Goddamn Language Nazis

The BBQ Pit
101

I seem to recall from the threads about the Amish (which I’m not going to reread now) that Scylla mainly directed his anger at those around him who had offended him, with some generalizations. While some of what he said was clearly in the wrong, most of it was directed at the small group of Amish people around him that pissed him off. Also, unlike blacks or gays or whatever, the Amish can actually have a fair number of generalizations made about them. For example, all Amish eschew modern technology, to varying extents.

What I’m trying to say, I guess, is that there are certain behaviours that the Amish engage in that might cause a person to become frustrated with them. Riding a horse and buggy down the middle of the road affects me more than what you do in your bedroom. Not to say that he was justified in what he said, but I don’t see much evidence that he is in general bigoted.

And so what if he’s compared people with Nazis on three whole occasions over the past year. Theworst that would indicate to me is that he is unimaginative with his hyperbole. I’ve generally found his posts to be pretty informative and amusing. Plus he knows quantum physics pretty well, which I find cool. How posts about quantum physics strike some people here as bigoted says more about the person offended than about Scylla.

Hastur, on the other hand, is simply an asshole. My first experience with him was when he was convinced that Triskadecamus was a liar. Tris said something that could have been interpreted in two ways, and Hastur decided that one was correct, and when Tris and others told him he was wrong, decided that Tris was lying. I think he likes to be offended so he can be an asshole about it.

102

Scylla came into the thread I started about the term lifestyle. I made some sarcastic comments comparing the concept of a republican lifestyle to the ‘gay lifestyle.’

Even though people explained to him that it was sarcasm to make a point, Scylla was a hostile bastard and then referred to me as a Nazi. I’m tired of tolerating people like him and tradesilicon who come on to threads to cause trouble and derail debate because they have nothing better to do with their lives.

I did not go after him personally until he had went at me multiple times without provocation. As this is the pit, I give as good as I get, and that a bunch of you flock around him and think he is worthy of defense I find pathetic and vile. He is a hostile provacateur who seems to derive pleasure from getting people to focus on him and creating a flame war. What point does that serve but to kill any debate?

103

The main source of the hostility he had towards you, as he mentioned, was that you attacked people as being patronizing bigots for using a term that seemed completely reasonable to him. Had you attacked the people using the term to reinforce their bigotry and condescending attitudes, you would not have drawn the fire you did. Just as when Scylla attacked the Amish, he was wrong to paint them all with the same brush, so you were wrong to paint all users of the term “gay lifestyle” with the same brush.

Basically, as someone who uses (or would use) the term in question, he was angry that you would presume his motives for doing so. If you desire fewer detractors, you need to stop presuming to know other people’s motives. You can’t possibly know them, and have a tendency to be awfully certain that you do.

104

No Hastur and Lissener are right. I was being a jerk. I chose to get back hairs up. The fact that Hastur presented his rant in such a manner spoke poorly of him.

When on a few occasions I encountered just a fraction of what he’s had to deal with in his daily life I showed the same lack of restraint.

How can I justify resenting his rant which is founded on a long history of intolerance, when I fly off the handle at slight provocation.

I had a valid point, and I still feel I do, but I wielded it like a sledgehammer instead of being sensitive.

I owe you and a bunch of other people an apology, and you have it.

More importantly I will try to be better in the future, and remember that this is not just a forum where I get to idly tap my thoughts, ideas and prejudices. There are people on the other end. I’ll try to be more tactful and sensitive.

105

Although I admire Scylla examining his own motives and actions, there is one more thing I want to point out.

No one ever told you what you could or could not say or do.

Let me repeat that.

No one ever told you what you could or could not say or do.

I pointed out that the phrase “gay lifestyle” has overwhelming negative connotations. matt said he was offended by your using the term “nazi.” But not once did either of us say, “Don’t say it.” We did, however, as responsible readers (and adults) tell you what effect your words had on us, possibly on others, and the potential ramifications of your continued usage of those words.

