[Literata, who wants advice]

Seconding the hugs to Nick!

Thanks, Mmy.

[aravind]

God, that's horrifying. I'm so sorry, Nick, and I hope things get better soon.

[aravind]

Sorry for the double post, but I just want to say I think you've done nothing wrong Literata. You argued a point that didn't deny the existence of alternatives (ie: it still could be a curse), but that isn't necessarily the first impression that some people leap to (ie: it *has* to be a curse). That's not othering, in my individual opinion.

And that's before we get into the whole "you should consulted me" thing that seems a little demanding.

[P J Evans]

Nick, anti-depressants can do that - I know my mother tried a couple before she found one whose side effects she could live with, and I know other people who have had problems not unlike yours.
But I don't think you're the problem that that anonymous person and Children's Services think you are - I suspect the problem is their own views of How People Should Live. (Adding, here, that children's services seems to attract people who want to run the lives of others, sometimes because they think they're more Christian than the rest of us.)

[Literata, who is very thankful for this place]

Thanks, aravind. The othering was actually part of another discussion, but I'm really glad that you confirm I didn't deny the existence of alternatives - part of me was wondering whether I'd misread my own writing!

[hapax]

{{{Literata and Nick Kiddle}}}

----------

@Literata -- Your post seemed very reasonable and even-handed to me, although I'll admit it is a topic that I have no expertise in, nor have I spent much time thinking about it.

The flak you are receiving in the comments is undoubtedly unpleasant, but unless these are people you have reason to respect or a desire to cultivate, I'd suggest filing it under "somebody being WRONG on the Internet."

----

@Nick Kiddle: I don't remember how old your child is, but I think it's early primary age (5 - 7)? I'm certainly no expert once again, but the parenting books I read said the exact opposite of your CPS visitors. They noted that for children of that age, all types of identity (including gender identity) can be (note: "CAN be", not "always are") extremely fluid indeed.

In other words, he might indeed have a strong male gender identification at an early age. Or perhaps he is modeling himself on you, which is a very natural thing for a child to do with a parent. Or it is equally possible in six months he will change his mind, or identify as a pony or a princess.

Note that this last possibility wouldn't faze CPS at all -- indeed, to judge by what I see in USian culture, it would probably cause them to clasp their hands and murmur "How CUUUTE" -- when, realistically, the number of people who discover that they are not cisgendered vastly outnumber the number who discover that they are secretly offspring of royalty.

Just sayin'.

So if they continue to get on your case about this, I'd just shrug my shoulders and say, "My child's doctor says [these latter I have found to be the Magic Words that make all manner of interfering busybodies stfu] that my best response is not to make a big deal about it."

About the side effects of medication: much sympathies there. I was just whining over dinner that it seemed unfair that I had to choose between being able to breathe and being able to sleep, between being able to walk and use my hands and being able to keep a coherent thought in my head.

People tend to understand this trade-off with physical treatments, but can be astonishingly unsympathetic with emotional and mental ones.

[Michael Chui]

@TBAT, technical request:

When you create links, please make sure that the target attribute is "_blank", not "blank". The former creates an unconnected new window, whereas the latter creates a window connected using the name "blank", so that, if you open a link and leave the window open, it will be overwritten by the next link you open.

I don't know if it's actually TypePad's fault... but if you could take a look, that'd be great. Not a major issue, for me. Thanks.

[Kit Whitfield]

Sympathies, Nick Kiddle. Hang in there!

--

Literata: just posted a comment in support of you. I read your article and it was perfectly fair and reasonable, as well as very interesting. (Unsurprisingly; it's always a treat to read your writings.)

All I can say is that if you make a moral criticism of anyone online, the odds of someone having a tantrum about it are very high. After long and careful consideration, my view is: stuff 'em. If someone is at war with the idea that people have the right to criticise each others' behaviour, I say just thank your lucky stars that you only have to meet them online.

As William Blake has it: 'Listen to the fool's reproach! It is a kingly title!'

