shaneb

Another interesting article

60 posts in this topic

So this is what I wrote in her comments...

 

"27 year-old waiter here. Male virgin. Took the pledge when I was 17. Been a long, hard road, but the end is in sight. I am here to respectfully point out some misconceptions in this article, which there are quite a few to be honest. Before I get started though, I read your "About Me" section. I too have degrees in both Theology and English. Odd coincidence, I guess. Haha.

 

1. "Narratives of purity" say you're either a virgin or a slut? Sounds like a large generalization to me. Most purity pledge systems recognize second-virginity or simply waiting from "that point on". Sounds like there is plenty of middle ground to me. In almost every case I've seen churches and other groups promoting abstinence fully embrace those who have slipped up. By simply taking a pledge of abstinence, which results in perhaps feeling motivated and good about yourself, it doesn't automatically mean that shame has to be the reciprocating feeling of not following through on said pledge. Now, if you think the shame occurs because the nature of "purity culture" implies that sex is evil, wrong, and that it's wrong to feel sexual, then you're misunderstanding the point. The message that comes with just about every purity pledge is that sex is beautiful, but only appropriate in the context of marriage. If you happen not to agree with this, then you're totally making the wrong argument here.

 

2. How many people who choose abstinence really walk around feeling "holier than thou?" Or project such attitudes? I think this is mostly about how non-waiters PERCEIVE waiters a lot of the time, which falls on their shoulders, not on the shoulders of said waiters.

 

3. "You have not won any battle by making it to your wedding day as a virgin - you have merely managed to keep an arbitrary promise."

I have no idea if you waited/are waiting or not, but this at least sounds like someone who hasn't experienced waiting first-hand, or at least someone who hasn't been at it for years. If you have, then I'm sorry it isn't/wasn't a battle for you, but it sure is for the majority of us.

 

4. Abstinence is merely a choice? Disagree, it's definitely a lifestyle. One likely won't get very far treating it like any other choice they make, not in today's world. Speaking from experience.

 

5. Why not at least start kids down the right path (and yes, it is the right path) by introducing them to the idea of abstinence? Most fall away from it and live what you would probably consider to be "normal" lives. I think your notion of shame, in this case, is overstated. There's enough approval for having pre-marital sex these days to more than offset any supposed "shame" that "purity culture" brings forth. There's plenty of solace to be had if it doesn't work out, believe me. If you simply disagree with "planting the purity seed" in a kid's head to begin with...then kids who may not know better, i.e. kids in their early teens, shouldn't be having sex anyway. Surely you can agree with that. By the time they reach their late teens, most know what they're getting themselves into and/or what they've gotten themselves into, whether they follow through with it or not. If they come to decide that it's not for them, most don't face any negative consequences by walking away from abstinence, other than the stuff that often results from pre-marital sex.

 

6. About the negatives effects of abstinence, which do you think has created more negative consequences throughout the years? Abstinence or pre-marital sex? You absolutely know the answer to this.

 

7. Finally, it saddens me to see someone, especially a Christian, criticize something like this. You're tearing down a system (and lifestyle) that has done far more good than harm, and something that doesn't really affect non-waiters at all (unless they're dating a waiter). It's just not cool when people write negatively about lifestyles that may be contrary to their own.

 

Not accusing you of this, but I think it's relevant to this topic to point out that many people resent those who make good choices in life because of how it makes them feel about themselves. Why do you think so many people hate Tim Tebow? Because he's made good choices in his life, and that in turn makes people feel worse about themselves. On the contrary, why do people love the Jerry Springer Show? Because it's filled with people who have turmoil in their lives. People watch, their ego increases. How else do you think such a poor quality show could survive so long? Lol.

 

Anyways, that's my 2 cents. I'm sure you'll write this long reply of why I'm wrong, which is fine, but obviously being the age I am and being as far into this as I am, I sincerely hope your goal isn't to persuade me to believe anything that you do. Because that ship sailed years ago. Just like the purpose of my post isn't to change what you believe, but rather is simply me doing my "duty" as a veteran waiter and someone who has fully subscribed to this lifestyle."

