August 2006 Weddings
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: What is going on over at E08?!?
I think we're basically on the same page.
She had to have expected some sort of blow out, but I think she was prepared for a gun control debate.
I don't think she expected for one awkward comment to spiral into some big drama, and that's really why I think it got out of hand. It wasn't about people disagreeing with her. It was about people repeatedly twisting her words.
I agree. A word that I like to use is kowtow. I think it's an interesting, softer word than "worship" or "blindly follow," but you'd be amazed how often I get challenged as to whether it is a real word!
Kowtow is quite a loaded word if you're talking to someone with experience in China! ?There's historically been quite a debate over it.
I would imagine people reading it are reading it as koe-toe, and they're not connecting with a word I'm sure they've heard before.?
I've encountered the "is that a word?" crowd when I use the word in speech. Generally I don't use it in writing as it is too colloquial for my purposes. Interesting that the word is capable of causing such a kerfluffle.
Um, oozie should be Uzi. You totally lost all street cred. ;-)
Really? But.......but.........I used the google and everything!
I think the best quote in that thread was LMW's...it did make me chuckle. That was a quick GBCN. To be fair, however, I think there were a lot of posters who were quick to pull the trigger over there.
What exactly was so bad about the thread? I think y'all are quick to look for things to be pissed off about these days.
I didn't think that Chelle was intentionally being an ass about mxolisi's comment, but I could see how it could be read as insensitive. It's not that unreasonable an interpretation for someone who doesn't know her, or for someone who is sensitive to gun violence.
Not everything on these boards is an active Conservative Pile-On, as much as you want it to be.
Not sure I understand anything in your post, but ok.
I've never said it's wrong to call out someone who crosses a line. I just don't see what all the complaints are about in a thread that seemed relatively mild and basically a misunderstanding between two people. There was 1) the "shocked" face from c_joy and the ensuing discussing about whether "omg, lots of action!" is an appropriate reaction to shootings outside someone's home. 2) there was a discussion of "guns as hobby". Where's the issue?
Is it that some people don't care for guns, and Chelle felt like she was being attacked over her purchase? If so, I'm with the folks who said you gotta know your audience. I don't have an issue with shooting as a hobby. If the issue is that we're not allowed to comment on the word choice around gun violence, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. But you're welcome to keep tryin!
Here's the breakdown.
10:45: c_joy (in response to the 'action' comment):
10:48: Blackmamba* (in response to amy's shock at how easy it was): Seriously. And ditto the person who said this was so far outside of her reality.
10:50: ChelleA: My gosh. I bought a gun not a load of heroin! I didn't kill anyone. I simply bought a gun because it's my hobby just like some people like archery or knitting or painting.
10:53: c_joy: Aw, don't get too down on yourself. I'm sure you'll see some action eventually.
(oops! misunderstanding alert!)
10:55: ChelleA: I'm afraid everyone took that the wrong way. I didn't mean it like I enjoy the fact that people get shot. I'm not immune to the shock of it. It's terrible that people do get shot by fools that can't be responsible gun owners. But the fact that it happened in her neighborhood is shocking because it hits so close to home. It was better than my sayd "my God what kind of neighborhood are you living in" because that sounds like I'm dissing her choice of where to live.
10:57: ChelleA (I assume after seeing c_joy's latest post): You know c_joy, you may not like me or the fact that I believe in gun ownership but you do not have to be that blantantly nasty to me. When people talk about having a resonable debate and discussion - I'm sure this is not what they had in mind.
(okay, she's on the defensive)
11:00: amy (in response to ChelleA's 10:55 post): No offense, but you are in a bubble in Iowa. In Philadelphia you can live to a perfectly fine neighborhood, on that I bet is more expensive to live in than any part of Iowa, and have someone get shot 8 blocks away from you. City life is like that.
11:03: c_joy (in response to ChelleA's 10:57 post): Yes, well, clearly I must not believe in gun ownership because I thought it was ridiculous that you referred to three shootings as "action."
(okay, even though she clarified what she meant by that comment...)
11:05: ChelleA: Sure I live in Iowa now but you don't know where I lived in the past. I have only been in Iowa since 2001. Before then I lived in Fayetteville, NC where they have a fairly high crime and murder rate. Sure, it's not the scale that you probably see. But I was in Fayetteville when my friend and classmate was shot and killed. I also lived in south Detroit which we all know has it's own crime problems. So, don't think that I just live in a bubble here in Iowa... I have been many places and seen many things. I am not immune! I guess that goes to show how little some on this board know about me - except that I'm some right wing hick that lives on farmland in Iowa.