(I'm also wondering how many people feel personally stung by you pointing out that calling cheating a 'slip up' is good enough reason for subsequent failed relationships. This is not nice of me. ;-p)

--

(BTW, in the process of going through the archives to hand them over to Patheos I came across a fine, fine collection of attacks on me. For example, I quite unreasonably used sarcasm and logic and as a result (by undermining the arguments of my opponents) I "meanly" made them look silly.

Ooh, where was that? Sounds like your comments were enjoyable. :-)

[Nick Kiddle]

Thanks everyone for the hugs and kind words.

//But I don't think you're the problem that that anonymous person and Children's Services think you are - I suspect the problem is their own views of How People Should Live. (Adding, here, that children's services seems to attract people who want to run the lives of others, sometimes because they think they're more Christian than the rest of us.)//

Not so much "more Christian" here in the UK, but I agree that the sense of "helping" people and "protecting" people is so seductive for some people that they can't see the damage they're doing. This was what I was thinking of during the epic "selfishness" battle awhile back: some of the worst harm I've seen has been done by people with "good intentions" who couldn't see past the purity of their motives.

//I don't remember how old your child is, but I think it's early primary age (5 - 7)? I'm certainly no expert once again, but the parenting books I read said the exact opposite of your CPS visitors. They noted that for children of that age, all types of identity (including gender identity) can be (note: "CAN be", not "always are") extremely fluid indeed.//

Five and a half, and incredibly bright. They're claiming children don't start to explore their own identity until age 7, and if I say different they claim the problem is my ignorance :(

//Note that this last possibility wouldn't faze CPS at all -- indeed, to judge by what I see in USian culture, it would probably cause them to clasp their hands and murmur "How CUUUTE" -- when, realistically, the number of people who discover that they are not cisgendered vastly outnumber the number who discover that they are secretly offspring of royalty.//

This is such a marvellous point I'd like to steal it if I may? (Is it stealing if it's with permission?) I know a girl about the same age at a group who decided her name was Maid Marian, and everyone was indeed "Ahhh, so cute!" I suppose it's just proof of how rigid some people's ideas about gender are [rant about the continuing need for feminism deleted for space reasons].

//So if they continue to get on your case about this, I'd just shrug my shoulders and say, "My child's doctor says [these latter I have found to be the Magic Words that make all manner of interfering busybodies stfu] that my best response is not to make a big deal about it."//

*Makes note of argument*
*Hopes he will remember argument when they are next in his face*
It's a good argument, and thanks for the suggestion, but they have so much institutional power behind them that I get horrendously flustered. I need my fiancee to hold my hand and back me up, but she's several thousand miles away.

[Kit Whitfield]

@Nick: you may enjoy this:

http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2010/11/02/my-son-is-gay/

Sadly it's caused a big furore, including the woman being threatened with expulsion from her church (http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2011/02/03/epilogue/), but her stance is fine.

[JE]

@Literata: I find it ironic that your great concern about not denying the possibilty of alternatives in post linking a post where you talk about how irritating you find it that people express an incompatible world view/belief system.

[Kit Whitfield]

@JE: oh for goodness sake. She was not complaining about his world view. She was merely criticising the advice he gave based on it. To wit, the fact that in advising people to take action against curses, he wasn't also taking due care that his advice would be harmless if the problem wasn't a curse. Her criticism wasn't that this guy believed in curses; it was that he was suggesting that you should assume a curse without first eliminating all other explanations.

That is not a world view problem. That is a common sense problem.

If you're going to play 'Gotcha!', do make sure you actually have a get.

[JE]

That's not what I was referring to at all. I commented as I said on the post she linked to in the post that the discussion was about: http://worksofliterata.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/magic-and-headology/, specifically the part "I get very irritated when skeptics insist that magic is nothing more than trickery or self-applied psychology."

[JE]

if you'll excuse the double post: what I'm saying is that it's ironic for someone to obviously be conserned about not alienating different viewpoints redirecting to a writing saying she finds people holding a (certain) incompatible viewpoint annoying

[Kit Whitfield]

JE: for goodness sake again. If you're concerned about people being dismissive of different viewpoints, of course you're going to get irritated when people dismiss different viewpoints. Anything else is just playing you-should-tolerate-my-intolerance.