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the article (though it could've been a little more in-depth in my opinion). Especially agree with "Abstinence that you have been scared into creates an unstable abstinence that is easily broken. Abstinence that you have thought about carefully and deeply and chosen for yourself is far easier to hold onto." I've known many people who had waiting drilled into them, which resulted in them rebelling and sleeping around. Upon feeling that they'd 'failed' at WTM, they simply continue on in that behavior, feeling like that can't, or don't have the right to, stop having sex once they've started. I think I lot of people would be happier upon realizing that the strict dichotomy between sleeping together early on in the courtship process, or waiting all the way until marriage, is a completely false dichotomy.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible is unambiguous on fornication (as well as sexual sin in general), and any sincere Christian with a concordance or an online Bible search tool can find that out pretty quickly.  To say otherwise is to suppose that we can out-think God.  While we do sincerely study the Bible, the complete reasoning behind the teachings of the Bible is larger than any human can ever comprehend all at once.  So with a topic like sexual sin that is taught in hundreds of places in the Bible, a 'Christian' claiming that they've considered all the angles and decided that purity until marriage is no longer necessary because 'society is different today' is both arrogant and foolish.  There is shame in fornication and sexual impurity, and no amount of research and book-writing can wipe that shame away.

 

If individuals do not embrace what they are taught from the Bible, if they follow it out of rote for a while and eventually cast it aside because they never really believed or never made what they were taught a part of themselves, that isn't the fault of the teachings, nor does it make the teachings wrong.  Maybe the people who taught these people were/are hypocrites and bad examples, or didn't really believe it themselves - there's ton's of that in this world, but that doesn't make the Bible wrong.

 

Part of being a Christian is taking some things, including the veracity and authenticity of the Bible, on faith.  And while we can strain at the gnats, analyze the tiny details of words and meanings in the hopes of understanding the Bible better, we should not meanwhile swallow a camel, i.e. turn our backs on and ignore the big things that we are clearly told to obey.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LIke Steadfast Madcap,  I really liked the quote "Abstinence that you have been scared into creates an unstable abstinence that is easily broken. Abstinence that you have thought about carefully and deeply and chosen for yourself is far easier to hold onto."  I think there are a lot of people (mostly Christians) who have been scared into WTM.  It makes me sad that so often Christians, especially evangelical Christians, resort to fear tactics when they are trying to teach morality of any kind.  We don't follow the teachings of Jesus because we are afraid of God, we follow them because we trust in God and we believe that he wants the best for us. 

 

We need to find ways to talk about waiting until marriage that challenge and inspire rather than shame and intimidate.  I deeply believe in the idea of WTM and that belief flows out of my theology of sex.  However I know that there are others who disagree with my beliefs and I try my best to honour their convictions and their journey while being faithful to my own. 

 

To be honest, I have found that most people on either side haven't really thought very deeply about their convictions.  They either believe in WTM because that's what they we taught growing up or they don't because they are just going along with mainstream culture.  The reasons that the author gives for pursuing abstinence are pretty generic and don't have much meat to them.  Probably because she seems not to believe in WTM.  I do believe that there are deep, solid reasons to choose the path of WTM.  However we need to communicate those reasons with grace and in a way that challenges others rather than shames them. 

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Dianna Anderson. I've been following her blog/Twitter for a few years now. Everything she writes inspires me as a Christian feminist.

 

The Bible actually is quite ambiguous about premarital sex if you study the Greek and the historical context. I've realized that this argument isn't popular on this website, and I really don't feel like arguing, so that's all I'm saying on this.

 

I do think more waiters, on this website and in the world, could be a bit more humble in their convictions, and not prove Dianna's point that a lot of waiters have a holier-than-thou attitude.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote this...

 

20 year old female, waiting till marriage. Never got the "purity" talk in school", never signed a pledge card. Just decided to because it's what I wanted and what God wanted. 
 
You mentioned a lack of "middle ground" in the "purity culture". In other words, they say that all sex outside of marriage is wrong, and that's that. Now, SOME of them might say that there's absolutely no difference between a one night stand and sex in a committed relationship, which I think is problematic - one night stands are pretty disgusting, whereas sex in a committed relationship is usually a couple's attempt at expressing their love. However, if all the advocates of waiting till marriage are saying is, that ALL sex outside of marriage is sinful even if there are different "degrees" of it, if you like, then I don't see what the problem is. Of COURSE there's a lack of "middle ground". It'd be like complaining, "Well, this group treats all stealing as being sinful, but there's such a huge difference between stealing a chocolate bar and robbing someone of life savings - why won't they admit that some stealing isn't so bad?" Simply because some behaviours are BETTER than others doesn't make them morally okay, and if a group believes that, then of course they won't distinguish between the two - they're both sinful, so don't do either of them, even if one doesn't look as serious on the face of it.
 