11:06: ChelleA (in response to c_joy): Sucks to have people assume you meant one thing when clearly you meant something else, huh? Perhaps you should ready [sic] my explanation below.
11:08: c_joy: Yes, but I didn't say a word about gun ownership. You were just filling that in on your own. You however...
"Action!"
(Why is she still talking about action????)
11:10: ChelleA (explaining further): Believe what you want to believe, c_joy. Perhaps if we were face to face you would have gotten the context of what I said, but that is the downside of message boards.
11:12: soprano: What context is there to get? She says people were shot in front of her house, and your response is there is lots of action in her neighborhood. It just comes across as insensitive.
(Maybe 'tone' was a more appropriate word than 'context' but basically she meant she didn't mean it to come off as insensitive.)
11:13: amy: Well, and the fact you not so subtly insinuated she lived in a crime ridden ghetto.
(how? where?)
I doubt anyone here is "seeing" gun violence everyday. I do think some of us have a better grasp on its impact on communities than you do. Maybe you've never been exposed, or maybe you are just picking anc choosing what you want to see.(she said she had been exposed to gun violence...)
11:14: ChelleA (self deprecating response to soprano's 11:12 post): I'm sorry anyone feels offended. Maybe I'm not really good at expressing shock on this board outside swearing and saying holy sh!t.
11:15: ChelleA (to amy): Perhaps you haven't read some of my other responses. Read below.
11:16: Sibil: [...] It's just sad, that anyone could refer to 3 people being shot as action. There are more sensitive ways to express shock at the tragedy.
(okay, okay, wrong choice of words. She clarified numerous posts prior to this.)
She then GBCN, but I would have made my post whether or not she left. The italics are both to explain as well as the internal commentary that ran in my head while I was reading. Do you not see how she was repeatedly given a hard time for one poorly worded response which she clarified as soon as she saw it was being misunderstood?
This is not me being upset because she left. This is me being frustrated because you don't realize how ridiculous that whole exchange was.
ChelleA is not perfect. Perhaps she was trying to be inflammatory with that post (though I assumed she had mentioned considering getting the gun in a prior post). I can recognize that as the probably motivation. If she had been given a hard time for owning a gun or whatever, that would have been warranted. But this who 'action' conversation is just totally bizarre.
Wow, that's quite an analysis! How did you decide which comments to include and which to leave out? I'm intrigued by your methodology.
I think there were a lot of people in that thread who were predisposed to go in for a fight because they wanted to defend Chelle's right to gun ownership. When none of us actually disputed the right to gun ownership, fights were picked over how we legitimately responded to poor word choice.
As Dylanite said:
It was her own poor choice of wording which, correct me if I'm wrong, she hasn't retracted due to accidentally using a poor choice of words. Hence the insinuations.
I'm actually not upset with Chelle, nor was I ever. The only reason I commented on the "Action" thing is that she and c_joy were into a semi-heated/personal thing. I just wanted to throw out that c_joy wasn't the only one who read it that way.
I think the point is that she didn't initially see how "action" was inflammatory/upsetting to people, and continued to push back and change the argument to her right to own a gun. If she'd just said, "hey, sorry, action wasn't the right word to use here", it might have changed things. But I think people in general had their backs up over the gun ownership issue from the beginning -- which makes it tough to address other subjects without that aspect getting dragged into it.
I started where it stopped being jovial and ended where she GBCN'ed. I left out the conversation you had with her about gun ownership because I don't think anyone was in the wrong there. She was perhaps a bit too defensive, but that was typical political discourse and not part of the problem I was addressing here.
First, I don't see anyone who was fighting pro-gun ownership. There were some at the beginning who didn't want to get into anything serious/trusted that she was a responsible gun owner, but I'm curious which posters you're referring to.
Secondly, I'm going to have to disagree with you and Dylanite. It seems like you're talking semantics here. She did try to clarify what she meant with her post at 10:55:
I'm afraid everyone took that the wrong way. I didn't mean it like I enjoy the fact that people get shot. I'm not immune to the shock of it. It's terrible that people do get shot by fools that can't be responsible gun owners. But the fact that it happened in her neighborhood is shocking because it hits so close to home. It was better than my sayd "my God what kind of neighborhood are you living in" because that sounds like I'm dissing her choice of where to live.
Look. To me this is not a conservative thing or a gun ownership thing (I'm not even sure where I stand on that issue!). It's not even a stick up for my friend, Chelle, thing, as I barely even interact with the girl.
I'm just pained as a person who also puts my foot in my mouth occasionally, which is clearly what happened here. Only, when I explain myself, people accept it. So to read a conversation where the person who just ate her foot explains herself repeatedly and is still shot down (no pun intended) is hard. My heart aches for her.
