Just A Little Bit Angry...
It's always a risk to go out on a limb for something you believe in.. You generally know that you're gonna be in for it. Sometimes you don't say anything, other times you take the risk and say something anyway. And then, when you don't take the drubbing you expected, you feel like maybe taking that risk was an alright kinda thing to do.
But, just when you think you're free and clear, it comes back to bite you when you least expect it. The adult part of me would really just like to pretend that I didn't walk past the jocks table to overhear myself being mocked. But the other part of me that tries to respect everyone is just a little bit --no, a LOT--pissed off.
That's blogging, and that's how it goes, I suppose. But I'm not gonna pretend that it doesn't hurt a little bit. Especially from the participant that I had previously
UPDATE
Why do I, as a libertarian care, when the credo of that philosophy is "believe that individuals should have the liberty to make their own moral choices as long as they do not use coercion to prevent others from having that same liberty"? In truth, I don't care if every blogger in the world except me says whatever they want on their own blog. Just as I don't care what you say in your own home, or in your own car. But, contrary to popular opinion, libertarians do believe in the formation of social contracts. If I, as a Libertarian, choose to join a shooting club that only allows rifles and excludes revolvers, I'm not turning my back on my libertarian beliefs. I'm merely saying that I know what the organization requires and agree to abide by those requirements. I might be wrong in my understanding of Nashville Is Talking, but my impression is that it is a local blog aggregator run by the Nashville ABC affiliate. It was my assumption, based on my instructions for guest-blogging, that the standards of language use implemented by broadcast networks applied also to blogging on Nashville Is Talking, hence my request. I have never at any time gone to any individual's blog anywhere and asked them to change a single thing they had written. I am a regular reader of the blogger whose post was linked and have never at any time asked her to change a post--nor would I. That would be idiotic, and I'm generally not given to Bowdlerisation of individual works. But, as NiT is an aggregator with posting guidelines, I thought it was not an inappropriate request to make. I assumed from Brittney's response that it was not inappropriate.
Why do Christians care when non-Christians use Jesus Christ as a profanity? Why do black people care when non-black people use the N word? I think it comes down to a basic individual desire for respect--that's all.
UPDATE II
Further information can be had over at Chris Wage's place
posted by Kat Coble @ 7:33 PM
25 comments
25 Comments:
I didn't get the references in the response to Brittney's post until I read this. I was responding in an entirely different vein (as i think you know).
The fact that anyone remembers what you said more than a few days ago is testimony to the fact that what you have to say is memorable (which is certainly more than one can say about most blogs including mine).
I'm not smart enough to know the intentions behind the satirical responses, but I'm pretty sure the teasing was because you have some stature around these parts. The stature-esque tend to get poked and jabbed.
with much respect-jh
John,
Thanks so much. It's always nice to "hear" (read) nice things when you're a bit down. I knew that you weren't responding to Wage's gibes, but actually participating in the original conversation.
I generally have a pretty good sense of humour about myself, but this is a soft spot for me as it was something that was very hard to do in the first place. So, I was a bit sad.
I've been called "statuesque" many times, but never "stature-esque." I think I prefer your word...;=p
Especially from the participant that I had previously respected.
Good to know that you haven't lost respect for me after I admitted what Chris said was funny. Since, ya know, you never did.
Also, I've never quite understood why Christians get so sensitive about hearing (or reading) the Lord's name taken in vain. As long as you, the Christian, doesn't take His name in vain, then I don't see the problem.
As a libertarian I was surprised you would ask for that to be censored. Ya know, the whole libertarians "believe that individuals should have the liberty to make their own moral choices as long as they do not use coercion to prevent others from having that same liberty" thing.
Good to know that you haven't lost respect for me after I admitted what Chris said was funny. Since, ya know, you never did.
I should have phrased it differently. I respect all 3 of you, but I realize that I'm not on the "favourite person" list for either you or Chris.
As a libertarian I was surprised you would ask for that to be censored.
I'm a Christian first. I don't get why we can't say "f000", but we CAN be flippant of Christ. I thought long and hard before asking, believe it or not. Maybe I was wrong, but I still don't think so.
The thing that changed my mind was re-reading the rules you sent when I guest-blogged:
No curse words you can't say on network tv
Try highlighting other nashville bloggers as much as possible.
Have fun
Post between 6-10 times a day (or more if you can)
Last time I checked, you can't say "Jesus Christ" as an oath on Network TV
words are just words and as a libertarian you should be fightring all this censorship bullshit.
no word should hold any special significance or thrall over someone.
but if you must encourage censorship, at least fall back on the old testament base of not wanting to see a god's name written anywhere because it may be erased.
Please see my comment at Chris Wage's blog.
Words you can't say on television. Contrary to your previous statements, "Jesus Christ" is not on the list. Using those words on network tv is permitted.
In Defense of The Jock Table.
or The Sin of Wage is Death.
Kitty, those who live by the sword usually wind up needing a tetanus shot. You can't fault people for mocking one of your posts when you delight in doing the same. Just ask Mr. "I Demand You Take Down This Post and Apologize". Not only did you pile on, you have his little mantra posted on your site. But he's a dope (and one of those damn ginger kids), so it makes it ok I guess.
As you know by now, when people here (and by 'here' I mean your blog colleagues, for lack of a better term) make fun of your faith or your love of all things nerdly, it is generally out of affection for you as a writer and a person. Part of the burden of being a well-known blogger, like yourself, around these parts, is being able to take it as well as you dish it out.
The bill I linked is a dud. That link has crap-all to do with what you can and can't say on tv. My bad!
