You Don't Know Me
The title should be obvious to about 90% of you. The few people who know me in real life should equally know that it is mostly false for them.
People that blog should be aware that they only get a small portion of the individual that they observe on the blogs. Yet this often gets lost in the actual actions of communicating in this forum. As such, among other things, you can have seemingly wonderful blog relationships that die in a moment. If you haven't noticed this, scroll back a post or two for an example. (It's the one with the insane number of comments.) I am assuming to some extent as two of the conversations haven't resolved and I don't plan on instigating the end of these relationships. I may be accused of being the one to do so, but this blog is open to both, and short of a direct demand I will still visit and comment on theirs.
Yet the nature of the turn of both of these conversations somewhat surprised me and led me to post about this. This is the most serious the conversation has turned, and the turn on both of their parts shocked me. They declare I ended the conversation while I saw it in full stride. Correct me if I am wrong, Lisa and MC, but those that know me in real life would not have interpreted and excess antagonism and/or ending of dialogue in what went down there.
Further, what bothered me about the turn of conversation is the underlying facts of why I came online, this time and several others, to be confronted with these accusations.
Let me tell you a little about myself. (I often use this line on stage, and it means not that I am going to get too personal, but rather lead you along a line I want you to follow. Little difference here.) I am a standup comedian as part of my complex non-blog life. I haven't shared this before because there has never been a reason to, and there have been reasons not to. A man who makes a living off of telling jokes, being a smart ass, and making shit up is not a person your subconscious mind is going to take seriously. Silliness, as any of you have made a living doing anything know that when you leave work you don't always bring it with you. Contrary to mythos, a comedian is capable of being serious, and off stage we are all too often. Still, being a minister and a comedian would leave a sour taste in people's mouths. (Odd since both help to ease suffering and bring joy to people's lives).
I took a two year hiatus from the stage due to personal health issues, then my wife's pregnancy, then her health issues. I have recently begun to return to the scene. The few difficulties, and the overwhelming lack thereof will not be part of todays post. Because all of this was setting the stage for what is important.
In my return I was almost immediately offered opportunities to open for greater talents, some of whom were my par a few years ago and didn't take a break, some of which are much higher up but I knew from my travels. A few left the stage and began promoting. (One of which has offered to give me some great material that is his, provided I perform on a couple of his stages.) Besides the boost of realizing I have been far from forgotten by those whom I have worked with in the past, I realized something a lot more practical to me. I can wheel and deal and get them to play for me in return.
Now I am no promoter, and don't plan to be, but what I am setting up is temporary and charity. (The latter having a draw of its own.) I plan to hit a couple of spots around town in a running charity bit to raise money for the MS Society. (I am not declaring an event, I haven't talked to them yet.) I am working on setting the shows up, though, with some of the bigger named connections I have made along the way.
Actually, the above parenthetical is one of the main points I have been planning on getting to. I have to coordinate with them for this. Which means contact and discussion. Things I haven't done yet because I am busy getting into this conversation about the post I referenced above every time I sign on, then I am worked up and I forget for a moment.
I forget that which I was setting up for selfish reasons. To find a cure for my wife. To help not only her, but all patients with MS. A noble cause. To do it through laughter even grander. But my priorities are on a balance like anyone else's, and I take the conversations regarding my posts very seriously. To have put aside the preparations for something like this to discuss with you folks, and be accused of ending the discussion. Of being a bigot or a hatemonger, when I am just trying to communicate. I have to say that hurts.
I imagine they, as I, will realize it is irrelevant enough that it doesn't matter if you believe or not. If they didn't see it such, Lisanocerous and MC could easily look into and confirm the fact that my wife can't move the left side of her body tonight. Hasn't had any feeling in that side for nearly a week. It is a flareup, and a bad one at that. As my wife has lain in bed, getting what sleep she can while her body rebelled against her due to lesions on her brain, I have prioritized. I have realized the MS Walk is a little ways away, and I can pull shit together later. My wife is upstairs, but mostly asleep and can deal without my presence a little longer. For now, I respond to this, which I think matters. A dialogue that is open and raw.
What do I find? You accuse me of foul play. After being open with you. After catering to you on your own blogs while trying to help. After sacrificing to pay attention to these matters that should draw a deeper understanding? Some of you become devisive and underhanded. Try cheap attacks that work only because I do care and I have tried.