[MadGastronomer]

@JE: I suggest you go learn what "ironic" actually means. The apparent meaning and the actual meaning of what Literata said and linked to are not in any kind of conflict, but are instead in concert, as Kit has pointed out. You fail.

[JE]

There is a difference between disagreeing with a belief and dismissing it. Literata and I must because of our respective beliefs think that the other is wrong, there simply isn't a way in which we can both be right. That does not mean that we have to resent the other for holding that other belief, nor do we have to assume negative character traits about the other because they disagree with us on this issue

[MadGastronomer]

The word she used is "insist," not "believe." It's about how people treat her, and other pagans, not about what people believe.

[JE]

In my experience that someone "insists" on their beliefs means stubbournly holding onto their views despite the speaker knowing that it's wrong (to chose an example close to home I could name quite a few sceptics who would be annoyed that Literata "insists on believing in magic". If that was not the meaning intended meaning then I misunderstood. If so I'd like to appologise for the tone of my last post.

[MadGastronomer]

Again, there's a distinct difference in usage and meaning between "insists that" and "insists on believing." One is something you speak aloud, one is something you think inside your head.

[Kit Whitfield]

In my experience that someone "insists" on their beliefs means stubbournly holding onto their views despite the speaker knowing that it's wrong

Since that's not what Literata's writing implied, and her use of 'insist' was a perfectly valid and grammatically correct use of the term, maybe you should have looked it up or asked a question before taking a pot shot at her.

[JE]

In my experience people would use the phrasing that Literata used to convey what I understood it to mean, but english is not my first language. I disagree with your speak aloud/think inside distinction, you "insist on beliving" something when you say that you still hold your beliefs after someone has tried to change them. Which is what I originally thought was the kind of situation that had inspired the comment (which I see now may have been wrong).

[Kit Whitfield]

In my experience people would use the phrasing that Literata used to convey what I understood it to mean, but english is not my first language.

Then for goodness sake, your 'experience' does not qualify you to tell someone off for their use of language! You should at least double check something means what you think it means before you lay into the author. Have some sense.

[MadGastronomer]

If English is not your first language, then perhaps you should not tell native English speakers, particularly ones who spend a lot of time thinking about the language, how it's used. "Insist on believing" has a distinctly different meaning than "insist that," and Literata used the latter, not the former. Stop 'splaining my language to me, and stop being an ass, please.

[Literata, who is very thankful for this place]

I linked to that prior post of mine for two reasons. One was to give an example of advice that doesn't deny the potentially strange belief (in that case, that a man has a monster after him). The other was to give an allusion to my own still-developing beliefs about magic, which were potentially relevant but tangential to the way I decided to structure the post. And finally, the key word in that sentence wasn't insist. It was the phrase "nothing more than." The rest of the post goes on to discuss how I think that what skeptics dismiss as easily explainable is in fact pretty amazing, especially in its results. Preserving a sense of wonder, instead of dismissing it as simple just because you (think you) know how it works, is one of my meanings of magical. I want to know how things work - don't get me wrong. But I think there are some things that are, if not magic in the sense of magick-with-a-k, at least magical.

I can't thank you enough, Kit and MadG and hapax and everybody. Sometimes the Internet can be a very lonely place, which makes it easy to doubt myself. You've made sure I wasn't alone. (BTW, if anyone doubts it, I would like to state very clearly that if the folks here told me I was in the wrong or needed to apologize, I would do it.)

[JE]

"Then for goodness sake, your 'experience' does not qualify you to tell someone off for their use of language!"

I never told anyone of for their use of language, I (possibly) misunderstood what was being said.

"You should at least double check something means what you think it means before you lay into the author."

That's the problem with being ignorant of your own ignorance. It would not have made a difference, I googled it and both of first two dictionary hits for insist all had my reading as a correct usage.

"Stop 'splaining my language to me"

I have not, nor do I claim any authority on the english language. I only explained why I thought Literata had said what I thought she said

"stop being an ass, please."
I would say the same, but I would not want to draw attention to the fact that you can't.

