Emproph
06-09-2007, 06:59 AM
Re the: "Have you had it with Simpleman" thread (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3074).
First of all Simpleman, and to set the tone of this thread, I’m sorry for speaking about you in the third person to everyone else, in front of your face. Especially in regard to the condemnatory nature in which it was done. I should have at least had the decency to acknowledge your presence. More on that later.
To everyone else (and Simpleman):
I wanted to respond to everything in the thread but by the time I got back to it, it had been closed. I think that was for the best, but I’ve been fretting ever since as to where to put this and how much to say without rehashing the negativity. I decided it’s only fitting that this should be a separate thread. For maximum exposure, and I wanted this response to be as thorough as possible without usurping another thread (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3079) or burying it somewhere else, even if those places were appropriate.
That said, based on all the replies and after pointed self-reflection over the past several days, I think keltic’s admonition reminder of the “How Shall We Dialogue Then (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2872)” thread is where I should have taken up the issue, which ultimately is not about you Simpleman. It’s about my perceptions – or imperception – of sincerity, how to ascertain the accuracy of those perceptions, and most importantly, how best to express myself and respond to those findings, no matter what they may be.
I did none of this. I saw something, I got angry and I flew off the handle. And did so in such a way that ALSO enabled the rest of you to participate in my impetuous little temper tantrum. Which is another relevant sin. It’s one thing to personally rail on someone, but it reaches a new level of unacceptability to then solicit the approval of such behavior via public vote/debate. Especially without the invitation of the subject.
Many/most of the replies were of the order to just ignore, or if you can’t say anything nice don’t say anything at all. Points deserved and well taken.
I also thought Antony’s reply was especially apropos for me:
In a forum like this it is difficult because some of the threads are "rapid" fire...so many posts. It is overwhelming to take the time to digest all the material. In addition to that, electronic communication like this can easily be misinterpreted as hostility when someone did not intend any hostility. The final point I want to make is that we're dealing with very, very controversial topics at best and there are bound to be heated exchanges.
I do my own share of projecting onto others of what I “think” they are saying, and then respond accordingly, and usually violently. Something I should know better to be wary of in myself, as I OFTEN, and self-righteously make this charge of the religious right. That simple reminder alone could have saved a lot of heartache – had I taken the time and had the presence of mind to be open to it.
I think it’s important to clarify my position though, not to justify but just-to explain. Like I said in the thread:
I hate to suggest permanently banning anyone, but without a suspension policy there's really no other option.
And what Daniel said is basically how I feel:
One can only get on the merry-go-round so many times before one says: "Gee....was that worth it? Is this a real dialogue? Whom is this benefitting?" I think this is what Emproph is asking. Not that Simpleman should be banned (correct me if I'm wrong Patrick!).
I don’t wish to make this a debate right here, if need be it can be taken up in the how shall we dialogue thread, or some other. But I think that describes the heart of the issue. The point where the challenge to determine someone’s sincerity/motive becomes important – and how that relates to the Soulforce guidelines.
If I am wasting my time, and if this is not a real dialogue, etc., then I am allowing violence to be done. A determination needs to be made as to the veracity of this perception.
And before I go on, let me state that I have a clearer understanding that it’s the determination of the accuracy of my perception of any given post, or poster – and how best to deal with that – that is at issue (emphasis on the “any given” part).
I enjoy an intellectual challenge, which is why it upsets me when I at least “think” that something is being dressed up as such, but is not.
I really don’t think anyone should be banned, but I do think that there needs to be an alternative to banning outright, or even suspending. I would suggest a creative “suspension” of sorts, like a separate one on one debate forum for the specific purposes of challenging shortcomings (and this includes me).
And Then perhaps everyone would vote on that. If I pass, I get to rejoin the forum, If I fail, I have to take the test again. It wouldn’t even have to be suspension-like, it could be concurrent to full forum usage, but mandatory. Almost like classes (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1137).
That way, no one is denied access/interaction with us, and we are not denied the freedom to practice nonviolence without being unnecessarily violated. We’ve discussed (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1106) solutions like this before, but without practical resolution yet as far as I’m aware.
A bit of a tangent, but I think it exemplifies the most important point. Namely that I wasn’t-looking-for a creative solution. I wanted-to-destroy a problem.
And there’s the rub as I see it. The sin is in the want, and I didn’t WANT a solution. And ultimately, isn’t that the very principle of the relentlessness of nonviolence? In the sense that the desire for the solution, being more important than the solution, is in fact the solution itself? In the sense that that’s the shortest/most likely path that leads to the desired outcome/solution?
Believing homosexuality is a sin is not hateful, wanting to believe it is a sin is hateful.
(Please forgive me for speaking of you in the third person here simpleman)
My expression of what I perceived to be Simpleman’s “sin” was hateful. That would be the log in my own eye. It doesn’t matter how accurate my perceptions were, I was wrong for desiring to-see-inaccuracy for the purpose of expressing condemnation. Pride (http://www.whitestonejournal.com/seven_deadly_sins/pride.html).
So in summation, I’m sorry to everyone for acting out and causing such unnecessary discord. Again, the points in your replies were deserved and well taken (hopefully at least).
I can’t promise I won’t snap again, in fact I can pretty well promise I will snap again, but I hope I’ve learned enough to receive at least some degree of residual temperament as a result of it all.
