Amateur Psychoanalysis

Why is it that every time I am involved in a discussion here and strangers come wandering in, their response to my request for a rational explanation of a position contrary to mine is to claim that I think I am the only person who is capable of thought, or that I think I can't be wrong? Wouldn't the logical, and in the long run less volatile, response be to provide the explanation I sought.

I will not argue that I get passionate about things. And some of those topics, like my on going gay rights arguments, are very important to me. Very emotional for me. One of the most difficult elements in these issues is trying to get past built in prejudices with logical discourse. Something that frequently seems like it is a waste of time.

Yet every time I request someone to give me an argument that makes sense, they turn around and accuse me of refusing to acknowledge that someone else could be right. They accuse me of arrogance, or acting on some past hurt or any other thing to eliminate the concept that I am thinking about the issue. To minimize me in what I can only assume is a defensive gesture because they can't support their own side. I can only assume that because they don't.

However I will say that I am sick of people coming here and deciding to address what they think they know about me, instead of what we are actually discussing. So I will issue this statement now. If you come here looking for a fight, you will get it. If you come here looking for a conversation, you will get it. How will I determine which you are looking for? Simply by looking at whether you are discussing the topic or me. Because you may know the topic, but you don't know me, so the latter choice means you are just looking to piss me off. Odds are, you will succeed.

Just some observations on life, or something close to it.

The Synchroblog Controversy

Alright, controversy might be a bit of a large term for the situation. For those of you who don't know what this is about, probably most of you, I was recently visiting my friend Erin's blog, and she was mentioning that the synchroblog she was involved with could use some new writers. A synchroblog is an entity in which a topic and a date are chosen on a monthly basis and everyone involved writes on this one topic, and links to the others who addressed it. Many view points on a single topic.

I indicated that this seemed to be a christian synchroblog and as such I probably would not be welcome, but if I was I might be interested in offering my viewpoints on these topics. She looked into it, they took a vote, and big surprise: I was right. I am not wanted by their group. It should have ended there. It could have ended there. I would have been okay with this. But then they got insulting about it.

Apparently, the powers that be with their little synchroblog decided that while I was unwelcome in the existing item, they would work on creating an interfaith synchroblog on which I would be welcome. Wasn't that nice of them?

Wasn't it nice of them to decide that I was not good enough to play at their table because I didn't share their viewpoints, but they would set up a separate room I could play in. One where these people who didn't want me could choose topics for me to write about so the cute little Pagan could do tricks for them, tricks that were unsuitable for their main parlor room.

The thing about this entity is that if I were involved with it, none of them would be compelled to read what I wrote. They could simply ignore it as they undoubtedly would this consolation prize of theirs. It wouldn't be as if I was handed a microphone to spout my views in a room they were locked inside. In short, my presence would have no necessary impact on them whatsoever, except for their knowledge that I was there and had an opinion on their topic. I wonder if they have been secretly appalled as I have commented on blogs about this topic when their acceptable bloggers have spoken up? Big difference there? Not that I can see.

You see, it isn't like I am trying to force my way into their club. I was perfectly willing to accept that they didn't want my contribution. But the gall of them to offer to set up (they set up, not me) a forum in which my opinions on their topics was acceptable to share pisses me off. I mean I am seriously angry about this. About the condescension necessary to even offer such a suggestion. About the fact that these 'righteous' people undoubtedly truly believe this offer is something beneficial to us both. Like it allows them to go slumming, and allows me some precious stage time or something.

What makes me even angrier is the fact that I have tried to explain my position (not to bargain my way in, but so she will understand) several times, and now I post here, and I am not sure that I am succesfully conveying the reason for the anger, the reason I feel the insult that sparked this.

This isn't about them not including me, but about their alternative suggestion. How do I get across the insult and anger, and the reasons for them so it doesn't seem like I am just upset about not getting to play? Or have I?

Or is this just another pointless tirade in my life, or something close to it?