[MadGastronomer]

WARNING: CUSSING

I disagree with your speak aloud/think inside distinction, you "insist on beliving" something when you say that you still hold your beliefs after someone has tried to change them.

This? Is 'splaining my language.

So is this:

There is a difference between disagreeing with a belief and dismissing it. Literata and I must because of our respective beliefs think that the other is wrong, there simply isn't a way in which we can both be right. That does not mean that we have to resent the other for holding that other belief, nor do we have to assume negative character traits about the other because they disagree with us on this issue

And this:

In my experience that someone "insists" on their beliefs means stubbournly holding onto their views despite the speaker knowing that it's wrong (to chose an example close to home I could name quite a few sceptics who would be annoyed that Literata "insists on believing in magic".

You are, while admitting that you have less experience with the topic in question than I do, nonetheless attempting to correct me about it, insisting that your experience trumps mine. That's 'splaining.

I would say the same, but I would not want to draw attention to the fact that you can't.

No, dear, I can't stop being a bitch. Get it right. You could stop being a stubborn ass if you tried, I suspect, but clearly you have no intention of doing so, nor any intention of avoiding sounding like a fourteen year old boy, so you can fuck off away with yourself, then.

[Kit Whitfield]

I never told anyone of for their use of language, I (possibly) misunderstood what was being said.

You (definitely) misunderstood what was being said, and on the basis of that misunderstanding, accused Literata - who is one of the more impeccably civil posters around here - of double standards. You made a mistake, you were wrong, and you were unpleasant to Literata on the basis of it. This is not defensible. All you should do is offer her a proper apology.

That's the problem with being ignorant of your own ignorance. It would not have made a difference, I googled it and both of first two dictionary hits for insist all had my reading as a correct usage.

Which is why you should have asked Literata if you'd understood her correctly before falsely accusing her.

If you were 'ignorant of your own ignorance' before, you aren't now. Now you know your understanding of English is not strong enough to pick up certain nuances, and therefore you should henceforth ask someone if you've understood them correctly before imputing hypocrisy to them.

[JE]

The first 'splaining I'll take the blame for sorry.

The second was not a lingustic but conseptual disagreement and here I feel that you use the power given by being the first language speaker to silence ideas that don't quite fit your own by claiming that the resulting slightly different use of the words that describe those concepts as being incorrect use of those words

"insisting that your experience trumps mine"

I have presented my experience, mostly in hope that it would explain why I acted the way I did. I still insist that my experience made it reasonable to think that was a common usage. But if you say that those people used the word wrong and this usage is less common than I thought then I yeild to your experience.

"Get it right"
No "getting it right" hurts countless women who have not even the smallest bit of responsibility for you being an asshat.

[Kit Whitfield]

JE, seriously, it's very simple. You misunderstood Literata's use of language in a way that a native speaker almost certainly wouldn't have done, and accused her of hypocrisy. Are you going to spend your energy fighting with MadGastronomer or are you going to apologise to Literata?

Also, if you're going to call someone an 'asshat', please put a trigger warning on your post for swearing as per the agreed community standards.

[JE]

Okey, so better late than never.

Literata, who exactly did your post adress and what exactly was it critizising them for?

[Mmy]

@JE: I feel that you use the power given by being the first language speaker to silence ideas that don't quite fit your own by claiming that the resulting slightly different use of the words that describe those concepts as being incorrect use of those words

No, people are pointing out that you are imputing a particular meaning to a word/phrase/sentence which is, in fact, not correct. That isn't an issue of power it is an issue of understanding.

It is no different than when I, a Canadian, point out to someone whose understanding of French is based on the Parisian French they learned in high school, that the Québécois political slogan Maitres Chez Nous does not carry the same connotations as its English equivalent/translation.

[JE]

okey now I'm kind of confused, what word/phrase/sentence in that paragraph and what meaning is it were talking about here?

