Has anyone else noticed the "race" between GW and another paid access garden site... "John Doe's Garden"? Anyone belong to both? Opinions? Anyone else feel like a double agent???
I don't see a "race" at all. Hasn't this site been around for a long time? Not quite as long as GW, I'm sure, but they have some time under their belt. I belong to the other site as well and they are just different from GW. It's a different atmosphere and I don't mean this negatively. There are helpful folks on both sites and I enjoy visiting both sites. I've developed friendships with people here, rather than there. But, I attribute that to the fact that I post more here. I'm on here everyday, whereas I may visit the other site once a week. Sometimes I forget that I belong there. I usually cruise over there when HP forums is quiet, e.t.c. LOL
So, nah, I don't feel like a double agent. It's a free internet country, if you will. Wouldn't have it any other way. I'm all about expanding my horizons...
After all that, I assume you are talking about DG?
Yes, DG. It is definitely a different atmosphere. There's been some GW bashing going on over there and he's changed some of the formatting to make DG more like GW. According to one post he's doing this because of the "large numbers" of people leaving GW to come to DG. Both sites have their good and not so good points but I think it's a bit "oppressive" there. I used to be over there every day but lately, I prefer posting here.
Isn't it a faith-based gardening site?
I didn't think it was but you are probably right. There's a real "my way or the highway" atmosphere over there and it seems to be getting worse. If I had known it was a faith based site, I would have stayed far, far away.
Speaking as a person who has both faith, and respect for others of different viewpoints, I think that's really sad.
Oh dear....I, too, am a person who has faith and find the site to be comforting in my "faith walk". The prayer requests forum is one that I am totally "for". To each his own- I'm not here to try to win souls or anything with this post.
To address your opinion of how things are at DG: I had not noticed that Dave is trying to liken his site to GW. I liked it the way it was, and still appears to be, IMO. The two sites are different and I glean something from each. Power to DG and Power to GW!
DG has a more International flavor, with nicer types of plants. (Or had, the last time that I checked) I think both are based on greed, and not faith. At least GW allows for non paying members to have full access to the site. There are many other FREE Garden sites with fewer members so they are a little bit more personalized or localized or plant specific.
The Bill Marr type, who are so obsessed with hating religion can start their own forum..."Gardening for Atheists".
Count me in! In "Gardening for Atheists" that is. I knew as soon as I mentioned staying away from a faith based site the fur would fly. Geez, you people need to chill out a little. It doesn't offend me that you have "faith". Why does it offend you that I don't??? THAT is why I stay way from "Christian" groups. I don't mind if they pray, but they mind A LOT that I don't. Also, who is Bill Marr?
I have been spending time at the gardenforums site. There seems to be alot of members from here over there. I have not been to Davesplace. I really don't want to visit other places-I like it here, I love this format. One could really go nuts trying to find a better place to hang out. But I suppose if you have a garden folder of favorites to click from, you can surf with ease. I just kind of like the "click" of people I have gotten to know here.
Well, I like it that I can be a bit freaky and not freak people out with the freakiness. On what other gardening forum could I possibly post a thread about laser hair removal and pit fur? None. That's where. Only here. Cause you all are so great...!
Bill Marr or however you spell his last name. The gay guy on HBO. He spends most of his show promoting homosexuals and Atheists. I just wonder why you people are always complaining. Quote "those who are so obsessed with hating religion". You know, people who walk around all day, and visit forums, complaining about it. There has to be a reason on why it bothers you to a point that you won't visit forums, and trade with good honest people. My only point was...If it bothers you THAT bad...start a forum where you'll never have to hear it again. No fur is flying over here, but I feel that "someone" is "balding". The Christians, Jews, Musilums, Budists... aren't on this forum complaining about the Atheists. Why should you complain about them?
GWeb is the best!
"The Christians, Jews, Musilums, Budists... aren't on this forum complaining about the Atheists."
That's not true. I've seen plenty of it. This past Christmas there was a thread in a convo pit titled something like "You Can't Take Away My Christmas" Where a lot of complaining was done about it. And maybe you don't see more of it because you don't see Atheists and the like putting their belief's on the line so often.
This isn't a religious site, so I; the son of a Minsiter and a member of the church since I was knee high to a grasshopper wouldn't expect people to tolerate me pushing my belief's on them with requests for prayers and other messages from my faith. Just like I wouldn't tolerate people who have different beliefs than mine to do it do me.