The choice has always been entirely yours, and no one has ever denied you that choice.

Get it?

Esprix

106

I’ve always understood that Esprix. Though I haven’t expressed it well, and I don’t want to get into it again, I’ve always felt that it’s a mighty slippery slope. You need to be very careful about what you let bother you, and what you let offend you and how you respond to it otherwise you go sliding right off. As I did.

If you think about it, it’s pretty ironic, and almost funny.

107

Luckily for you, probably not the Amish. :wink:

108

Scylla,

Your about face was so utterly abrupt that I’m still not sure I buy it (no offense of any kind meant if you’re really sincere).

Can I ask you to explain what finally made you rethink your position? Have you had an experience that has given you an inkling of what it feels like to be on the other side of your erstwhile lack of empathy, or were you simply bullied into giving up?

109

Lissener:

I’ve tried to answer this three times, and each time I’ve erased what I’ve written.

“Have you had an experience that has given you an inkling of what
it feels like to be on the other side of your erstwhile lack of empathy,”

No. I’ve never been the victim of long-term prejudice or hatred.

“were you simply bullied into giving up?”

::Chuckle::

As stubborn as I am?

No.

“Can I ask you to explain what finally made you rethink your position?”

This is the part I’m having trouble with. Give me some time to think and let me see if I can do it in a constructive fashion. Is that allright?

110

My apology is not for my position. There’s nothing wrong with disagreement. What drain Bread showed me by confronting me with those old threads was that I was very wrong in the way I was pursuing that disagreement.

I was a sheer hypocrite.

How can I get on a high horse and berate Hastur for the vituperative nature of his thread, when I had literally done the exact same thing.

I simply cannot have the empathy to know what it is like to live in an environment of hatred when I have never done so.
I hope that nobody would wish that I would ever be in a circumstance that would give me that knowledge.

Hastur’s post and his attitude was wrong. To coin a metaphor, if goodwill is a rope I would guess that in this circumstance his was frayed and torn from the weight of a lifetime of intolerance hanging from it.

In my Amish posts I did the exact same thing he did. It was no great weight that snapped my moral fiber though! A few local Amish piss me off and I use it as an excuse to rant at length and post unfair generalizations about the rest.

How can I reasonably resent Hastur?

While I’m assessing, take it a step further. If Hastur was wrong, how wrong was I?

Now forget about Hastur, and look at me attacking him. How much worse is this hypocrisy?

The moment Drain posted those links (I had been so sure I held the moral high ground,)I connected my Amish thread with Hastur’s Lifestyle thread. I felt ashamed of myself.

When you are proven wrong, you can try and deny it. You can rationalize it, and say you were justified, or you can admit it.

I think that there is a good reason why you are supposed to admit it and apologize when you find out you are wrong. Taking personal responsibility, and being honest with yourself is a big part of it, but equally important is so that your wrong ends with you. Good, honest people were sticking up for me and being dragged into this because things had gotten ugly on both sides. It needed to end.

So I admitted it and apologized.

Regardless of anybody else’s behavior I had acted very badly.

I accept that gay people have been discriminated against in ways that I can’t understand. I argued that retaliation of any kind, even to the point of requesting that hurtful words not be used by people who never used them hurtfully would breed resentment.

Without getting into it let’s say that this doesn’t exactly go over well.

I get pissed about the way I’ve been treated and I respond exactly in character, as I did against the Amish, only more subtly.

When I realize I’ve done this, I understand that if I truly believe that retaliation no matter how small is a slippery slope that breeds bigotry than I have certainly gone into the breeding business.

I thought your previous post to me was deliberately mean and hateful. Doubly so since it followed my apology.

You said:

"Scylla, every time you hit the Submit Reply button you confirm for me that you are a proudly–belligerently, even–ignorant, insensitive .
. . person. You’ve succeeded, time and time again, in demonstrating that this is a state you have achieved through much–well, if not
contemplation, at least rationalization. I am thoroughly convinced that no narrow ray of illumination will ever make it past the even
narrower, um, sphincter with which you so carefully guard your mind from any real contact with the outside world.