[Kit Whitfield]

JE, are you going to apologise or keep demanding that Literata justify herself to you? Three native English speakers have so far explained that you misinterpreted, and MadGastronomer has explained what your misunderstanding was - that you read 'insist' to mean 'continue to believe' rather than 'argue aggressively without listening to others'. What more do you want before you say you're sorry?

[Kit Whitfield]

what word/phrase/sentence in that paragraph and what meaning is it were talking about here?

Oh for goodness sake. Go back and reread the thread and stop asking other people to do the work for you.

[MadGastronomer]

WARNING: CUSSING

The second was not a lingustic but conseptual disagreement ... I have presented my experience, mostly in hope that it would explain why I acted the way I did.

If it function like 'splaining, if it gives the same impression as 'splainin, then it's still 'splaining. And that was not a real apology, either, you puling pillock.

"Explaining" -- which is more like making excuses for -- why you acted as you did when you should just apologize and correct yourself is also pretty shitty.

No "getting it right" hurts countless women who have not even the smallest bit of responsibility for you being an asshat.

You care about insulting hypothetical women, but not about the real women you're talking to. Yep, you're acting like a jackass, alright.

Literata, who exactly did your post adress and what exactly was it critizising them for?

She already told you. Go read it.

You behaved badly. I, along with several other people, called you on it. You continued to behave badly, and I, *gasp*, called you a name based on your behavior. Now you're behaving worse still. First rule of holes: stop digging.

You're a nit, a git, and a twit, and you can take a flying fuck in a rolling donut. I'm done talking to you, until and unless you put on your grown-up pants and stop showing your ass, and apologize properly in addition to stopping your current bad behavior.

*PLONK*

[JE]

I want her to tell me what she meant when she wrote that because while we were arguing she posted a post which was entirely focused sceptic beliefs as something she objected to.

But I'm still going to say sorry because I did not have cause to say what I did.

"Oh for goodness sake. Go back and reread the thread and stop asking other people to do the work for you. "
No I did but I got the impression there that MG was complaining about my use of disagree/dismiss, but mmy's post didn't read like that was it. And therefore the confusion

[Kit Whitfield]

she posted a post which was entirely focused sceptic beliefs as something she objected to.

No. She said she objected to sceptics dismissing Wiccan beliefs in a disrespectful manner. And considering how rude you were about her, 'telling you what she meant' would be a big favour on her part that you really have no business demanding. If she does it it'll be because she's going out of her way to be nice, not because she owes it to you, and if she doesn't you have no right to complain.

[Kit Whitfield]

And therefore the confusion

The confusion has one cause and one alone: your limited understanding of English. You need to acknowledge that the problem is with your comprehension, not with other people's writing.

[JE]

Which is why I asked for clarification (like you said to)

[Kit Whitfield]

I said you should ask for clarification before you accuse someone of double standards. Asking for clarification after you've done it, and done it wrongfully, is a different situation. You should focus on you making amends to her, not on her making things easier to you.

[JE]

It was rude and wrong of me, Literata, to jump to conclussions about your intent. And I should not have made those accusations

[JE]

"I said you should ask for clarification before you accuse someone of double standards. Asking for clarification after you've done it, and done it wrongfully, is a different situation. You should focus on you making amends to her, not on her making things easier to you."

I was talking about asking MG and MMY what word/phrase/sentense in that paragraphh I said to MG I was using incorrectly

[Literata, who is very thankful for this place]

JE, I think I've clarified what I meant in the post about magic vs. headology. I dislike both the behavior of people who are wedded to skepticism, especially offensively belittling skepticism, and the behavior of people who are wedded to pure belief, especially blind belief without sufficient consideration of potential consequences. That puts me in a bit of a 'Goldilocks' position, and my balance between belief and skepticism is something I am constantly trying to assess and adjust. I linked to that post to give an example of me being skeptical of pure skepticism, in an effort to show that I'm aware of the tension in my own position.

[Literata, who is very thankful for this place]

Thank you for the apology, JE. I hope I've clarified my position.

[JE]

Yeah, pretty much.

