Abiel
06-19-2007, 06:47 AM
Abiel (http://uberchristians.org/vb/member.php?u=78) has reported a post.
Reason:Maybe some of this thread should be split out and moved to the embassy- the stuff about IIDB goings-on
Post: Cliques, In-groups, Out-groups, n00bs and loners (http://uberchristians.org/vb/showthread.php?p=24014#post24014)
Forum: Board Policy
Assigned Moderators: N/A
Posted by: seebs (http://uberchristians.org/vb/member.php?u=3)
Original Content: Not miscommunications, but misinterpretations. The fact that a good number of people understood perfectly well what I was saying shows that I communicated it well. You viewed what I said through a lens labeled "protect christianity", and misinterpreted the post therefore. Go back and read it again, without any thought that christianity is being singled out and see if you come to the same conclusions that you did previously.
I have gone back before and looked, and the fact is, I still see both views. Being interpreted correctly does not prove that you communicated well; bad communication is most often marked, not by absolutely everyone getting it wrong, but by different people coming to wildly different interpretations.
I'm pretty pissed off about your mind-reading here. You are telling me how I think. I have thought about it a lot, and I say, as I said then, that you are wrong about how I am thinking, and that "protect Christianity" is not the filter I'm reading through. I have re-read some of those posts, and I still say that you had statements in them to which my responses might have made sense -- as well as other statements in them to which my responses didn't make sense.
I still see, in your post way back there, the phrase "I was thinking that the very existence of this thread is testimony to the fact that religion just creates problems."
So, yeah, I still think that, looking back at the big blow-up, there really were things you said which offered a basis for that reading.
Why is it such a big deal to you to make it all my fault? Why does it have to be your perfect communication and my horrible misreading? Lots of people I know can admit that their communications, while they were understood by some, could have been improved so as to be understood by more.
Ever since that blow-up, you've been sorta defensive on some of this stuff, in a way that makes me very uncomfortable. You've consistently used language that shifts all the blame to people who've misunderstood you, and I don't think I ever did get your explanation of what you meant by "religion just creates problems" that was absolutely impossible to mistake for "religion creates problems, but never improves things". Maybe if you'd offer that, I'd be better able to understand how I was supposed to interpret that sentence? You gotta throw me a bone here.
Granting that your assessment has merit, does it matter the reasons for it occuring when what we are concerned with here is whether or not it occurs? Even if it's just the way that human animals interpret events, it still has the net effect of making people feel marginalized or in the 'out' group. I'm certain it can not be completely prevented, but an awareness of our (all of our) tendency to exclude those who fall outside our favored groups in certain situations can lead us to a greater ability to avoid such occurrences.
Right.
But I think you have misread my posts in this thread so far. I haven't said people are right to interpret your posts here that way; I've just said that I can explain why it seems to be happening.
If you really don't think that the christians will gang up on the non-christians and vice versa, you're just missing it.
Or I think we could overcome it.
If you really don't think that the GLBT's will gang up on the non-GLBT's and vice versa, you're just missing it.
If you really don't think that the authoritarians will gang up on the anarchists and vice versa, you're just missing it :)
Watch for it, watch the shifting patterns of allegiance depending on the topic. You'll see the groups clear as day. We're all part of some group or others, and it's only by recognizing them that we can avoid exclusory behavior. IMO.
I think I sort of agree.
However, there is a problem here, that I've run into in the past:
Imagine, if you will, someone who really isn't bigoted on a given topic. And then imagine putting this person near people who are. They will see bigotry in that person's behavior, even if there isn't any. If you're in the middle of thinking very strongly in terms of Christians and Non-Christians, and Bob defends Alice, you're going to leap to "ah-hah, Bob is defending Alice because they're both Christian", without even considering for a moment "Bob is defending Alice because he genuinely believes she is being wronged", or "Bob is defending Alice because they've been friends for twenty years".
Even if people are being biased, if you assert with confidence and authority that it is a particular bias motivating them, you may end up doing more harm than good, because, if you're wrong, you're insulting them, hurting your credibility, and obscuring the real question.
I guess, I'd like a bit less mind-reading, personally. I'd rather you asked me what I think or feel rather than trying to tell me, because in my experience, people who tell me what I know, or what I believe, or why I act in a particular way, are usually full of it.