                     I’m not going to enter this debate with you, because you have no intention of debating (at least you were honest enough this time to
                     start it in the Pit and not pretend, as in the past, to be engaged in a real exchange). I just wanted to let you know that, for some of us,
                     each attempt you make to clarify your position only succeeds in more clearly establishing the bankruptcy of your worldview. "

I believe that that is as hateful and mean as you could possibly make it. I am going to guess that that hurts me more than when some stranger you don’t respect or know calls you a generic insult like “queer.” That is very upfront and personal, my friend.

I don’t think the fact that it may be somewhat justified makes it any more right than my Amish rant, Hastur’s post, or this whole sad vendetta that’s been going on here.
It also gives me one last chance, so maybe I should be grateful. If I let it go, if I don’t retaliate and don’t perpetuate it, it will end. There is no bigotry in a vaccum. Nobody is deliberately a bad guy. You move that way in little steps of resentment and retaliation. We feel justified. We’re full of Blake’s “firm perswasion, and righteous indignation (ain’t that ironic.)” That’s what I’ve learned.

I am sickened by what I’ve shown myself to be here. I’m not going to do it anymore, and I’m sorry for all of it, especially since if I had shown a little bit of class and couth, a little bit of tolerance, I wouldn’t be here in the first place.

I hadn’t planned on bringing any of this up, but I didn’t see how I could answer your question without doing so. I’ve had to make some assumptions concerning both my and others’ motivations to do so. I’ll ask your forbearance on any errors I’ve made in the rehashing.

So that’s my story. I hope it answers your question. Again, I am most sincerely sorry for my bad behavior.

111

Well, I was going to say something about you telling me what I ought to let offend me, but I’m willing to let all this rest.

Hey, folks - the SDMB does make a difference once in a while. Ain’t that grand? :wink:

Esprix

112

Esprix:

you said:

“Well, I was going to say something about you telling me what I ought to let offend me”

Well, since you did, let’s see…
I said:

“You need to be very careful about what you let bother you, and what you let offend you and how you respond to it…”

Hmmm. My mistake for not being clear.

The “you” in that quote is not directed specifically at you as Esprix. I was trying for the generic usage of “you,” usually synomymous with “one.”

Since I addressed the the post to you specifically, your misinterpretation is reasonable and my fault.

i.e.

“You shouldn’t eat the tuna salad after it’s been sitting in the sun.”

“You should be sure that you’re very hungry before ordering two Wendy’s triples.”

That’s the generic “You,” I was trying to use.
I certainly didn’t mean to imply that you (specific “you” here,) as Esprix are overeasily offended.

Quite the contrary, as I’ve mentioned before. I have found your tact and diplomacy admirable.

I’m glad you brought it up. I don’t want you to think that I was faulting your behavior. My fault for being ambiguous.

113

Uh, no, I figured it was the general “you,” not me-specific. It was more along the lines of the fact that I found your tone to be rather preachy, and when you’ve gotten upset in the past when people told you what you could or could not say (or at least that’s how you sort of interpreted it), one could easily misinterpret your telling someone “don’t let things bother you” as presumptuous as someone telling you “don’t use those words,” n’est-ce pas?

Esprix

114

Perhaps one may wish to choose to consider whether one is making a constructive suggestion, or a presumptuous quasi-demand.

I was hoping it was the former.
Preachy?
mmmmm. grumble. grumble.

But I LIKE my soapbox.

115

Hence the problem from the start - not only did some see their advice as constructive whereas you misinterpreted it (at least somewhat) as “telling you what to do,” but you put your own interpretation on what people said to you, and now others might do the same to you.