Congratulations. I have sacrificed for more who care not. I don't regret it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. Not your problem, though. Go on with your life, or something close to it.
People that blog should be aware that they only get a small portion of the individual that they observe on the blogs. Yet this often gets lost in the actual actions of communicating in this forum. As such, among other things, you can have seemingly wonderful blog relationships that die in a moment. If you haven't noticed this, scroll back a post or two for an example. (It's the one with the insane number of comments.) I am assuming to some extent as two of the conversations haven't resolved and I don't plan on instigating the end of these relationships. I may be accused of being the one to do so, but this blog is open to both, and short of a direct demand I will still visit and comment on theirs.
Yet the nature of the turn of both of these conversations somewhat surprised me and led me to post about this. This is the most serious the conversation has turned, and the turn on both of their parts shocked me. They declare I ended the conversation while I saw it in full stride. Correct me if I am wrong, Lisa and MC, but those that know me in real life would not have interpreted and excess antagonism and/or ending of dialogue in what went down there.
Further, what bothered me about the turn of conversation is the underlying facts of why I came online, this time and several others, to be confronted with these accusations.
Let me tell you a little about myself. (I often use this line on stage, and it means not that I am going to get too personal, but rather lead you along a line I want you to follow. Little difference here.) I am a standup comedian as part of my complex non-blog life. I haven't shared this before because there has never been a reason to, and there have been reasons not to. A man who makes a living off of telling jokes, being a smart ass, and making shit up is not a person your subconscious mind is going to take seriously. Silliness, as any of you have made a living doing anything know that when you leave work you don't always bring it with you. Contrary to mythos, a comedian is capable of being serious, and off stage we are all too often. Still, being a minister and a comedian would leave a sour taste in people's mouths. (Odd since both help to ease suffering and bring joy to people's lives).
I took a two year hiatus from the stage due to personal health issues, then my wife's pregnancy, then her health issues. I have recently begun to return to the scene. The few difficulties, and the overwhelming lack thereof will not be part of todays post. Because all of this was setting the stage for what is important.
In my return I was almost immediately offered opportunities to open for greater talents, some of whom were my par a few years ago and didn't take a break, some of which are much higher up but I knew from my travels. A few left the stage and began promoting. (One of which has offered to give me some great material that is his, provided I perform on a couple of his stages.) Besides the boost of realizing I have been far from forgotten by those whom I have worked with in the past, I realized something a lot more practical to me. I can wheel and deal and get them to play for me in return.
Now I am no promoter, and don't plan to be, but what I am setting up is temporary and charity. (The latter having a draw of its own.) I plan to hit a couple of spots around town in a running charity bit to raise money for the MS Society. (I am not declaring an event, I haven't talked to them yet.) I am working on setting the shows up, though, with some of the bigger named connections I have made along the way.
Actually, the above parenthetical is one of the main points I have been planning on getting to. I have to coordinate with them for this. Which means contact and discussion. Things I haven't done yet because I am busy getting into this conversation about the post I referenced above every time I sign on, then I am worked up and I forget for a moment.
I forget that which I was setting up for selfish reasons. To find a cure for my wife. To help not only her, but all patients with MS. A noble cause. To do it through laughter even grander. But my priorities are on a balance like anyone else's, and I take the conversations regarding my posts very seriously. To have put aside the preparations for something like this to discuss with you folks, and be accused of ending the discussion. Of being a bigot or a hatemonger, when I am just trying to communicate. I have to say that hurts.
I imagine they, as I, will realize it is irrelevant enough that it doesn't matter if you believe or not. If they didn't see it such, Lisanocerous and MC could easily look into and confirm the fact that my wife can't move the left side of her body tonight. Hasn't had any feeling in that side for nearly a week. It is a flareup, and a bad one at that. As my wife has lain in bed, getting what sleep she can while her body rebelled against her due to lesions on her brain, I have prioritized. I have realized the MS Walk is a little ways away, and I can pull shit together later. My wife is upstairs, but mostly asleep and can deal without my presence a little longer. For now, I respond to this, which I think matters. A dialogue that is open and raw.