Reason:Maybe some of this thread should be split out and moved to the embassy- the stuff about IIDB goings-on
Post: Cliques, In-groups, Out-groups, n00bs and loners (http://uberchristians.org/vb/showthread.php?p=24014#post24014)
Forum: Board Policy
Assigned Moderators: N/A
Posted by: seebs (http://uberchristians.org/vb/member.php?u=3)
Original Content: Not miscommunications, but misinterpretations. The fact that a good number of people understood perfectly well what I was saying shows that I communicated it well. You viewed what I said through a lens labeled "protect christianity", and misinterpreted the post therefore. Go back and read it again, without any thought that christianity is being singled out and see if you come to the same conclusions that you did previously.
I have gone back before and looked, and the fact is, I still see both views. Being interpreted correctly does not prove that you communicated well; bad communication is most often marked, not by absolutely everyone getting it wrong, but by different people coming to wildly different interpretations.
I'm pretty pissed off about your mind-reading here. You are telling me how I think. I have thought about it a lot, and I say, as I said then, that you are wrong about how I am thinking, and that "protect Christianity" is not the filter I'm reading through. I have re-read some of those posts, and I still say that you had statements in them to which my responses might have made sense -- as well as other statements in them to which my responses didn't make sense.
I still see, in your post way back there, the phrase "I was thinking that the very existence of this thread is testimony to the fact that religion just creates problems."
So, yeah, I still think that, looking back at the big blow-up, there really were things you said which offered a basis for that reading.
Why is it such a big deal to you to make it all my fault? Why does it have to be your perfect communication and my horrible misreading? Lots of people I know can admit that their communications, while they were understood by some, could have been improved so as to be understood by more.
Ever since that blow-up, you've been sorta defensive on some of this stuff, in a way that makes me very uncomfortable. You've consistently used language that shifts all the blame to people who've misunderstood you, and I don't think I ever did get your explanation of what you meant by "religion just creates problems" that was absolutely impossible to mistake for "religion creates problems, but never improves things". Maybe if you'd offer that, I'd be better able to understand how I was supposed to interpret that sentence? You gotta throw me a bone here.
Granting that your assessment has merit, does it matter the reasons for it occuring when what we are concerned with here is whether or not it occurs? Even if it's just the way that human animals interpret events, it still has the net effect of making people feel marginalized or in the 'out' group. I'm certain it can not be completely prevented, but an awareness of our (all of our) tendency to exclude those who fall outside our favored groups in certain situations can lead us to a greater ability to avoid such occurrences.
Right.
But I think you have misread my posts in this thread so far. I haven't said people are right to interpret your posts here that way; I've just said that I can explain why it seems to be happening.
If you really don't think that the christians will gang up on the non-christians and vice versa, you're just missing it.
Or I think we could overcome it.
If you really don't think that the GLBT's will gang up on the non-GLBT's and vice versa, you're just missing it.
If you really don't think that the authoritarians will gang up on the anarchists and vice versa, you're just missing it :)
Watch for it, watch the shifting patterns of allegiance depending on the topic. You'll see the groups clear as day. We're all part of some group or others, and it's only by recognizing them that we can avoid exclusory behavior. IMO.
I think I sort of agree.
However, there is a problem here, that I've run into in the past:
Imagine, if you will, someone who really isn't bigoted on a given topic. And then imagine putting this person near people who are. They will see bigotry in that person's behavior, even if there isn't any. If you're in the middle of thinking very strongly in terms of Christians and Non-Christians, and Bob defends Alice, you're going to leap to "ah-hah, Bob is defending Alice because they're both Christian", without even considering for a moment "Bob is defending Alice because he genuinely believes she is being wronged", or "Bob is defending Alice because they've been friends for twenty years".
Even if people are being biased, if you assert with confidence and authority that it is a particular bias motivating them, you may end up doing more harm than good, because, if you're wrong, you're insulting them, hurting your credibility, and obscuring the real question.
I guess, I'd like a bit less mind-reading, personally. I'd rather you asked me what I think or feel rather than trying to tell me, because in my experience, people who tell me what I know, or what I believe, or why I act in a particular way, are usually full of it.