Ah, communication is such an interesting thing…

Point is we’ve all made points. Get my point? :stuck_out_tongue:

Esprix

116

Scylla–

You’re right that I allowed an unkind tone to color my first post to you in this thread, quoted by you above. I’ve never been very good at dealing with bullies, which is what I considered you to be in your many language-nazi threads. I could claim a noble motivation–sacrificing the high ground in order to slap some sense into you; joining you at your level as the only level on which you seemed willing to engage–but these would be justifications after the fact. The fact is that you pissed me off, many times, and I slapped you because I was pissed. You pissed me off because, over and over again, despite many different approaches from many different levels from many different people, you refused to honor my humanity, my rights as a member of the same human community that includes and acknowledges you and your rights. You maintained out of a kind of misplaced, solipsistic pride the primacy of your most minor and inconsequential comfort and convenience over my basic rights as a member of this larger community; you insisted that your right to freedom from the discomfort of using the “wrong” word and the freedom from the inconvenience of “keeping up” with the ever-changing list of offensive words outweighed my right not to feel fear and prejudice in my daily life. By equating, event trumping, my basic humanity with your momentary convenience, you communicated to me, as I thought, what the relative value of my humanity was to you: pretty damn little, as the math works out.

When you insist upon the validity of certain stereotypes, when you defend your abstract “language rights” at the expense of the very real emotional environment of a fellow human being, you invite each single individual member of the stereotyped or offended group to accept this diminishment.

When you suggest that the offended individual person should better manage his emotional life so that you can be spared the inconvenience, you suggest that this diminishment, this false hierarchy that you have created, is his creation, and his responsibility. You fail to take responsibility for the belittling effect your actions or words have had on a fellow human being.

Your erstwhile (and to some extent, I believe, continuing) inability–or, as I thought, refusal–to consider, let alone understand this made me angry at you, in defense of my own need to reject your placement of me in your hierarchy.

I appreciate your apology, but it really feels like you’re disqualifying yourself on a technicality. I’m unconvinced that you understand the basic, dehumanizing insult to the individual human beings that you perpetrate by justifying stereotypes and clinging to the right to use offensive words. I’m glad if you’ve chosen to stop using them for whatever technical reason you’ve explained, but I wish I felt that you feel it’s wrong.

117

From Scylla’s Special Guide to Language Usage and Intonation., Vol. IV (I have the only copy, but I might be willing to swap for a first edition of The Gay Agenda)

Pg. 335

"Rule 75: When warning others of dangers that one has personally and spectacularly befallen, one is entitled to wax a litle preachy and pontificate.

Example 1: "You must always under penalty of being covered in poop, have an extra diaper with you whist taking baby to dinner."

Example 2: "Thou must never ever assume that the little warning light on your dashboard is just a short."

Special subnote 1. If you choose to invoke rule 75 others may at their discretion consider you a pompous ass.

Special subnote 2. If you choose to invoke rule 75 when you have recently used up your supply of “Slack” (see pages 237-296) than the invocation of Special subnote 1 is considered automatic.

See also: “Beating of dead horses” (pages 331-342)"
I see your point :wink:

118

Lissener:

I have apologized because my behavior was very bad. Among other things I refused to recognize that you and others felt that your very basic humanity was wrapped up in things I considered mere semantics. This was stupid, tactless, and highly insensitive of me.

I have tried to argue that the semantics in fact have nothing to do with your humanity, or your basic rights, and I did so so poorly and with such a lack of discretion and compassion that you were quite right in seeing it as a personal attack on your humanity, though that was not my intention.

Later I got pissed, and I was very deliberately and calculatedly mean and hurtful. I am sorry that I did it.

My apology is sincere and unreserved, because such behavior is never justified no matter the circumstances.

Unfortunately I can only apologize for my own actions. I cannot apologize for anything anybody else has done. This is the other problem with semantics.

119

If this is sincere (and I’m not suggesting it isn’t, only that this was the “condition” for which I was withholding my acceptance), then thank you for seeing what was, for me, the central point among the many swirling points held aloft throughout this (and related) debates.