It's ironic that people who claim to be enlightened through their faith and believe themselves to righteous are usually the less tolerant; and have that "My way or the Highay attitude." People like that should be the ones to start their own forum since this is not a faith based forum or company.
Well, my concern is that we are all democrats. I am just kidding of course.
Toots - you're fabulous darling! :)
Holly, other than Jadle's recent posts, I've never heard anyone on GW ever complain about someone being an atheist. And believe me, I'm drawn to the religious dialogue like a pilgrim to a holy shrine. So I'm a bit confused as to who "those people" are that need to chill, because I'm pretty sure that you're not routinely encountering them here.
Jadle, that's Bill MAHER. If you're going to disparage someone's sexuality, at least have the decency to spell his name correctly.
I have no idea who the "you people" that are always complaining about religion refers to, but regardless of who you're talking about, your comment has no place here. I'm particularly offended by your condescending and disparaging references to homosexuality. That's a low blow, inappropriate, and utterly uncalled for.
Please understand, shelly, that I'm not the one that brought up religion with an all out attack. I simply asked why did it bother them so badly that they wouldn't visit a website? The funny thing is, I'm not religious. I ignore all of the "God Bless You" type because I know they mean well. No need to complain. Starting her own website is only good advice, as we won't be seeing her here anymore...due to religion.
Please point to a post where I said anything bad about Atheists. My point was to holly_c, who doesn't want to trade with religious people. I do agree with you...I have never heard a religious person complaining about Atheists. You shouldn't be offended by my saying the word homosexual, I didn't say it in a bad way...It's Bills money ticket. That's who he is...He brags about it. My comments were not at all "condescending and disparaging". Sheesh! Just facts that he tells everyone everywhere he goes. Please read it again and tell me how you were offended, and came to the conclusion that they were "condescending and disparaging".
"YOU PEOPLE" referring to the "Bill Maher" (thanks) type that openly, in public complain about religious people. Bill Maher claims that if you believe in God, you have a mental disorder, and that gay people can raise kids better than straight people. That's all fine, But I don't need to hear it here, on this forum. I agree.. this has no place on this thread. It was a simple question about 2 websites. Go talk to the two that had to bring up the hate for religious people. That's all I ever hear anymore...You can't prey in school, change the pledge, take the oath off of the court house..ect. I just don't know why religion bothers them so badly. People are free to pursue happiness in America and if they want to prey...let them.
I was a democrat in one election, but now I'm a constitutionalist. Can't play that hate game.
A prayer request shouldn't offend anyone. Are Atheists really this sensitive? Do you feel left out or something?
Village is better than spike. The first amendment rules!
"Please point to a post where I said anything bad about Atheists."
Okay. How about this one? "The Bill Marr type, who are so obsessed with hating religion can start their own forum..."Gardening for Atheists".
Not all atheists are obsessed with hating religion. You're dismissing a huge group of atheists (the majority of atheists in fact) who are actually quite ambivalent about all religious dialogue. You're also telling atheists that they're not welcome here. Which isn't quite true. I think that the type of person who's not welcome here is a whole other type of person, indeed.
"You shouldn't be offended by my saying the word homosexual, I didn't say it in a bad way...It's Bills money ticket.... Please read it again and tell me how you were offended, and came to the conclusion that they were "condescending and disparaging"."
Again, no problem. "The gay guy on HBO. He spends most of his show promoting homosexuals and Atheists. I just wonder why you people are always complaining."
Referring to anybody as "you people" is condescending. I find it particularly galling since I am one of those "Bill Maher types" you dismiss so easily. In fact, I just presented a paper at a conference last week where I publicly complained about (certain) religious people.
Second, dismissing his political and religious opinions by referring to him as "that gay guy on HBO" reduces his entire person to nothing more than his sexuality. Do you use the same type of language to refer to people who publicly promote heterosexual marriage? Do they become "those hetero guys on Fox"? I'm guessing that you do not. Because people are more than their sexualities. Let's extend the same courtesies to everyone. And while I'm on the topic, did it ever occur to you that there are a number of homosexual gardeners on this site that may feel less than welcome because of your comments? I think you owe "those people" a huge apology.
Third, refering to his sexuality as a "money ticket" not only dismisses any kind of political point he may be trying to make, it also implies that he chooses to stand up for gay rights because it's a cash cow, rather than because it's something he believes in.
