Giving and Taking Offense

[_barrelomonkeys]

but has real power

ooh! I want me some of that!

[_beastie]

Some of you just don't know Wade as well as those of us who have been with him since ZLMB know Wade.

SADly, Wade's websites have been taken down, otherwise I would link those as the best way to get to know Wade. But here are a few old threads that reference some of his website assertions - such as homosexuality being on par with beastiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia, or his website that defined anti-mormon "bigots" as critical exmormons who talk on boards such as this one:


http://kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129


http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... =1&stop=25


http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... =162.topic

Wade was so famous on Z for personal insults, that the founder of ZLMB - a Mormon himself - once started a thread featuring Wade and his propensity for name-calling:

http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... =1&stop=25

[Guest]

I do remember having a fairly usual, by-the-numbers, tit-for-tat debate with Wade over homosexuality over on the MAD board a while back.
On the whole - as I say - it was pretty text-book stuff. But I've gotta say - near the end of it, I was detecting quite a bit more willingness to try and reach some common ground than many others I could mention over at MAD.

...perhaps that doesn't mean that much in and of itself ;) But I also remember Wade himself admitting that he's been trying to move away from some past attitudes and approaches.
I think my opinions on Wade are kinda 'in flux'. I'm sure it's fair to say that I'm missing a lot of history here.

Anyway, hopefully we can discuss the pro's and con's of avoiding offense and diplomacy without centering on Wade :) While I may agree with Wade's overall point, I'm not entirely sure he always practises what he preaches in this regard.
But then again, I probably don't either - so... meh.

ooh! I want me some of that!

Oh - should have mentioned. It also helps if you worship Satan. (Which all 'true' atheists secretly do of course).

[_Blixa]

Ok, didn't all this start with runtu musing on something said about his posting on a Mormon internet bulletin board? I think there are two parts to this that bear remembering: the flaming "nature" of the internet and the aforementioned LDS snit perch.

I know that I am much more prone to offense online than in real life because of the tit-for-tat machine gun sound byte discourse fostered online (I'm not sure that this is "natural," an inherent part of the medium, though. While I think that various media materially shape and limit meaning in various ways, I think what is currently the dominant form of internet communication is not the only possible one that could have emerged or could still emerge). So giving offense and taking offense are I think magnified in this arena in a way they aren't necessarily outside of it.

I think there is historical justification for saying that Mormon culture encourages a persecution mentality. This does not mean that all Mormons are overly sensitive or at all times and at all places poised to jump on imagined offenses (though I must say sometimes it has seemed to me like that). What I am describing is the prominence given to persecution tropes as guarantors of righteousness that are a strong element in Mormon folk culture and Mormon "belief" (I want to say "doctrine" but I'm more and more thinking I can't ever use the term 'Mormon doctrine') as it circulates both within and outside of Sunday School and Seminary classes and church magazines.

And one place I have seen a metatastized version of both of the above in combination is the MAD board with its dominant mode of a "battle" or "game" of us vs. them.

I don't think that everything else that has been mentioned as this thread has meandered (as threads do) is worthless or off the topic, I just wanted to reiterate points I didn't think I made clearly enough. Offense isn't entirely in the eye of the beholder, nor is response to it completely a matter of individual will.

As for Wade, well I abhor the content of his former websites and found much he posted on the Z board irksome to say the least. I do honestly think his arguments here are "different": how much so, is open to debate, but its not a debate I'm inclined to pursue. I think he's sincere in his efforts to position himself and his arguments differently.

That doesn't mean I've yet really agreed with much of them but so what? I find his arguments and style "agreeably odd." I doubt that can sound like anything other than total patronization, but I enjoy things with don't fit established molds, and Wade is, if anything sui generis like Paul Osborne or John P. Pratt. I know its hard to invoke the author of "Uranus Testifies of Christ" without sounding mocking, but I think such men closer to the tenor of early Mormonism than more comtemporary mainstream exemplars of "the church" and I find that interesting to contemplate.

[_Doctor Steuss]

"Sticks and Stone may break my bones but words will never hurt me."

The biggest lie our heritage has ever foisted on us.

Give me the sticks and stones any day. It's much more honest. Also growing up in a house with 5 boys like Asbestos I think we were friends again after fisticuffs much more quickly than after an extensive insult campaign.

I love the book of Sirach:

Sir 28:17-18
The stroke of the whip maketh marks in the flesh: but the
stroke of the tongue breaketh the bones.

Many have fallen by the edge of the sword: but not so many as
have fallen by the tongue.

[_Some Schmo]

I'm sorry, but I agree with Wade here.

You guys are all trying to simplify feelings to an on/off switch. It is not even close to that easy.

Remember the whole thread about whether guys were responsible for feeling sexual attraction to a scantily clad woman? It was plain that many of you thought that men could not be held accountable for the feelings that arose from looking at the female form. This was just a natural human response to a stimuli.

The same goes for words. To say that I should just be able to brush aside any negative thing that gets said to me is asinine. It's just not that simple. Part of human nature is to react to stimuli. This reaction may take the form of offense, or anger, or laughter, or whatever emotion.

It may not be easy, but that's only because taking full responsibility for yourself is not easy. It's all too tempting to say, "he/she made me feel this way" but the fact is, it's not true. It is human nature to train ourselves to act differently than is our human nature. Our human nature is to crap our pants, but somehow, we've managed to train ourselves to squeeze our cheeks in response to certain bowel stimuli so that we can act against our nature (ie, wait till you get to a remote place to crap).

Certainly, you may react emotionally to certain things, but it's up to you how you deal with it.

It's a mistake (and immature, quite frankly) to surrender personal responsibility under the guise of "it's human nature."

[_harmony]

It's a mistake (and immature, quite frankly) to surrender personal responsibility under the guise of "it's human nature."

I don't recall seeing you make this point on the aforementioned thread about men's reactions to scantily-clad females. Perhaps I just missed this gem. My bad.

[_Some Schmo]

It's a mistake (and immature, quite frankly) to surrender personal responsibility under the guise of "it's human nature."

I don't recall seeing you make this point on the aforementioned thread about men's reactions to scantily-clad females. Perhaps I just missed this gem. My bad.

I don't actually recall that thread, but I would make the same point (and have) with respect to men's reaction to arousing women.

[_asbestosman]

I love the book of Sirach:

Sir 28:17-18
The stroke of the whip maketh marks in the flesh: but the
stroke of the tongue breaketh the bones.

Many have fallen by the edge of the sword: but not so many as
have fallen by the tongue.

Hey, that's interesting. I wonder if it helped inspire the Epistle of James:

James 3
1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.
3 Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body.
4 Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth.
5 Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!
6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.
7 For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:
8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

[_Scottie]

Some of you just don't know Wade as well as those of us who have been with him since ZLMB know Wade.

Do we give Wade the opportunity to grow and change, or do we still judge him from old posts?

As for myself, until I witness him acting like this again, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

From what I have observed, Wade has been the target of multiple cheap shots and weak insults.