I have been mulling over the events following my posting of "Apparently I'm Weird". It saddens me that Geoffrey has decided to no longer visit here. I know that there are some that may say, "Good Riddance". I'm not one of them. I don't deny that I have some problems when conversing with him. He routinely misrepresents what I say. He assumes things about me which have not been printed, and then insists that I don't know HIM when I haven't made any statements suggesting such. I have sought to clarify his positions when I'm unsure where he's going. I don't feel he's given me the same consideration. I've said as much already.
Yet despite these troubles, I insist he's welcome here anytime he feels compelled to comment. As with any visitor, this doesn't mean he'll get special treatment. If I dont' agree with a comment I'll say so. If I think a comment is stupid, I'll say so and explain why. To me, this is what these little debates are all about. I don't take anything too personally and don't see why anyone should. There has yet to be any blatant verbal abuse by anyone to the degree that would invite a right cross were it to happen on the street. A little snarkiness, sarcasm, and some outright jabs are perfectly acceptable here.
My comments in that post were not so much a commentary on Geoffrey exactly, but as they were based on discussions between us at his blog, they were perfect for the point I was trying to make regarding the topic. But frankly, I don't see how the disparity between our views of sexuality is any different from our opposing positions on any other topic. He got hung up on my choice of words, words that were deliberately chosen for their descriptive nature. He chose to assume my use of the words chosen implied definitions and accusations not of my meaning.
I once called a really goofy poster at another blog a "putz" for the outlandishness of his views. They were pretty "out there" comments in my opinion. Others agreed, in fact. But this dude took a word that is defined as both a term for a horse's genitalia as well as a term to mean an idiot. He chose to inist that I was calling him a horse's penis, when I was using the more common meaning, that he is an idiot. Geoffrey has taken a similar path upon reading my usage of the term "bastard" to describe the nature of his great-grandmother's birth. Neil also thought it inappropriate. (ER did as well, but he's fond of Geoffrey) But though I've never heard of the horse connection for "putz", the actual definition of "bastard" is still in use as well as it's derogatory usage. Here, it would have served Geoffrey well to inquire as to my meaning, though since his telling of his family history came first, it's kind of insulting that he chose to take it as he did.
Nonetheless, I'm really quite sorry that it turned out as it did. I'm sorry that he has that tendency. I'm sorry that he took everything I said, as he has taken so much of what I have said since our meeting, so wrongly. I don't see how I can do this weighing each word for potential offense to someone, anyone, at any time, and still be able to express myself.
The bottom line is that although it might be moot at this point, Geoffrey is still welcome. If he thinks I'm a jerk, I can't change that opinion if he won't seek clarification for comments he finds offensive. I can't change it if he insists on assuming he understands whence I come when clearly he does not. But he is still welcome. It's just a freakin' blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Don't despair my friend. He will return. He won't be able to resist the desire to set you straight on any subject he is passionate about that he feels you are wrong about.
Commenting on blogs with which you consistently disagree is like rubber necking at a bad accident on the highway--you know you shouldn't look but you find the scene strangely compelling, so you look anyway.
I should know. ER long ago removed me from his blogroll over some passionate disagreement but he sometimes returns to make snarky comments. I do the same to his, but I never removed him from my blogroll. Despite everything, I still consider him a blog friend.
I just can't help it. I like the guy. I just refuse to take him too seriously.
By the way, Bastard is the proper term for a child born out of wedlock. One of my children is a bastard, and sometimes I shame myself by reminding him of that fact.
Human nature is sometimes a funny thing – then again, it’s sometimes a sad (and enlightening) reminder of or failings as a race.
It’s been my experience, and many others, that sometimes a person, whom is already pissed, will actively “look” for a reason to be justified in his or her “pissed-offness”.
When a person is losing an argument, weather it be for supporting an inferior position, or maybe their position is superior, but they aren’t as good at articulating their position, they often will resort to “finding” a reason to be upset, thereby (in their mind) ending the original argument, and creating a new argument where they fell justified and vindicated.
It matters not if you state what your intent was in the usage of a particular word, they’ve already found that rallying point.
I’m not saying that’s the case with Geoffry. I haven’t followed your arguments that close, although the little I followed I found stimulating, it’s the time man, there’s not enough! Just making an observation.
Geoffrey has taken a similar path upon reading my usage of the term "bastard" to describe the nature of his great-grandmother's birth.
I'm with Neil (et al) on this one. It is hard to believe that you don't think most folk would find the term "bastard" as a descriptor for one's family members offensive.
"It is hard to believe that you don't think most folk would find the term "bastard" as a descriptor for one's family members offensive."
Whether I concede the point or not, and I don't, since the word was used for it's distinct meaning, the question was never addressed, only avoided. Does the knowledge of such impropriety make one proud? Does it conjur feelings of regret in the least? I do not hate or disown any of my family members for every little transgression. I do however regret that they engaged in any and wish they never had. What is so freakin' wrong with that? It seems to me that such should be the norm, and for good reason: I want the best for my own. I want that they should excel and do so honorably. I want they should always be right with God and the laws of man. Any deviancy from this does not bring either hatred or joy from me. Geoffrey bailed on the question and chose to focus on the negative connotation of a word properly used. This is called unrighteous judgement and is a slight I can easily forgive. I still hope to hear the question addressed properly.
BTW, Dan. Thanks for stopping by.
Post a Comment