Fourth, "those people" - the "Bill Maher types" - are "always complaining" because they live in a society where their beliefs and sexuality are marginalized and sometimes even attacked by the mainstream. That's not cool. In fact, it can be quite threatening. Just ask the many gay men and women who routinely face physical threats and assault because of their sexualities.
"Go talk to the two that had to bring up the hate for religious people. That's all I ever hear anymore..."
I'm guessing that you're referring to Jeffrey and Holly. Jeffrey didn't bring up hate for religious people. He asked whether or not DG was a faith-based site. Period. Holly responded that if that is the case, she wouldn't frequent the site anymore, which incidentally, is exactly what you later suggested to her (in less than flattering language). And if you'll reread my post, you'll notice that I did ask Holly who she was referring to when she said "you people need to chill." Jadle, you're the one started the rucus over religion. Nobody else.
Also, I don't think that religion-bashing is all you ever hear anymore on this site, so why are you lashing out at people here? This is not a religious site, religion rarely comes up, and in over five years at GW, I only remember reading three threads where people have brought up their personal religious beliefs. And this is one of them.
"I simply asked why did it bother them so badly that they wouldn't visit a website?"
No, you didn't. And there was no "simply" about it. You told them to go away and start their own forums. In the first place, it's not up to you to decide who gets to stay and who has to go, and you have absolutely no right to tell people whether or not they are welcome here. In the second place, atheists don't need to find another gardening site. They have a non-religious site right here. I'm starting to wonder if you knew where you were when you posted that message. You do know that GW is not a faith-based site, right?
Sorry, I didn't read all of that babble. It seems that someone has a huge problem with understanding English, and can't seem to comprehend that there is a difference between the "Bill" type and the whole group of them. I said nothing that was offensive to anyone. The word homosexual seemed to set you off. You derived so much out of what I said that I can't understand how you've came to that conclusion. Please don't "READ INTO" what I wrote. My words are my words...not your thoughts. I mean what I say, and not what you think. You see, shelly, homosexuals in America are promoting it. Bill must be Canadian. All he talks about is... Gay is good, God is bad, and smoke all the pot that you can. (Better than a drunk anyway)("Now that's condescending and disparaging") You are very confused...my statement was along the lines of "If your are going to come here and complain, go somewhere where you won't have to hear it". Because we don't want to hear you either. No, I don't know why you would assume that I'm a holy roller...I'm not. Haven't been to Church in over 30 years. You can say that I said everything that you are thinking, and accusing me of saying, but once again...I do not see it. Please point it out in my words...not yours. Since when did spelling someone's name have anything to do with decency? I think that you just like to be freaky. Normal people like me don' care if you love or hate God. We're just sick of hearing the two of you complain. Religion never enters my mind until the obsessed bring it up. The Bill type are the same as the holy rollers. One way or the other...they're obsessed with God. Regardless of what a confused Canadian my say, everyone can read what I said. So your explanation and analysis are meaningless.
Yes, I agree. You almost never hear about religion here...but an atheist brought up the subject. I stated that both sites were based on greed...not religion. There you go again....Of course I know this isn't a religion based website. Please read with an open mind.
So, by your standard...It's perfectly fine for people to say (on this forum) that they are going avoid religious people like the plague. But if someone says anything about an Atheist...look out!
And I do have the right to tell someone to go somewhere else if it bothers them. It's our first amendment...Oh, I'm sorry, you're in Canada. You wouldn't know anything about our constitution. I do believe that there is a forum for Canadians.
Aside from the above being incredibly rude and xenophobic, narrow-minded and offensive, what gives you the right to suggest to Shelly that she go somewhere else?
She's been (and I trust will continue to be) a valuable contributor to this and other Forums.
Your post is a fine example of venom - unfortunately, your complete lack of objectivity, when discussing a point of view counter to your own, marks you as, to put it kindly, tunnel-visioned with a bunker mentality.
I'd reckon that it would do you a world of good to go to a church, shrine, synagogue or mosque - perhaps that would give you perspective beyond your world of jingoistic rant.
*SIGH* Against my better judgment.....