I agree with the "slut" vs "virgin" thing. I don't like labelling people, either. Not all purity groups use them, incidentally. Jason and Crystalina Evert, to take just one example, state very clearly in their talks that there's no such thing as a "slut", and that it's not where you've been but rather where you're going that matters.
 
You keep talking about making the right choice "for you". Again, if sex outside of marriage is a sin, then that's as absurd as saying, "Don't let others tell you that you always have to tell the truth: it's about deciding whether being a liar is the right choice for you or not. Make an educated decision on whether telling the truth is right for you, or not." But, I agree that scare tactics aren't going to cut it, either. We can't just teach young adults, "Don't have sex outside of marriage, because it's a sin and you'll go to Hell." We have to actually give them good reasons as to why God intended sex for marriage. 
 
You complained about people who treat waiting till marriage as something that will lead them closer to God. Again, if sex outside of marriage is a sin, then not waiting till marriage is going to lead you further away from God. ANY sin will do that. Therefore, while it's wrong to say things like, "I'm better than you because I'm waiting and you're not", since there's a lot more than just that one sin, it IS true that if you choose to wait till marriage - and you're not just doing it out of fear, but rather, out of love for God - then in the long-run, it's going to help your relationship with Him. It won't get you all the way, since you'll have lots of other sins you still have to deal with (I know I do), but it's a good step to take.
 
As for the idea that people sometimes jump into marriage too fast because they're waiting till marriage, well, of course that'll happen. If someone isn't waiting for the right reasons, then that's a definite risk. But I don't think that waiting till marriage in and of itself is the problem. If you're the kind of person who would rush into MARRYING someone just so you could experience sex, then there's a deeper issue of a lack of sexual self control. If that person wasn't waiting till marriage, they'd still have that self control issue - it would just manifest in some other way. I'm in college, too - I don't think, "Gee, I'd better get married quickly so I can have sex." I have enough control to know that that's a bad idea.

 

 

Anyway, reading the article, there's the very obvious question-begging throughout, which is that sex outside of marriage is not a sin. The author just asserts that it isn't, no argument given. That's the main issue. She makes some very good points about where the "purity culture" can go wrong, but she assumes that they're wrong even to teach that you should WTM.

 

xxx

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote this...

 

 

Anyway, reading the article, there's the very obvious question-begging throughout, which is that sex outside of marriage is not a sin. The author just asserts that it isn't, no argument given. That's the main issue. She makes some very good points about where the "purity culture" can go wrong, but she assumes that they're wrong even to teach that you should WTM.

 

xxx

 

Good points. I'm trying to keep my arguments totally non-religious, but obviously her article isn't totally non-religious, so I'm glad you chimed in.

 

Things like this always end in stalemate, but I just couldn't find it in myself to let this go without pointing out all of her misconceptions that offend me as a waiter.

 

I clearly need a life, lol.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one more post in this thread and I'll be done. As someone else on here pointed out to me in private message, it definitely raises a red flag when you can't go into a thread and respectfully debate someone without them pulling out the censorship card and banning you right away. To me, it's a pretty tell-tale sign of an insecure author. Most really good authors welcome criticism as a means to refine and better their own arguments, and that couldn't be further from what I experienced here. Very disappointing.

 

Anyways, carry on. :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone else on here pointed out to me in private message, it definitely raises a red flag when you can't go into a thread and respectfully debate someone without them pulling out the censorship card and banning you right away. To me, it's a pretty tell-tale sign of an insecure author. Most really good authors welcome criticism as a means to refine and better their own arguments, and that couldn't be further from what I experienced here. Very disappointing.

 

Eh, upon reading the commenting policy, it's clear that the site is meant to be a safe space, which means that it functions as a community for people who have experienced some form of trauma and/or rampant discrimination. They're basically intended to be little islands where those people can take a break with like-minded people, without having to deal with whatever troubles they have IRL. Sort of like WTM.org on steroids, I guess. It'd be kind of annoying if a ton of non-waiters showed up and said everyone here was wrong, right?