BUT! There is nothing anywhere that says you cannot say "Jesus Christ" on tv (as an oath or otherwise).
Words you can't say on television. Contrary to your previous statements, "Jesus Christ" is not on the list. Using those words on network tv is permitted.
Well, first off yes you can say "Jesus Christ" on television. Otherwise where would TV preachers be. But it's use as an exclamation has long been considered a profanity censored by the FCC.
The link you offered was a proposed amendment to the existing U.S. Code regarding profanity. It was an attempt to define paramaters in the code.
One of the reasons it was struck down was because opponents felt it was too narrow.
The actual code is linked below.
U.S. Code ch. 71 Section 1464
Ah. I see we posted atop each other. Sorry.
You can't fault people for mocking one of your posts when you delight in doing the same.
Point taken. In future when I have sensitive business, I'll take care of it via email.
Not only did you pile on, you have his little mantra posted on your site. But he's a dope (and one of those damn ginger kids), so it makes it ok I guess.
And he was on a private site asking a private person to do something. I realize that it's a razorthin distinction, but it's one that I believe exists. That layer between private and public entity is a major deal. I'm not stuffed when they swear on cable. I do mind it on broadcast tv. But I said all this already.
Part of the burden of being a well-known blogger, like yourself, around these parts, is being able to take it as well as you dish it out.
We all have soft spots. In this world where people view religion--the overarching Weltangschaung of my life--as a "dirty habit", I happen to be sensitive about it. As Brittney said (somewhere--Wage's place maybe....), she writes a lot that offends me. I usually roll my eyes and let it go. This just happened to be the one line of respect for my beliefs that I didn't feel like seeing crossed. Especially since, as I have mentioned repeatedly, I felt that I was within bounds.
I imagine most people, including those who are pretty easygoing, have a line somewhere. If they are honest with themselves they always know what that line is. This just happens to be my line. And I knew that before I even made the request. In all honestly, if the teasing had been done in the NiT post (as yours was--we did go forth and back about it over there...) or over here I wouldn't have cared ONE IOTA.
But as any girl whose been laughed at will tell you--there's a difference between being laughed with and being laughed at. And I'm still a girl (with miles under my belt--but there you go.) So when I visit a blog I only stop at occasionally and see me being laughed at, it hurts my feelings. Sorry for having feelings, as they are such inconvenient buggers, but there it is.
Awww, man, I hate that your feelings were hurt. I agree with John H where he says "I'm pretty sure the teasing was because you have some stature around these parts. The stature-esque tend to get poked and jabbed."
For everyone else being surprised at Katherine wanting to censor words and being a Libertarian, it seems to me that she's a Christian first and a Libertarian second. Hopefully we *all* have something about us that is first, before our political beliefs.
Come on, Katherine, you can sit over here at my table- it's not the jock table, but we're a bunch of cool kids who don't really give a rat's ass about what the jocks think. Plus, we have better parties. ;)
Catherine --
You could have avoided this entire debate by doing what I started to do a month ago or so: simply ignore Aunt B. altogether. Everybody wins.
Unless you have to be a "registered user", aren't all of these blogs "public"? You can't have an expectation that Nit would be free from content that, although moderated, isn't going to offend someone. Be it you, K-Bar, or Stacey Campfield's Mom (who, from what I hear, has it going on). So, that razor thin distinction dog won't hunt.
Is the real motivation behind your being upset that you felt CWage was "making fun behind your back" so to speak and not in the original post which would have been to your face? And is that why the 'jock table' metaphor is being employed as it gave you a Proustian moment of smelling a cookie that brought you back to the high school cafeteria?
If your expectation is to not be offended in this life, good luck with that. If your expectation is that people you know and have hung out with shouldn't mock you when you aren't looking, fair point.
And, uh, SAN DIMAS FOOTBALL RULES!
You can't have an expectation that Nit would be free from content that, although moderated, isn't going to offend someone.
It would be a terribly boring blog if that was the case.
Unless you have to be a "registered user", aren't all of these blogs "public"?
Viewable by the public is different from being a public entity.
If your expectation is to not be offended in this life, good luck with that.
I think that all know me well enough to know that isn't the case. I'm offended on a daily basis and don't say word one about it. I don't expect everyone to live by my "rules".
As I've said repeatedly, I was under the assumption that there were guidelines implemented for NiT and that my request was on par with those guidelines.
And is that why the 'jock table' metaphor is being employed as it gave you a Proustian moment of smelling a cookie that brought you back to the high school cafeteria?
Was actually quite popular in High School and college. The Jock Table metaphor was employed because it seems to be a universally understood allegory to the situation at hand. So no, don't flatter yourself about pushing the button that made me relive a sad moment from my lonely high school career.
If your expectation is that people you know and have hung out with shouldn't mock you when you aren't looking, fair point.
That is indeed my expectation. Especially since I'm quite open to mockery at my own expense and play along fairly well.
I was going to say, I've seen many Nashville bloggers and I don't think very many of us qualify for the "jocks' table."
Yeah, well, you bastards are making me remeber my days at the uncool table, and it hurts. It really hurts.
And Katherine, this conversation reminds me of a joke some one told me...
And Katherine, this conversation reminds me of a joke some one told me...
Fair enough.
I still don't get why it's bad to quote someone saying "Jesus Christ" as an exclamation, but okay to quote someone saying "Oh my God!"
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kiva, I don't either. It makes shows like "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" painful to watch. But whatever. Sometimes I just pretend that the god to whom they are exclaiming is not The God of Heaven and Earth but the god of materials and vainglory.
Post a Comment
<< Home