This isn't about religion at all. Yeah, there are Holier-than-Thou Christians who forget all about the tenets of Christianity. Out the window with, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and getting the log out of our own eye before we worry about the speck in someone else's eye. Yeah there are atheists who aren't satisfied with maintaining their own outlook, but feel the need to be proselytizing antitheists, ridiculing others for their faith. None of that has anything to do with religion. It's all about personalities.
Some of us just need to feel better than others. We might feel superior because of our looks, our brains, our socio-economic standing, our piety, our enlightened liberal viewpoint. I don't see a hair's breadth worth of difference between an anti-theist who's above fraternizing with Christians and a self-serving politician who uses God's name to further his or her own agenda. It's all about climbing to the top of the heap- being above someone else.
We don't have to take the extremes. I'm a Christian. Shelly's not. I've never had a single harsh word with her over that in the years we've chatted back and forth on GW. I have a great deal of respect for her (and she's fun, too!) Most of us here are quite willing to accept each other as we are.
Jeff, Just because you say something, that doesn't make it true. "Being incredibly rude and xenophobic, narrow-minded and offensive" WHERE? I just don't see it. Do you think for a minute that I will sit back and let people who are "being incredibly rude and narrow-minded and offensive" to me, get away with it and not say anything? What REALLY gets me is how someone can take one small meaningless statement and turn it into something it's not! You need to stop reading into things and start taking words at face value. There is no subliminal message in my statements!! What gives me the right? The same thing that gives you the right to tell me to go to church. I don't need to comment on my contributions to this website. Many people here are using my product that I gave to everyone for free. I just followed some link about an offensive butt and ended up here, on the "overly sensitive" forum. I'll leave all of you sensitive, easily offended people alone. So let the fur fly, I could care less! In case you don't know, Americans and Canadians are always taking stabs at each other, in a joking matter...Not a "fearful" manner, as you suggested.
I don't much care for Bill Maher myself. At least I have some problems with him. First of all, he voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, thus helping in the election of our current Idiot in Chief. Second point--he, inexplicably, is a close friend of the very disgusting right wing commentator and all around evil person, Ann Coulter. Other than that, he is OK. He is funny, which is his profession. He does stand up comedy. As for his being gay and Canadian. He is straight and American, from the East Coast, raised as Catholic, although his father was jewish.
Jadl in claiming not to be offensive is being most disingenuous with us. We don't need to go very far to interpret what she intended in her posts. It pretty obvious she's anti-gay, anti-Canadian and anti-athiest.
Dave of DG is a fundy. I remember when he kicked off a gay poster because the poster mentioned that his partner liked a plant on their houseplant forum. He called the poster all kinds of names in a private email, which were repeated in a post on GW about it. That was during a brief period when many of us were upset with Spike and were looking for other sites. At that time DG was free. Dave even promised that his site would always be free (what a liar). It was less than a year later when he started charging.
Thanks Shelley for posting. That your posts remain even tempered is testimony to your good nature.
I'll make this short and sweet, so that even you are unable to misunderstand it. Please leave - we're certainly better off without your ignorance, your spite and you.
Hear, hear, sir. Let's have an 'Up With Fishies' fandango!
I still don't see what was offensive? (in my words) and no one has pointed out anything without adding a paragraph of things I didn't say. I don't hate or disapprove of anyone. I'm not mad at anyone, just having fun.
Jon, My name is John. I'm not a woman. Now I guess I'll hear everyone call me a homophobic. Sheesh! Too predictable! Yep, nothing I said should have offended anyone, but look at the vultures attacking me, with personal insults, directed at me.
Jeff , Do you know what a hypocrite is?
Jeff's pretty smart. He'll figure it out.
John. Honey. All those long paragraphs? That's the grown-ups explaining to you *why* what you say is offensive. No one else is having fun.
Jen, Jeff, Jon - yer so sweet. I'm Catholic! There! My dirty little secret is out now. Yup, I always have to go back and edit out all the Catholic swear words from my posts :)
I did not know that Bill Maher was straight. Hmmmm.... interesting.... very interesting, indeed.
Since I've got that bit of unpleasantness out of the way, I'll say it - yer ever so sweet, if you will accept praise from a recovering Catholic-that-was-raised-Pentecostal.
Well I am certainly glad to find out that Bill Maher is not gay-not that there is anything wrong with that as Jerry Seinfeld would say. I am not a big Bill Maher fan but I do find him interesting and usually stop a bit to listen while surfing the TV. I never thought he was gay and if he was, wouldn't we all know that since he really expresses his feelings. DH just came in and asked "now what are you posting about". I asked him if he thought Bill Maher might agree to be the host of a gay ahtiest garden site. Now that would probably be an interesting read.