 

In my experiences with safe spaces, the authors aren't insecure at all, but it can be frustrating to try to have a conversation while walking on eggshells. They do serve as a valuable outlet for people who need that type of support, however. I do think she should clearly mark the safe space nature of the site at the end of every article before jumping over commenters who (reasonably) aren't aware of that, though.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, upon reading the commenting policy, it's clear that the site is meant to be a safe space, which means that it functions as a community for people who have experienced some form of trauma and/or rampant discrimination. They're basically intended to be little islands where those people can take a break with like-minded people, without having to deal with whatever troubles they have IRL. Sort of like WTM.org on steroids, I guess. It'd be kind of annoying if a ton of non-waiters showed up and said everyone here was wrong, right?

 

In my experiences with safe spaces, the authors aren't insecure at all, but it can be frustrating to try to have a conversation while walking on eggshells. They do serve as a valuable outlet for people who need that type of support, however. I do think she should clearly mark the safe space nature of the site at the end of every article before jumping over commenters who (reasonably) aren't aware of that, though.

 

Fair enough, although I don't feel WTM.org is the best example. We have tons of different-minded people here who happen have one goal in common, which is a good thing. A lot of waiters here, but also a lot of disagreements on so many things.

 

I agree about the safe spaces though. Perhaps she should require people to actually register with the site in order to post, which most of the time would mean she'd be getting comments from those who enjoy what she writes, instead of being able to post as a guest. If she's trying to write strictly as a means of support, she'd be less likely to receive criticism if it required one making an account.

 

Still a bit disappointing though.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't seem to paste my content, but my reply is under my Google name "jenniferbriffa".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't seem to paste my content, but my reply is under my Google name "jenniferbriffa".

 

Good posts. There's a noticeable gaffe in her reasoning, that you can point out if you wish to (I'm banned lol), but she argues in her original article that abstinence is okay as long as one takes the time to arrive at the choice for personal reasons. However, it's pretty clear in her comments that she simply does not condone abstinence at all, for anyone, made very evident by her using the most popular criticism in the book: lack of sexual compatibility! Haha. She is now arguing against abstinence itself, not the method at which one arrives at being abstinent, which is what she claimed originally.

 

I told myself I'd stop posting about this. I'm trying! Lol.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I agree that it's almost always a disappointment when others can't understand or accept our opinions as valid. We have a voice about this too, and we are choosing to tell people about all the good waiting can do, and when they choose not to hear us, it's hurtful.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one more post in this thread and I'll be done. As someone else on here pointed out to me in private message, it definitely raises a red flag when you can't go into a thread and respectfully debate someone without them pulling out the censorship card and banning you right away. To me, it's a pretty tell-tale sign of an insecure author. Most really good authors welcome criticism as a means to refine and better their own arguments, and that couldn't be further from what I experienced here. Very disappointing.

 

Anyways, carry on. :)

 

Other people from WTM have commented on her website without being banned. I suggest comparing your comments to theirs. I would also read Dianna's responses to their comments, since you seem to think she's incapable of respectful dialogue.

 

If I comment on someone else's website, it is my responsibility to read their posted guidelines and commenting policy. When I joined WTM, I read the stickied post on etiquette before posting. I didn't even add my blog link to my signature until Mike PMed me and suggested I do that. In short, I figured out the rules before I jumped in to do whatever I wanted.

 

You received a warning after using an ableist slur. A warning is a fair response when someone steps out of line. You replied to that by mocking Dianna, dismissing her point, and essentially pulling the martyr card. Overall, your tone is arrogant and completely dismissive of people who have different life experiences or opinions than your own. Dianna was absolutely right to ban you. That does not mean she's incapable of having a respectful debate--YOU set the disrespectful tone, and she replied appropriately.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo. She replied saying that she didn't believe sex outside of marriage was a sin, so I replied:

 

Okay, if you don't see sex outside of marriage as a sin, then I can see why you wouldn't like someone telling you that it's a sin. Fair enough. However, can you see the logic behind those who advocate waiting till marriage?
 
They believe that sex is for marriage, therefore that's what they teach. It's no different from teaching, like I mentioned, that stealing or lying is a sin. The only difference is that everyone agrees that stealing and lying are wrong, but not everyone agrees that sex outside of marriage is wrong. If in fifty years, lying was seen as being morally good or morally neutral, then those who taught young adults that it was a sin to lie would probably be criticised, too. Anyone who enjoyed lying or who struggled with being honest all the time would probably feel ashamed, too, since they were being told that their lifestyles were wrong.
 