What do I find? You accuse me of foul play. After being open with you. After catering to you on your own blogs while trying to help. After sacrificing to pay attention to these matters that should draw a deeper understanding? Some of you become devisive and underhanded. Try cheap attacks that work only because I do care and I have tried.
Congratulations. I have sacrificed for more who care not. I don't regret it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. Not your problem, though. Go on with your life, or something close to it.
posted by Wanderer at 2:33 AM
8 Comments:
Steve, I'm surprised that you devoted a post to this, but since you did, I'll reply.
I’m very sorry Martha is feeling so bad. I hope your work for MS goes well.
My question about your goddess wasn’t a direct comment on anything you wrote, but rather an attempt to understand your perspective on relationship with deity.
My emotional reaction was to the rash of harsh language at the end of the conversation. (I don’t mean curse words.) Some by you, some not. I never used the word “hatemonger”, but I have sensed hatred from you, aimed at Christians in general. Maybe I misinterpreted that. You use the words hate and hatred so often about others, I’m surprised at your reaction.
Never mind that I disagree with your conclusions about him, you called my God a “shit” in reply to Seraphim. It’s your blog and your absolute right to do so, but I think it’s a little unrealistic to expect that someone with a personal relationship with God wouldn’t take such a comment as a personal attack. I have never, nor would I ever, mock or insult your deity, whether I agree with your beliefs or not.
Not that I expect you to answer for him, but this goes to my general feeling of being “invited to leave,” (my impression, not written outright) MC compared Christianity to Naziism (Hitler). This I also took as a personal insult. Go figure.
I guess I have a different expectation of discourse than you, Steve. For me, when folks starts calling my God ugly names and comparing my faith to Naziism, it sounds like and end to reasonable discussion.
Finally, I’m sorry you felt I “lie(d) about” you. I don’t see how feeling and saying that you’d ended the conversation is tantamount to telling a lie or much less an “assault”, but I regret you felt injured by my words, nonetheless. I honestly think that my language has been extrememly tame in comparison to yours and some others here.
I'm sorry if I threw your discussion off course. It wasn't my intent.
Cindy - "You use the words hate and hatred so often about others, I’m surprised at your reaction."
I spoke of general thought processes or specific circumstances. The difference is that I didn't, and wouldn't, name you or any of the others that discourse here specfically. Nor anybody else unless they had proven it. I assume your indication was that I have proven this hatred. That was the assault and the insult.
"you called my God a “shit” in reply to Seraphim."
Actually a called a God that met the specific criteria I mentioned a "mean, unfrthanded son-of-a-bitch." In truth I did not believe I was referring to your God. If you feel I was, look at the specific criteria I mentioned and tell me if, for better or worse, I was wrong to have such an impression of such an individual.
"I think it’s a little unrealistic to expect that someone with a personal relationship with God wouldn’t take such a comment as a personal attack."
Again I don't see this. Had I been talking about your God, a muslim wouldn't take it as personal. Since I don't believe I was talking about yours or any actual existing God, I don't see why you would take it personally. Look at what I said. Look at it rationally instead of emotionally and I am sure even with the couple of typos it is easy to understand: "Any God who chooses that this one particular group of people gets to suffer just because they are what I made them to me is a mean, underhanded son-of-a-bitch." If you believe your God really made a group of people for the express purpose of suffering, then I stand by my statement. I don't think you believe that, though, and as such I wasn't talking about your God was I? I was merely illustrating a point. You have no right to take insult to this unless you state that in fact this is who your God is. Since there was only one defining aspect in reference to the "ANY GOD" I mentioned.
"MC compared Christianity to Naziism (Hitler). This I also took as a personal insult. Go figure." MC has been insulting Christianity and every other religion since long before this blog existed, and right along in the comments here. This one was actually rather mild. So I am not sure why you are suddenly taking his comments personally either. Still, he is a big boy, don't pin his comments on me.
"I guess I have a different expectation of discourse than you, Steve. For me, when folks starts calling my God ugly names and comparing my faith to Naziism, it sounds like and end to reasonable discussion."
Apparently our expectation of discourse does differ. For me, when someone is stretching to associate themselves with a fictional example that holds attributes that their God doesn't hold in order to be able to be offended, that is an action in deliberate contradiction to a desire for discourse. For me, when someone who has quite frequently expressed, often with hostility, a derision for a group of people that both of us belong to, and someone suddenly siezes on this persons words to say that I am ending discourse, they in fact are acting in deliberate contradiction to a desire for discourse.