[JE]

I guess I owe an appology to Kit to for making her spend all that time and energy on my mess

[Thalia]

Well, this has been a lovely thread, but I just wanted to drive by and offer hugs to Nick particularly. Good lord. *shudder*

And Literata, I'll try to make it back after work and see if I can offer any productive or soothing conversation.

[Lila]

JE: life is short, talk is cheap, people who don't listen aren't much fun to discuss things with.

Nick: N+1 to the hugs and "hang in there"s.

[JE]

@Lila: So very true all three

[Literata, who is thinking a lot]

I finally put my finger on one of the things that was baffling me about this whole thing. I get the sense that I wouldn't be getting so much flak if I had just said something like, "This is my opinion," and then been ready to allow that everyone's opinion is equal. I think - and I may be wrong about this too - that some people are just flummoxed or outright offended that I'm using something other than my own opinion as a basis for evaluating their ideas and claims.

[Lampdevil]

All I can say is that if you make a moral criticism of anyone online, the odds of someone having a tantrum about it are very high.

Goodness, yes. The anonymity of the Internet has a way of making people say how they really feel when something rubs them the wrong way. Too much time interacting online makes one sensitive to jabs, too. And if you've been dealing with shitty troll comments for a while, a genuine argument is going to set your brain on FIRE.

I got my virtual behind chewed on today when I posted a comment on someone's chicken pot pie video. What I meant to say was "That looks tasty. You used cream of chicken soup, which upsets me because it tastes about as good as the stuff I make from scratch, but takes less time." Awkward wording, but hey, character limit. The poster read it as "It upsets me that you used cream of chicken soup because only LOSERS use cream of whatever soups and you are a LOSER, you LOSER! I look down my nose at you and fart in your general direction!" She responded accordingly. I resisted the knee-jerk urge to tell her to go eff right off and get over herself, and instead took a breath and politely corrected my wording. It's the SOUP that makes me sad, not you, gentle YouTuber!

Only you can prevent flamewars! That's what Slactivist has taught me. Everything works much better when we interact with each other like reasonable folk.

And add another voice to the chorus of support for Nick. Egad. :|

[Literata, actually likes reasoned disagreements]

Lampdevil, thank you for reminding me of something that should have been obvious: when I'm critiquing something because it doesn't seem reasonable in the first place, that should make me more prepared when the author continues to be unreasonable in response to me.

[The Board Administration Team]

TIME SENSITIVE PETITION

TRIGGER WARNING: TRIGGER WARNING: Mistreatment of QUILTBAG people.

Petition: 48 hours to stop Uganda's anti-gay bill! Click here

[Andrew Glasgow]

Wanted to share this with the community, but not really on-topic for the intimacy post, so posting it here.

Warning: sexism.

Where’s Hillary? Hasidic paper breaks the rules by editing Clinton out of White House photo

Some people I've discussed this with are insisting this wasn't sexist because they're just following their own rules about not 'demeaning' women by showing photographs of them.

Original article is complete with a Notpology from the newspaper in question.

[Nick Kiddle]

I just read on another site their justification for modifying the photo rather than just not running it: they wanted to honour the president and the armed forces. Words fail me.

[Andrew Glasgow]

I wonder, if Clinton had won the primary rather than Obama, and went on the win the election, whether they would refrain from publishing a photo showing her, or photoshop that as well?

[Lila]

Here's the thing: they could have just covered the women in the photo with black rectangles. Then at least their readers could go: "Huh. Apparently there were 2 women there."

Frankly, the whole "Men's lusts are totally uncontrollable and somehow this is women's problem" attitude is beyond ridiculous. Dude, if you can't look at a newspaper photo of a middle-aged diplomat without instantly going into a testosterone-fueled frenzy, put on a blindfold and subscribe to the audio version. Or Braille. Braille is good.

[Friend of many QUILTBAG people]

TRIGGER WARNING: Mistreatment of QUILTBAG people.

@TBAT: I believe this is a new petition on the issue about which I posted on May 9 @9:30PM, but the linked page hasn't loaded yet, and I'm in a bit of a hurry now. My apologies if it's the same link as before.