Are there problems with some advocates of waiting till marriage? Sure, some of them use scare tactics, or shame people who don't wait. But the principle of telling people, "It's a sin not to wait till marriage" is completely understandable. They believe that this is a matter of Heaven or Hell, and if someone's soul is on the line, then of course they'll have to tell them to wait.
 
I don't think that advocating waiting till marriage, as long as it's done in the right way, is going to cause shame, though. If we're teaching people that, "Oh, you're like a piece of gum, and no one will want you if you have sex outside of marriage" then sure, that'll cause women to suffer. But if all they're teaching is, "God wants you to wait, here are reasons why waiting till marriage is better for you than not waiting, and if you've already had sex, don't worry, because you can start over" then I don't think there's a problem. If you decide, "I don't believe that not waiting is a sin" then it won't cause you shame not to wait - you don't believe you're doing anything wrong.
 
Now, you don't believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but I'm sure you don't have anything against someone teaching their own children that it's wrong. I don't believe that the Koran is inspired by God, but I could never tell a parent that they shouldn't teach their child that it was. By extension, I couldn't tell them not to send their child to a school that taught that, or take them to speaker talks where that idea was promoted. Likewise, if a parent teaches their child that sex outside of marriage is a sin, that's for them to decide. If they teach their child that sex outside of marriage ISN'T a sin, then I think they're wrong, but it's for them to decide. In any case, that child isn't going to be making decisions about sex until they're an adult, by which point, they might take what their parents taught them on board, but it'll be up to them to decide in the end.

 

 

@TheCrowning: How in the heck did you get banned from posting? She said something about you using "bigoted language," and was reading your post looking for "you're an empty-headed sex-pusher" or something to that effect, but all you've done is said, "I think you're wrong, and here's why." Which is kind of the point of having a comments section on your blog, right? So you can have a discussion? If it's all, "Oh, well done, excellent post, agree with everything," then it's useless except for giving the author lots of warm fuzzies.

 

EDIT: Wait wait, "crazy" is an able-ist slur? Since when?

 

xxx

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, if a crazy parent is the one heading up one of these programs, then the problem lies with them.

 

He was warned for that, not banned. Crazy is an ableist slur that continues the stigma against people with mental illnesses.

 

Oh my. I couldn't help noticing your brashness earlier responding to another comment; you clearly don't like people disagreeing with you. This post is no different.

Bigoted language? Um, okay. Ban me if you'd like. It would actually give me great satisfaction and further prove my long-held view that people with agendas similar to yours are by far the most intolerant kind of people. I tried to have respect for you as a writer but, seeing as you have shown me no respect, I simply cannot anymore.

I'm actually the idiot for showing up on a feminist/liberal topic and trying to argue conservative viewpoints. I should know better than that. I need a drink.

 

He was banned for this reply.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just now picked up on this. HAHAHA @ "crazy" being an able-ist slur. Are you fricking serious? So what, I used "crazy" to describe parents who shove things down their kids' throats, in order to make a point. Not only that, but this obviously would be a sentiment they agree with. Further proof that they had no interest in even focusing on the topic at hand. Oh My God!

 

Screw this bull. I've been trying so hard to refrain from going political, but things like this are why for the most part I can't stand liberalism. As if I purposefully meant to be prejudice against those with mental illnesses. LOL okay. Give me a break. Oh and feminism is a great idea, but I've almost never seen it carried out in a prudent fashion, and you're no exception, BF. Had to get that off my chest too.

 

I'm done with this site. So disappointed in the last couple months here.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was banned for this reply.

 

Ah, fair enough. I was thinking it was just for the bigoted language thing. I probably wouldn't have banned him for the snarkiness as long as he was still actually making arguments, but that's just me.

 

 

He was warned for that, not banned. Crazy is an ableist slur that continues the stigma against people with mental illnesses.

 

Hmm. That's news to me, then. I can see why it'd be a problem if you said something like, "People with mental illnesses are just crazy," for example, where you're directly saying crazy=mental health problem. But people don't tend to use it in that way. They usually use it as a synonym for "silly". There are terms where the meanings/etymology are so directly tied to a medical condition that they're always wrong (e.g. "retard=mental retardation," "spastic=spastic diplegia") because whenever they're used, the speaker is basically saying, "You are like a person with learning difficulties" or "You act like someone with cerebral palsy".

