Monday, August 29, 2005

state your name for the record

You know, some people use blogs for a punching bag, getting out the really mean things to say without suffering the consequence of owning up.

Read THIS and tell me what you think. Do you think my friend was overly harsh? Do think the anonymous commenters are?

This is my personal opinion. Whether my friend was right to say what she said is irrelevant. You can disagree with her, but you can do it civilly and without the venom. You can disagree, but SIGN YOUR NAME TO IT for heaven's sake.

This stuff makes me cranky. Rule of thumb. Never write what you wouldn't say in person. Secondly, if this stuff is what you would say in person, you need to check yourself, man. Cuz that ain't healthy.
Mary, how is it that you so smoothly articulate the very thoughts I was thinking?
I went through several drafts.

First Draft: Completely incoherent, with 2 expletives.

Second Draft: Starting to sound like English, with 1 cheap shot at the end.

Third Draft: Definitely English, but it's too long now.

Fourth Draft: accidentally got erased.

Final Draft: Thrown together in two minutes and posted so I don't get fired.
Wow---I read Kelly's before I came to yours and now I'm so happy that you commented on the whole anonymous thing, too! I added my comment to hers, which was a NON anonymous comment, but meant to be taken completely facetiously. Honestly. If you're so proud of your own opinion, then don't be ashamed enough to put a name with it. I especially loved all the Christ-likes that were going back and forth there. I mean, did the second anonymous realize the irony of pointing out Kelly's unChrist-likeness for calling someone else unChrist-like? Anyway. It's all ridiculous.
My Opinion
1) all's fair in love and blog. write what you want. that's the beauty and freedom of blog
2) homegirl needs to get over a lot more than just her busted furniture by 19 year old elders
3) why a religious spin on this stuff just because missionaries were culprits? what's the issue here? bad moving story or who's christian/who's not? the latter prevailed, shamefully.
4) any and all comments having to do with kingdoms or diety are ridiculous and not appropriate- both sides of the argument, joke no joke.

And most importantly 5): Lazlo's Chinese Relativity Axiom: No matter how great your triumphs, or tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
I think all of them might have been overharsh, but that's the nature of the medium. The blog is there for her to vent, but in return she has to realize others may vent right back if they disagree. And I know how stressful moving is (grew up in a military family), and then when things get broken on top of moving it can be really frustrating. Whether or not the volunteers were careless, or whether the breaks were really unavoidable accidents, they are still frustrating to deal with and would result in a post like that.

I do think maybe the anons should fess up if they really want to open up a discussion on the whole thing, but if she doesn't want anon comments, they can be disabled.

After reading that though, I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that when I move in a couple weeks there isn't major damage. And in the grand scheme of things, bookshelves and dressers are all replacable items. It may take time, but they can be replaced. At least it wasn't a missing box of irreplacable childhood photos or something.
These are all excellent points, thanks everyone.

Hobo, you and I differ in our view about the right to free speech. We both believe in free speech obviously, but you seem to err more on the side of no self-censorship regardless, and I err more on the side of monitoring your words so as not to attack or berate. I think both positions have their flaws. I think we should hold ourselves a little more accountable for the words we express, particularly if they're strong words. Strong words are sometimes absolutely necessary. Mud slinging is never appropriate. Period. (Cicada menioned all the Christ-likes: there is just no need for that.) Disagree as strongly as you want without undermining the personal integrity of your opponent.

G: I think you make a lot of sense, thank you. Kelly did use some critical words, and the criticism she got back was pretty equal.

I think Cicada hit it on the head. The real issue for me here is not standing by your comments. Yes, Kelly can omit the anons from speaking. But why would anyone with such a strong opinion NOT identify themselves unless there was some part of him/her that COULDN'T stand by his/her statement with pride? Is it cuz you don't want your mom knowing you said it? Kelly stood by her words, anons look like the jerks for not doing the same.
As someone before's the nature of the medium. if she doesn' want comments she can simply turn them off.
congratulations. you just opened my 1st amendment soap box. brought to you by too much liberally biased education. and of course, my warped mind.
one can err on the side of "no censorship" and still believe in accountability. fyi. freedom of speech. it isn't just a freedom to flood the earth with porn, smut and allow the crazies to brainwash you and your children. it's your freedom to blog (first of all), actively support, actively oppose, speak out, speak out anonymously (on blog), write freely, think freely, worship your god or gods freely, call up your congresswoman freely... in general, i don't believe in setting ambiguous double standards- censoring those who "abuse" or are not seen as accountable to their 1st amendment right (so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone's else constitutional rights), and not censoring those who "say all the right things". it's dangerous to think relatively and even more dangerous to slip away from principle. i don't identify with people who believe in curtailing the 1st amendment by deeming it unaccessible to others of a different persuasion than theirs.
shifting topics, strictly opinion and what i think on this moving thing-- if it were me, i'm not going to write a detailed blog about what was damaged, who damaged it and get negative about missionaries. what's more, as i hesitiate to say so due to mootness, i think perspective is lacking, which is why i included lazlo's relativity in opinion #5.
yes, what happened sucks. i'd be pissed. i do get pissed. blog it. great. anonymous comments, make them. question people's integrity or make dimwitted comments about who's christlike or not, both sides jumping on that band wagon- dude, ridiculous... in my opinion.
Fine, blog anonymously and say dumb things. I reserve my right to think you're a poop.
I'd just like to say that my "Christ-like" was sarcastic. I thought it was ironic that someone who cares so deeply about the missionaries proselyting said something to me like "You get what you deserve." So take out the words "Christ-like" and it was just me saying "Yeah, you're a real sweetheart there, Anon." I just threw in the "Christ-like" for good measure since the person was obviously religiously concerned about how the missionaries were spending their time.

Frankly, I could care less how "Christ-like" someone is. I try to be a nice person, but it's just one of those phrases we throw around in the church to be judgmental. Who are we to declare who is or isn't like Christ? We're all struggling. Thus, I said it with sarcasm.

I think blogs need a sarcasm button.

And now I'm done. :)
Here's a point. Why would Kelly infringe on the anons "right" to speak by not allowing anons to post? I think she allows anons to be there for persons to share personal info w/o being identified, etc. not for weasels to hide behind after slamming someone. There is a huge difference
and a good point it is, deus.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]