First of all Simpleman, and to set the tone of this thread, I’m sorry for speaking about you in the third person to everyone else, in front of your face. Especially in regard to the condemnatory nature in which it was done. I should have at least had the decency to acknowledge your presence. More on that later.
To everyone else (and Simpleman):
I wanted to respond to everything in the thread but by the time I got back to it, it had been closed. I think that was for the best, but I’ve been fretting ever since as to where to put this and how much to say without rehashing the negativity. I decided it’s only fitting that this should be a separate thread. For maximum exposure, and I wanted this response to be as thorough as possible without usurping another thread (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3079) or burying it somewhere else, even if those places were appropriate.
That said, based on all the replies and after pointed self-reflection over the past several days, I think keltic’s admonition reminder of the “How Shall We Dialogue Then (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2872)” thread is where I should have taken up the issue, which ultimately is not about you Simpleman. It’s about my perceptions – or imperception – of sincerity, how to ascertain the accuracy of those perceptions, and most importantly, how best to express myself and respond to those findings, no matter what they may be.
I did none of this. I saw something, I got angry and I flew off the handle. And did so in such a way that ALSO enabled the rest of you to participate in my impetuous little temper tantrum. Which is another relevant sin. It’s one thing to personally rail on someone, but it reaches a new level of unacceptability to then solicit the approval of such behavior via public vote/debate. Especially without the invitation of the subject.
Many/most of the replies were of the order to just ignore, or if you can’t say anything nice don’t say anything at all. Points deserved and well taken.
I also thought Antony’s reply was especially apropos for me:
In a forum like this it is difficult because some of the threads are "rapid" fire...so many posts. It is overwhelming to take the time to digest all the material. In addition to that, electronic communication like this can easily be misinterpreted as hostility when someone did not intend any hostility. The final point I want to make is that we're dealing with very, very controversial topics at best and there are bound to be heated exchanges.
I do my own share of projecting onto others of what I “think” they are saying, and then respond accordingly, and usually violently. Something I should know better to be wary of in myself, as I OFTEN, and self-righteously make this charge of the religious right. That simple reminder alone could have saved a lot of heartache – had I taken the time and had the presence of mind to be open to it.
I think it’s important to clarify my position though, not to justify but just-to explain. Like I said in the thread:
I hate to suggest permanently banning anyone, but without a suspension policy there's really no other option.
And what Daniel said is basically how I feel:
One can only get on the merry-go-round so many times before one says: "Gee....was that worth it? Is this a real dialogue? Whom is this benefitting?" I think this is what Emproph is asking. Not that Simpleman should be banned (correct me if I'm wrong Patrick!).
I don’t wish to make this a debate right here, if need be it can be taken up in the how shall we dialogue thread, or some other. But I think that describes the heart of the issue. The point where the challenge to determine someone’s sincerity/motive becomes important – and how that relates to the Soulforce guidelines.
If I am wasting my time, and if this is not a real dialogue, etc., then I am allowing violence to be done. A determination needs to be made as to the veracity of this perception.
And before I go on, let me state that I have a clearer understanding that it’s the determination of the accuracy of my perception of any given post, or poster – and how best to deal with that – that is at issue (emphasis on the “any given” part).
I enjoy an intellectual challenge, which is why it upsets me when I at least “think” that something is being dressed up as such, but is not.
I really don’t think anyone should be banned, but I do think that there needs to be an alternative to banning outright, or even suspending. I would suggest a creative “suspension” of sorts, like a separate one on one debate forum for the specific purposes of challenging shortcomings (and this includes me).
And Then perhaps everyone would vote on that. If I pass, I get to rejoin the forum, If I fail, I have to take the test again. It wouldn’t even have to be suspension-like, it could be concurrent to full forum usage, but mandatory. Almost like classes (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1137).
That way, no one is denied access/interaction with us, and we are not denied the freedom to practice nonviolence without being unnecessarily violated. We’ve discussed (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1106) solutions like this before, but without practical resolution yet as far as I’m aware.
A bit of a tangent, but I think it exemplifies the most important point. Namely that I wasn’t-looking-for a creative solution. I wanted-to-destroy a problem.
And there’s the rub as I see it. The sin is in the want, and I didn’t WANT a solution. And ultimately, isn’t that the very principle of the relentlessness of nonviolence? In the sense that the desire for the solution, being more important than the solution, is in fact the solution itself? In the sense that that’s the shortest/most likely path that leads to the desired outcome/solution?
Believing homosexuality is a sin is not hateful, wanting to believe it is a sin is hateful.
(Please forgive me for speaking of you in the third person here simpleman)
My expression of what I perceived to be Simpleman’s “sin” was hateful. That would be the log in my own eye. It doesn’t matter how accurate my perceptions were, I was wrong for desiring to-see-inaccuracy for the purpose of expressing condemnation. Pride (http://www.whitestonejournal.com/seven_deadly_sins/pride.html).
So in summation, I’m sorry to everyone for acting out and causing such unnecessary discord. Again, the points in your replies were deserved and well taken (hopefully at least).
I can’t promise I won’t snap again, in fact I can pretty well promise I will snap again, but I hope I’ve learned enough to receive at least some degree of residual temperament as a result of it all.