 

But the term "crazy" hasn't been used as a medical term for mental illness in decades, and I don't think it carries the connotations any more. If it's considered an able-ist slur, then by the same argument, "fool", "idiot", "moron" and "mad" would all be out, too. It's not nice to call someone those things, sure, but statements like, "That's a foolish argument," "What an idiotic show," and "Here's a mad idea" would all be considered hate speech. But I think they've moved on from their etymologies enough that the association is gone. You could still use the terms in inappropriate ways, again, by directly saying, "Mental illness is just madness" etc. but in most situations, they're considered synonyms for "silly".

 

I think of them rather like the terms "Roman Church", "Papist" or the phrase "Hocus Pocus". Depending on the intention of the speaker, and the time period the phrase was used, they can be insulting or innocuous. C.S. Lewis uses the term "Roman Church" as a shorthand for "Roman Catholic", whereas nowadays, it's really only used by anti-Catholics. "Papist" was first used just as another word for Catholic, then it became a slur, and now it's starting to be "taken back". And the term "Hocus Pocus" is generally thought to have originated as an anti-Catholic attack on the doctrine of transubstantiation (Hoc est corpus meum=This is my Body). But no one would argue, "You're anti-Catholic for using that term" because in everyday speech, most people don't think about (or don't know about) the origins. You'd never take offence at a children's entertainer using it, but you would if someone said, "The Catholic Mass is just a load of hocus pocus." Context and connotations can be everything.

 

(...I realise that none of that was relevant to the topic, but heck, I enjoyed being a geek* and telling you all about it. My year of English Language at university did not go to waste after all...)

 

xxx

 

*GEEK: here means "person who knows a lot of useless information", rather than "person who bites the heads off of live chickens at a carnival sideshow"

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who really has struggled with mental illness, I also think writing off "crazy" as a slur is way over the top. I embrace crazy as a playful label for myself, and when used in contexts such as Crowing's, I realize that it has exactly nothing to do with me. I do respect safe spaces that ban use of the word crazy, as I know not every person with mental illness has my exact same set of experiences. However, I do think that if you're going to ban such a common colloquialism, you do need to make that quite clear. Her commenting policy didn't mention anything along the lines of banning such words. It kinda seems like she broke her own 3rd rule of commenting.

 

BTW Jegsy, I really liked your second comment! It seemed to sum up the matter nicely.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just now picked up on this. HAHAHA @ "crazy" being an able-ist slur. Are you fricking serious? So what, I used "crazy" to describe parents who shove things down their kids' throats, in order to make a point. Not only that, but this obviously would be a sentiment they agree with. Further proof that they had no interest in even focusing on the topic at hand. Oh My God!

 

Screw this bull. I've been trying so hard to refrain from going political, but things like this are why for the most part I can't stand liberalism. As if I purposefully meant to be prejudice against those with mental illnesses. LOL okay. Give me a break. Oh and feminism is a great idea, but I've never ONCE seen it carried out in a prudent fashion, and you're no exception, BF. Had to get that off my chest too.

 

I'm done with this site. So disappointed in the last couple months here.

 

But Dianna is the one who can't engage in respectful dialogue. Gotcha.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Dianna is the one who can't engage in respectful dialogue. Gotcha.

 

I maintain respect until someone makes it personal, then all bets are off.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who really has struggled with mental illness, I also think writing off "crazy" as a slur is way over the top. I embrace crazy as a playful label for myself, and when used in contexts such as Crowing's, I realize that it has exactly nothing to do with me. I do respect safe spaces that ban use of the word crazy, as I know not every person with mental illness has my exact same set of experiences. However, I do think that if you're going to ban such a common colloquialism, you do need to make that quite clear. Her commenting policy didn't mention anything along the lines of banning such words. It kinda seems like she broke her own 3rd rule of commenting.

 

BTW Jegsy, I really liked your second comment! It seemed to sum up the matter nicely.

 

Again, he wasn't banned for using the word "crazy." He was warned. He was banned for his reply that was rude, mocking, and completely dismissive. You'll notice that none of the other members of WTM who commented on her blog post have been banned.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I maintain respect until someone makes it personal, then all bets are off.

 

And when, exactly, did that happen? How have I personally attacked you? Or are you referring to Dianna somehow personally attacking you?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when, exactly, did that happen? How have I personally attacked you? Or are you referring to Dianna somehow personally attacking you?

 

 

Overall, your tone is arrogant and completely dismissive of people who have different life experiences or opinions than your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now