You're Catholic, Shelly? Really? My mistake-- I'd have thought agnostic.
I think Bill Maher had some jokes when he did stand-up that suggested straight orientation. I assumed he was straight...but then, I assumed Shelly was agnostic, so can only claim 1 for 2.
Now I've gotta go search my closet. What does one wear to a February Fishies Fandango, anyway?
Well, I am comforted to discover that he's not gay. It gives hope to all us smart, funny, straight women that there actually do exist smart, funny, straight guys. He's right up there with Stephen Colbert in my books (hey! ANOTHER smart, funny, straight guy! My god! They're everywhere!)
Wow, y'all have been busy since I was last here. Can someone tell me where in my original post it says anything about not wanting to trade plants with "good honest folks"???? Anyway, I've proven my point. Say anything "anti-christian" and you get clobbered. And, the website that started the whole dialog was DG. Not GardenWeb. If I had known that Dave was a fundamentalist christian, I would not have joined his website. I also didn't say I was an athiest. That little tidbit was added by some good, honest person. I'm not anything. I don't think about it much until I have it shoved under my nose...in a plant forum...where it doesn't belong. And I'll trade plants with ANYBODY. Ok...now let the debate begin on that. Where do I go now? How about "Gardening for Free Thinkers"? Actually, I was just planning to stay here at GW. Which is what I said in the first place. Oh, and I didn't vote for Bush and I think Canadians are groovy.
I never called you an athiest. And YOU shoved the religous comment under everyone's nose here.
Enough. I'm leaving. I still love everyone.
Does anyone here do seed trading? If so have you seen this thread that touches on the subject?
Here is a link that might be useful: Prayer Chain E-mails
Also, against my better judgment ... deep breath here.
Jeff, we (who can read) all understood a clear, simple question of distinguishing btwn diff. forums (forii?) Also, I thought you were fully recovered? Pentacostal, who knew?
Fishies, you do us proud!! What shall we wear for yr. Fandango?
Ooojen, your usual, level-headed, voice-of-reason self.
Jon, Thx for pointing out Maher's straight (I was waiting for someone to do so). As I don't have cable, I've never seen his show, but have seen him on other things & believe he's currently a NYer (where he's known as somewhat of a womanizer ... a gay womanizer ... hum ...)
I remember the to-do you allude to over at the other place. The to-do was w/abt someone who I ended up not caring for personally, but I was offended enough at how flagrantly anti-gay it got, I decided not to hang around long enough to see if it was going to be raging anti-Semites as well.
Jadle (if you haven't kept yr. word & left yet), your words speaks plenty loud ... we can read, no interpreting necessary!
Wonder what Spike would have done w/ this thread???
Being able to read is only part of it.
Im not so sure that a few people can understand what they are reading. ThatÂs why some people are easily offended.
I donÂt claim to be very articulate with my words, and itÂs almost not worth it, but here it goes.
You canÂt take a "complex sentence" and cut it into a series of "simple sentences". My use of "you people" was used as a pronoun and a noun, followed by an adverbial clause as part of a "complex sentence". "You people" is not an independent clause. There is no way it can be viewed as offensive. No wonder people are so easily offended.
Also, you cannot take part of one sentence and finish it with part of another sentence to make it say something that is completely different from what was said. Only the politicians can do that. A sentence must be read as it was written or you will lose the meaning. A sentence contains verbs, adjectives, nouns, and too many others to start listing. They MUST be assembled to build a "phrase" so one can understand what is being said. These things are needed in order to carry on an intelligent conversation. Otherwise, youÂll start to sound like Bevis and Butthead. Example "hehe, you said wood".
Oh, IÂve known all along that Bill claims to be straight. It just too hard to believe because he is the #1 gay rights activist in America, and probably the world. I have to leave the room every time his show is on because someone here is addicted to his show. It can be funny, and I did like the show the first few times that I saw it, but itÂs all played out. Sex, politics, and religionÂThose are good strings to pull for a reaction. In fact, the oldest tricks in the book. I canÂt believe people are still buying it.
IsnÂt it condescending to "be relieved" that Bill is straight? Well, it would be, if you didnÂt read the whole sentence.
