|
Edited on Fri Jun-01-07 02:22 AM by Mythsaje
I'll admit it. I've been as guilty of this as anyone else who's posted here. I can't say I've forgotten that on the other end of the conversation or debate is a real person. Even back in the days of my AOL Pagan Tea House wars, I never fell prey to that assumption. "This isn't real life," is what some people would say in order to assuage any feeling of guilt for their actions.
"No," I'd say, "but the people on the other end ARE real people." Even if, I added mentally, some of them are total assholes.
We often take disagreement, particularly in regards to our personal causes, as a kind of deliberate offense, as if the fact that we see something a certain way, and know others that do as well, means that anyone who doesn't is obviously deluded, deliberately obtuse, or just terminally wrong-headed.
Some time back I got into a debate about the merits of forced public service. I oppose it, for reasons I stated quite clearly at the time. I haven't changed my mind. I admit that there are those who argue the opposite, for reasons that, to them, are equally as valid as my own are to me. It was a nasty bit of business for a few days and I regret some of it.
We see this sort of thing repeated every so often here. There are a lot of people who stand for one thing more than anything else, as is their perogative. Everyone has their own personal axe to grind, I think, and that's okay. I don't think we all need to see eye to eye to be allies or even friends. There are a lot of little things that get my goat, for one reason or another. I, for one, find the constant references to Annthrax Coulter as "Mann" or otherwise suggesting she's transgendered, to be particularly distasteful.
Maybe it's because I find her disgusting and disquieting on so many levels without ever considering that at all, and don't think the reference adds anything to the debate. It makes her no less disgusting, and, as far as I'm concerned, certainly doesn't add anything the other direction. It's both trivial and rude at the same time. It's disrespectful to those who are transgendered. At least it seems so to me.
There are a lot of "insults" that I simply won't use. Or compliments, for that matter. I don't call someone a "bitch," or a "pussy" or refer to a brave person as having "balls." Not as a general rule. Now that I come to think of it, my dad rarely called even women who pissed him off a "bitch." He preferred the generic "asshole" for fuckwads of either gender.
But I digress. The fact is that friction is growing more and more blatant here in recent days. People who are ostensibly on the same side are snarling and snapping at one another with all the good humor of a pack of dogs with no alpha to remind them who's boss. We've got the "usual suspects" generating bad will through several different threads populated by the same exact people who took the same exact positions the last time a similar thread was posted.
What, may I ask, is the point of arguing the same points over and over again when all it does is piss off and alienate people who, if not friends, are at least allies and co-travelers on a similar road?
I've learned the hard way where and when my opinions are appreciated and where and when they are not. There are only a few threads in which one can expect my whole-hearted agreement without question. "George W. Bush is an asshole." "Dick Cheney is a Sith Lord." "<insert Republican toadie's name here> is a asshat." But if it gets any more complex than that, I'm going to have my own perspective on it, and, let's face it, there are far too many cases where having your own slant on things is NOT looked upon with favor.
I don't do lock-step real well. Never have. Never will. I am tempted, on too many occasions, to interject a "yeah, but..." into a conversation about something that doesn't effect me directly. And I fully understand, though don't enjoy, being told that I'm talking out my ass. I'm empathic by nature, which means I can go a long way towards understanding something, but there are nuances I cannot easily grok. I can accept that. Which is why I now avoid the conversations where this lack becomes glaringly obvious. I may have a valid point, but, then again, I may not. Putting my two cents in, either way, is an exercise in futility. Unless I say, unequivocally, "yeah, you're absolutely right," my input is NOT going to be appreciated.
Saying "yeah, but..." at the wrong time, in the wrong context, will inevitably cause people to make unwarranted assumptions about your feelings toward one group or another. You may be called a "bigot," though, from your perspective, that's not what you meant at all.
I sometimes think we don't put enough effort into taking every step necessary to avoid alienating one another. We're all guilty of it. We take things personally that aren't meant personally, and heap upon our "attacker" our own personal brand of venom in response.
Let's start with a basic assumption. Nearly everyone here (besides a few Republican trolls--you all know who you are) are on board with the following. We believe that gays are entitled to equal rights in all respects of our society, and we believe that women are entitled to the same respect, validation, and financial compensation as is any man. With this in mind, maybe those of us straight males who want to add our two cents into certain conversations should simply stop and ask ourselves, "is there a point to this?" We don't need to defend ourselves against the men attacked in the "these kinds of guys are assholes" threads. They are not us, and they are not our philosophical brothers. They're assholes.
