Ah, but didn't I say it was the social problem that's to blame? When I said that about it being a 'valid social issue/disease' & so on? In any case, I definitely wasn't 'blaming' the people overreacting-- I mean, even if a reaction irritates me, that's me being irritated, not me telling them what they should do, right? I guess it's really almost fruitless for me to talk about this sort of thing because by default I'm supposed to be using the language of 'should' (how people 'should' behave, what's 'wrong', who do I 'blame') whereas I just have personal/intuitive reactions to things. That's why I said all that about my reactions to [verbal] harassment & the personal metaphor stuff-- I thought it was obvious I was separating this from a social judgment.
The -only- social thing that was directly irritating me is any direct attack on Harlan Ellison (online, by non-participants) 'because he's an obnoxious asshole'. I mean, that's better than complacency & not caring at all, but he strikes me as a poor focus for righteous anger-- an immature, old-fashioned-obnoxious-joker [if brilliant] old man. I'm not denying people their anger though (how could I?)... I just wish we could get to the point where there's option C), which would be 'mutual attempts at conciliation/understanding'. My desire is for constructive harmony (on the large scale, not in specific cases), but I don't want to be seen as encouraging apathy/fear/oppression-- I mean, what I care about is more individual than social. Individual understanding, individual strength (non-victimization-- of the sort Eleanor Roosevelt was talking about in that famous quote).
I mean, I can understand why people are indignant-- often, I am too-- but this struck me as a weak battle to pick, especially if it's only using Harlan Ellison as a jumping off point (considering he's not a typical person, it seems like). So it's not like I'm saying 'because it wasn't a pass'-- that's what I meant about being a jackass and meaning something as a joke even when it's not funny-- just that it changes the motivation/nature of the offense. It's still bad, in other words, but seems bad differently. To me. But I'm not denying anyone their perspective? I just sort of had a nearly knee-jerk emotional response to the bashing thing the way I would no matter -who- people would be self-righteously bashing, with the exception of... well, to me there's no exception. I'm okay with fandom_wank 'cause it's gratuitous obnoxious mocking, but self-righteous indignation-type bashing always makes me feel 'but why can't we be more conciliatory & discriminatory in our outrage'?
...It's just really sad that people might think I therefore want them shut up. This is why I try not to um, talk to outraged/emotionally volatile people :> (Also, umm, I'm sorry if during all this I came off as... um, blockheaded/insensitive/anti-feminist as it seems. I really don't even consider the prescriptive angle much...)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-09-06 01:26 pm (UTC)The -only- social thing that was directly irritating me is any direct attack on Harlan Ellison (online, by non-participants) 'because he's an obnoxious asshole'. I mean, that's better than complacency & not caring at all, but he strikes me as a poor focus for righteous anger-- an immature, old-fashioned-obnoxious-joker [if brilliant] old man. I'm not denying people their anger though (how could I?)... I just wish we could get to the point where there's option C), which would be 'mutual attempts at conciliation/understanding'. My desire is for constructive harmony (on the large scale, not in specific cases), but I don't want to be seen as encouraging apathy/fear/oppression-- I mean, what I care about is more individual than social. Individual understanding, individual strength (non-victimization-- of the sort Eleanor Roosevelt was talking about in that famous quote).
I mean, I can understand why people are indignant-- often, I am too-- but this struck me as a weak battle to pick, especially if it's only using Harlan Ellison as a jumping off point (considering he's not a typical person, it seems like). So it's not like I'm saying 'because it wasn't a pass'-- that's what I meant about being a jackass and meaning something as a joke even when it's not funny-- just that it changes the motivation/nature of the offense. It's still bad, in other words, but seems bad differently. To me. But I'm not denying anyone their perspective? I just sort of had a nearly knee-jerk emotional response to the bashing thing the way I would no matter -who- people would be self-righteously bashing, with the exception of... well, to me there's no exception. I'm okay with fandom_wank 'cause it's gratuitous obnoxious mocking, but self-righteous indignation-type bashing always makes me feel 'but why can't we be more conciliatory & discriminatory in our outrage'?
...It's just really sad that people might think I therefore want them shut up. This is why I try not to um, talk to outraged/emotionally volatile people :>
(Also, umm, I'm sorry if during all this I came off as... um, blockheaded/insensitive/anti-feminist as it seems. I really don't even consider the prescriptive angle much...)