Spike would have pulled this thread right after JeffÂs statement. Definitely after hollyÂs statement. Spike wouldnÂt tolerate such statements because he is smart enough to realize that those comments were intended to incite people. I wouldnÂt have had a chance to comment.
Good Morning, It's already 71 degrees here. Another beautiful day!
Yes, of course grammatical and syntactical context informs meaning, John. It would be idiotic to say otherwise.
However, having such concise knowledge of syntax and grammar, you must also recognize that words themselves, even when taken out of their grammatical context, never stand alone? That there exists an entire ~cultural~ context within which they must also be read? Words *point to* the thing they represent. They are not the thing itself. And when we look at where a particular word is pointing, what we see is coloured by the cultural associations we bring to it. Clauses like "you people" (whether used as noun, pronoun, whatever) have a cultural context here in North America that implies a dismissal of whatever "those people" might believe, be, or have to say. Which is fine: if that's what you're saying (which, given your rail against BM in your most recent post, seems to be the case), you're on the right track. But you've got to be prepared for the people you're dismissing (ie - me!) to be offended by your disregard. By using that term, and bringing all the cultural colouring that accompanies it into your statement, you colour the *entire statement* with that term. It's a bit like having a can of white wall paint, and adding a dollop of dark red. Once you've put it in there, it colours everything else in the paint can.
Also, John, please don't think that by changing your tone and language you're going to trick me into thinking that what you're saying is valid. It's a silly, childish move that doesn't fool anybody. I didn't judge your statements on their inarticulateness (is that even a word?), but on their content. But, as you yourself seem to be aware, content is indeed constructed by its grammatical packaging. Which is why I take issue with the way in which you say what you say. In my case, at any rate, your most recent post simply makes me think that in addition to being homophobic and offensively argumentative, you're also a bit of a troll.
It's snowing here - AGAIN - and I'm cranky. Big stoopid snow. More coffee, please.
Hey, it's already 5 degrees F here, w/local schools closed and the snow flying such that I can only see a few feet out the window. The good news is that there are only about 8 or 9 weeks until spring.
My turn to take issue (and I hope I haven't taken you out of context.) You say it's difficult to believe Bill Maher could be straight because he's an outspoken "gay rights activist". Please don't make the assumption that no one will speak out on an issue unless it serves his or her own personal adgenda. There are individuals who strive to do what they feel is right, even when it doesn't benefit them personally....some even do the right thing when it costs them. There were men who spoke out for womens' suffrage; there were abolitionists in the Civil War-era south ...people have gone to war and lost their lives over issues of justice, rather than personal gain. Not that Bill Maher is exactly struggling...and I can't exactly say whether he's outspoken because he feels it's just, or whether he just enjoys stirring the pot (I hear there are some people like that....) but I'd hate to write off the whole idea of human decency and say it's all got to be self-serving.
(You typed "wood" heeheeheehee)
I meant to type "there were white abolitionists in the Civil War-era south..." I mean, DUH!
You might find this hard to believe but it's the truth. My best friend Wally was gay until the day he died. If you guys (don't take that in a derogatory manner) want my database, just let me know and I'll send you the password. Not like I'm trying to "buy anyone off". I'm going to offer this to everyone again soon.
I cant type anymore because my keyboard is shot.
Check the link.
fishes, I just read the words "pit fur" and almost fell out of my chair. LOL The people in the other department are looking at me like I'm crazy! LOL!
pitfur - regional variation of the pronunciation of 'pitfall' as in:
A lack of privacy is one of the pitfurs of fame.
Shelly, I reread this thread last night and really have to applaud you for your words. I have a totally different thing that I related your words to. My daughter was living with a man of another race. Even typing this seems racist to me. This man did not treat my daughter respectfully and they have recently separated. I knew this man and tried to love this man for 5 years. I so deeply felt racism with him many times. He was a man my daughter loved. The fact that he was a black man should not be an issue whatsoever. It would be like describing myself as a german, english mother who wished her german english, scottish daughter had a relationship with an african American man who yada yada yada. Unfortunately, there were times when what I said or felt ended up being racist, because it was. I could not talk myself out of my words to make me not be racist. I think of myself as not being racist. But having an interacial relationship as part of our family was really an awakening for me.
Does this make sense. Well, I guess what I wanted to say to you is that, I get the feeling from your post that you are probably not racist.