I really had no clue until your last post that you wanted her to explicitly say, 'my use of the word action was inappropriate'. I didn't get that because she had explained her statement where she used the word repeatedly. I, like she, assumed you (and c_joy, et al) were assuming she thought, by the use of her word 'action', that violence was cool. So she responded to that by saying, 'no, I didn't mean it like that' (response above). Can't you see the frustration?
I do see why you'd be frustrated if you think it was an active and intentional pile-on, and if you think she was sincere in the early retractions. But it didn't come across that way to me, so I'm giving you another perspective to consider. As you know, there are always multiple views of a situation.
It seemed to me and others that she thought her original reaction wasn't that bad. I was just explaining why it could have come off badly to people with a different perspective, and I think that's why others also responded multiple times (but I, of course, cannot speak for them, esp as I odn't know them at all)
I wasn't ever angry, nor did I have a really strong opinion about Chelle. The only reason I've responded is that you and others keep saying there was a pile-on. I don't see it that way. I see it as someone who said something, tried to defend it a few times, and when that didn't work b/c she didn't seem to get why it was bad, apologized. And I think it was the original defensiveness, along with a bit of an attitude and a "well, at least I didn't say that she chose to live in a bad neighborhood" comment that made people think she didn't understand why we had the reaction we did.
Re: gun ownership, there were people making it about that (e.g. "It is her RIGHT") That's a valid point, but I don't think anyone was saying it wasn't her right.
Fwiw, I could just as easily be very frustrated that you don't see my side, but I'm not. This seems to be a theme with you -- that when you express your view of a situation, and I don't agree with it, you complain that I'm unwilling to see your point of view and say you are frustrated with me. It is valid for me to see your point of view and just not agree with it.
I think we've talked this to death. Hopefully Chelle comes back, realizing she made a hasty and princessy internet move, but shit happens.
I think Soprano and Marquis are correct. I think Chelle used wording that was insensitive (and when I read Soprano's initial comments I didn't think she was being too harsh), but she did try to explain herself and people still kept going after her.
I think the whole exchange was pretty pathetic if you ask me. Like I said above, Chelle left too quickly but others jumped on her too quickly (and then wouldn't let her be).
Hopefully Chelle comes back. If she doesn't, it will be less interesting for there will be one less of the "other side's" pov.
Soprano-(and I am just asking, not starting anything--please don't take this question as rude or anything, just curiosity) what is the reason for stating that someone has a theme? I just am asking for it is kind of a way to make someone go on the offensive and with MD, she is probably the farthest from having a theme of being anything besides level-headed...probably someone we all could take a page from, imo.
I don't think you guys all plotted behind the scenes to gang up on her, but it did seem as though you (pl.) were approaching her comments with a closed mind despite her explanations. That's what I was referring to when I said 'deliberate'.
But I do appreciate your explanation here, if just for my own sanity.
I disagree with people all the time on here. It's not the disagreement; it's that I sincerely don't feel as though you are comprehending my points in order to be in a position to appropriately disagree. This is frustrating for me because I'm usually quite skilled in expressing my point, if not the first time, subsequent times. I used to teach middle school math to students who were really more skilled in humanities. I'd have to try a number of different approaches when teaching them a concept, but they'd eventually get it. So that's why I try a number of different angles, even, in this case, having gone so far to make the timeline of comments. It's more challenging online, without the use of inflection and hand motions, but this time, I think we finally were able to make our points clear.
So while on one hand, I'm sorry for participating in the dragging out of this discussion as I'm sure it's annoying for those not involved, I'm also not sorry, because I really feel like we reached a point where we both understood each other enough to agree to disagree.
So
.
That makes sense. But understand that I'm doing the same thing you are doing -- and yet I can't think of a time when I've talked about how frustrated I am that you just refuse to understand me. I don't think you're intentionally obstinate. You and others have said multiple times that I refuse to see your side. Why is it that my attempts to explain myself are turned into something negative, but your attempts are something positive?
Tef, sorry if you object to the word "theme". It has been something Marquis has expressed multiple times, so that seems to qualify as a theme. Discussions seem to end up with you guys as "Soprano is being difficult again", instead of recognizing the facts that a) i'm actually doing the same thing you are doing, which is trying to explain my side of things in multiple ways and b) I'm one of the few people that will continue to engage with you on these things, which leads you to think I'm a PITA. But if you like, I can choose to ignore you, as others do. I just don't think that's helpful towards a mutual understanding
Also,
I got hit by another car this morning on my way into work. Everything is fine, but it was enough to throw off my day (and my back). So, extra drinks all around.