"I don’t see how feeling and saying that you’d ended the conversation is tantamount to telling a lie or much less an 'ssault' but I regret you felt injured by my words, nonetheless."
This wasn't the lie or the assault. It was the statement that I was "spewing hate" that I referred to.
"I'm sorry if I threw your discussion off course. It wasn't my intent."
This I frankly don't believe. The only discussion that you might have thrown off course was with me. The only way you could declare us finished talking is if it was your intent.
Now to the nuts and bolts of the situation. Is there reason for you to take some of what I said personally? Yes. Of course there is. If there wasn't, then this would be pointless discourse. If we are going to talk, some things are going to be personal. We stand on opposite sides of some issues. You take it personally that I think your views on homosexuality are prejudiced and inappropriate. Does this mean I shouldn't say it? No. We are adults and should be able to discuss beyond this. After all, your claim would be that some of what I do and say is sinful. Sin=Crime. Punishable by damnation. A lot worse than 10-15 years in the State Pen. You don't think I take this personally? But we move on, in the hopes of honest discourse.
The fact is that I explained my position. Was it somewhat raw? Yes. Did I expect you to like it? No. Did I expect you to step up to the plate and explain how those who use these teachings in this manner may in fact be interpreting the teachings of your faith incorrectly? Yes. Did you? No. Instead you and others decided to either insult my intelligence or declare some grave injury on my part rather than potentially make some headway in an intelligent discussion.
I am sorry if I expected to much out of you and the others in this regard. I am sorry if I failed to realize that you were too easily bruised to handle this. But I never came out and attacked you or any in my audience. I simply provided fuel for what should have been, and started to be, a good discussion about the issues. Until people started borrowing insults to get indignant anyway.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MC said - "I stand by that comment, too. It was well thought out and earnestly meant.
If you want to talk about hatred, you shoud talk about me. I do hate your religion, and I hate the other religions, and I frequently hate the lot of you, Wanderer included.
If Lisanocerous feels like it, she can comment about the times I've turned to her and asked how to reconcile my intellectual aspiration of tolerance with my personal reality of hatred and contempt for all of you.
Despite valuable guidance received, it is a chasm I have not yet bridged.
Certain events can flare my hatred, and one of them is when people respond to my impersonal and honestly-meant statements as though they had any right or reason to take it personally, or act as though it was intended as a personal attack, as if I must show reverence to your ridiculous cult.
What if there were a billion people who believed that 2+2=7.1? If I were to insist that it is logically certain that 2+2 as actually 4, would these people then be justified in taking it is a personal insult?"
In his last comment. He also said a number of more insulting things towards several of us, myself included. While in part in a "If you choose to feel insulted, let me give you something to be insulted about" vein.
I asked him not to pick fights with you folks and insult you. So, the comment is gone, as he knew it would be. I didn't feel the beginning point should be lost, though, having direct bearing on the conversation at hand.
Sometimes I think I'm falling i love with her.
MC - It happens sooner or later to us all.
Lisa - While often it is the case that I know your opinion, I would love for you to continue to respond to me or to them, as you have (including within the last discussion) presented some things worth considering on so many occasions in both cases. It helps me immensely when you respond to those who disagree with me, not so much from the support of me even, as providing a means in which you, who may agree with me, have a reason to present the congruent opinion which includes insights I hadn't seen. I didn't mind your reactions at all.
I don't think any will disagree that at least out of the three of us, you probably had the least effect of pissing people off that last go 'round.
(If you have a chance today, wish Martha a happy birthday. If not, I will be presumptious and extend that thought process on your behalf.)
Steve, religion is a deeply personal thing. Lisa, looking at it and discussing it logically is possible but only to a certain extent. MC, congratulations on your win, and being able to walk past the blackjack tables without throwing it away.
Cindy, take a deep breath and consider the platform.
I'm going to go read Martha's now.
MaryEllen - I am aware of the fact that this is a personal subject, bound to get people's dander up. I think I said that in my last response regarding the nuts and bolts of the argument. Since you show some concern in that regard, I will also point out that Cindy and I did realize the platform, and as such discussed this through more direct medium. My understanding is that all is well on that field.
Post a Comment
<< Home