Well, I *try* not to be. But that doesn't mean that I'm not. These things are subtle, and you often don't know they're there until ~something~ happens.
I think, though, that the most important thing is that we be honest with ourselves - that we honestly, and with good spirit, examine our actions and our relationships. We need to recognize and acknowledge the way we objectify Others. And (here's the contentious bit) I also think that we need to acknowledge our collective cultural racist heritages, whatever they may be. Denying these things, or covering them up with politically correct language doesn't change the underlying racisms. So I applaud YOU, toots, for acknowledging it. If I were in your situation, I would be hard pressed to see myself as a player in this racist game. Given that situation, it would be *so easy* to deny it.
In my field of study, this kind of thing is called "conscientization," and it refers to developing an awareness of 1) our individual and collective complicity in social ills (or, in theology, what is called "structural sin"); and 2) the ways in which we both victimize others and are victimized by these social ills. The thought behind that last one is that even those who are oppressors in the domination/oppression tango, are also victimized by the society they construct by their oppressions of other people. In other words, if a person or group of people are racist, they help create a racist society. A racist society sucks. And even the racist people have to live in the sucky society they've helped create. Nobody benefits in the end.
So the ultimate goal behind this theological practice is to develop what's called "right relationship." What this means, and what is needed to achieve it, is different from situation to situation. But it all begins with conscientization. Acknowledging racism and objectification before it gets to a real crisis point is a HUGE step. In fact, from where I sit, it's the biggest step of all.
All that to say, toots - you are fabulous. Again and again and again: fabulous.
Well, thank you but I don't usually feel that I am fabulous. I googled conscientization but your definition was much clearer. How do you pronounce that by the way. I see this again and again though..like how about in the middle east. I am now going to google structural sin, but in between I am watching snow boarders race in the olympics...if only I wasn't 55. I think I would love doing this!
Yeah, you probably get a lot of stuff about pedagogy (or how things are taught) in a google search. Paolo Freire coined the term conscientization, and his work was in pedagogy. But it's since been adopted and adapted by a number of different types of scholars. My definition is only one of many, and it's very specific to my field of study. It's used in different ways by different people, for different purposes. I like my purpose best though :) It's pronounced a lot like conscience, except that the "ie" sound is emphasized, and instead of an "s" sound at the end, replace it with a "tization," like in "privatization": consc-I-En-tization.
I googled structural sin and right relationship after reading your post - I'd never googled any of these terms before, and it's weird to see all the different interpretations of them that exist on the ground. Interesting stuff.
Snowboarding. Ugg. My feet are big enough as it is. I couldn't imagine putting something on them to make them even bigger.
Tisha - pit fur is not funny!!! Not funny at all. Stoopid pit fur. It has plagued my life for too long, and it must GO.
A little obsessed are ya Fishies?
What's w/ your spelling of 'stoopid'? Curious pirates would like to know please.
I googled the word "stoopid" and it said it's a term used among bohemian intellectuals for emphasizing the egregiousness of the subject to which one is referring. A broken fingernail is "stupid". A flat tire in a snowstorm is "stoopid".
Shelly as a bohemian intellectual? Well, I'm buying half of that.
But which half?
I checked the urban dictionary for definitions of stoopid, and the first definition is "a stupid way of spelling stupid." Huh.
As if you could do something by halves!
Another definition, from the same source:
Extremely foolhardy, yet quite impressive if executed successfully. Man, that blindfolded, triple somersault on one rollerblade while holding a bowling ball was one stoopid stunt.
Standing up to your boss and telling him he's a pansy if he doesn't give you a raise - now that's scary stoopid.
Tell me, Shelly, that you didn't pose for that lead page pic - after all, Ottawa is pretty cold now, right?
I feel a bit behind the times-is stoopid something that is cool now. I forgot to put the right kind of gas in my snow blower and I fried it right up-the primer button melted off. Now that was stoopid!
Oh no! Toots! And with all this snow, too!
Yes, that definitely goes beyond stupid into the stoopid zone.
For me, stupid is just plain stupid.
But stoopid is emphatic, and usually accompanied by a big sigh of utter helplessness in the face of reality.
You know what's stoopid? Planning a big dinner party without having enough cutlery.
It's off the the Zellers for Shelly.
(big sigh at my utter helplessness in the face of reality)