Nor do we need to step in to defend homophobic people or institutions, even IF the letter of the law might suggest they have the right to run their business any way they see fit, and associate with the people they choose to associate with. It might be that they're within their legal rights. Doesn't mean they're not fuckheads. We can choose, ourselves, to either stand up with our TRUE brethren in this case, those who are injured by their medieval, backward-ass attitudes, or we can step back and remain silent if we harbor doubts as to the validity of the charge...legally speaking, that is. I'd say that, morally, there's no question they're in the wrong. From MY perspective, at least. My view of morality and THEIR view of morality is light years apart, and all the legalisms in the universe isn't going to change that.
I got in a bit of hot water some months ago for suggesting that maybe we should simply divorce the institution of "marriage" from state control entirely, leaving it to the various churches to decide who may marry whom, and allowing the state to decide on its own who may and may not enter into domestic partnership contracts with one another. I understand that this is how it's done in various European countries.
It did not take long for me to be made to understand that I didn't have the faintest idea what I was talking about. It would be too difficult, I was told, for the documentation and such to be changed to reflect such a drastic move. Too many other laws would have to be changed to make it work, and it actually offended some people that I would suggest this rather than simply agreeing that the law should be changed to allow same sex marriage with no caveats.
Personally I don't happen to think the state SHOULD be invested in the religious connotations of marriage as it stands today. The state's only interest should be in the contractual obligations between the parties involved. It shouldn't be able to decide who and who cannot get married based upon the philosophical beliefs of any sect of Christianity, or any other sect of any other religion, for that matter. What the state should be concerned with, alone, is with the contractual issues of property, progeny, and taxation. It should allow same-sex unions and unions with multiple partners, with the only issue being how the contract(s) are put together to make it work.
I was, I'll admit, engaging in the grinding of my own axe at the expense of gays, who, rightfully, have their own reasons for wanting it to come together in a certain way. My suggestions, as far as that goes, were NOT helpful. I appreciate that and apologize for my presumption.
Another area I now fear to tread is in the debate about rape charges leveled against anyone who's made the national news. The fact is that too many of these cases are tried in the court of public opinion long before they go to trial, and accusations fly fast and furious between people who damn well should know better. Men commit rape. Far, far more often, I believe, than women make false accusations. This is doubtlessly the straight truth of the matter. But, from my perspective, it's simply stupid of me to take the information carelessly spewed by the corporate media as having any value. It's not my job to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused. That's what they have juries for. Since I have no way of knowing the merits of the case, or any real interest in listening to the bullshit flung to the wind by the corporate media in its eternal quest for more sensationalism, I'll carry on minding my own goddamn business. If they are indeed guilty, I hope that justice is served and they get what's coming to them. And I hope that the victim(s) are able to find some sort of peace in the end.
In the meantime, maybe I can just leave everyone with one last thought. We, as liberals, believe we're here to look out for one another, to help soften some of the blows the world throws at each of us in turn. Maybe we can remember that for a time, and perhaps, just perhaps, try to pull our punches when one of us bobs instead of weaves.
Most of us, despite the slight differences of opinions on one subject or another, have a hell of a lot more in common with one another than those flaming asshats who hate and fear everyone who isn't exactly like they are.
Maybe we should put a tad more energy into letting our brethren here know how much we appreciate them. Even if they are a bit obtuse or stubborn about a sticking point or two.
And, as far as I'm concerned, the LAST thing we should be doing is fighting over Cindy Sheehan's parting words as she left the stage and took a well-earned rest. If not our respect (and she has mine, by the way), she has AT LEAST earned our sympathy and courteous regard for the pain she's suffered and the way she dealt with it. Anyone who cannot offer at least that much has, in my opinion, hitched his/her car to the wrong goddamn train.
If you reached the end of this without falling asleep on your keyboard, or unloading a choice expletive or several at me, I thank you. I dearly hope this came out the way I intended it to read and not as something else entirely.
Be well, my friends. And be happy. As I'm known to say from time to time, "it could always be worse."
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
