However, the nature of the reaction I caused does indicate that some subjects are hard to broach. I can write diaries such as the ones i have up at the moment, but these are few and far between. I simply have neither the intellectual or evidence based resources to do these very often.
Yet other sorts of diaries.. we have demonstrated time after time that there is a hostility towards them. I am disinclined to seek the evidence for that although I imagine it will be demanded. But that is mine and others' perception. So they are not written.
It's a silencing tactic, but it works. keep to the Fen Causeway
Yet other sorts of diaries.. we have demonstrated time after time that there is a hostility towards them. I am disinclined to seek the evidence for that although I imagine it will be demanded.
It's completely false to say that "hostility" has been "demonstrated" - even one time - where? But I've learned that it's a bit of a waste of time asking for evidence from those who think their opinion should be enough.
Yet again, I have not seen ANY evidence of "hostility" to diary content itself which is about personal content, or deals with non economic, non energy issues. Sometimes diary discussions go on deal with other kinds of issues from those central to the diarist's concerns. That's not evidence of "hostility" but of the simple fact that people get interested in a variety of issues - though that may annoy some writers of diaries and assumed by them to be motivated by "hostilty". Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
I agree with Helen. There are topics that others might be interested in which get jumped on by people who feel the need to nay-say, very sternly so.
I agree with Helen. In some of those cases, it would be best if they just stayed away. But instead of the critical ones censoring themselves, the writers self-censor.
Notwithstanding, I think that a partial answer might be to figure a way to bring interesting Open Topic threads to the attention of those who only read the Salon. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
Indeed, but not for anything I wrote in my somewhat personal travel diaries, for example. The only thing which fits your description is the "jumping on" by the one doing the complaining here. But I still maintain that nobody, as far as I'm aware, expressed "hostility", certainly not to the personal content of a diary, while discussions may have to led to the expression of scepticism (not the same as "hostility") about some of the more general issues raised. In Wales did a personal diary about "woo woo" stuff (her borrowed label) and seemed happy with the wide-ranging discussion. The Lasthorseman included some pretty far out stuff in his recent diary, but because it was a very personal diary everybody tip-toed around that, including me, even when Gianne referred me back to it.
I agree with afew, there shouldn't be little ghettoes for believers and sceptics, etc. but open discussion about the general issues raised in any diary. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
When responding to someone who says, "I feel this way," an immediate response along the lines of, "Where's your evidence? Are you sure you're not making this up?" comes across as hostile.
Helen: "...we have demonstrated time after time that there is a hostility towards them".
But is it worth my pointing out the difference?
Don't you think it might be better to take a lighter, more conciliatory tone? There are many things wrong with ET and many things right. ET is not one-size-fits-all. Accept diversity, me duck ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
Where do I send the flowers? Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
upset in some way because of their perceptions - which to them are real, and thus the so called evidence that you call for is irrelevant to them
Even those in minority groups who sometiimes feel very offended recognise that claims that one feels offended do not settle matters:
House of Lords: What I wondered is whether the Sikh community have got experience of reporting incidents to the police which they think constitute good reasons for bringing a case and for being confident that a conviction will occur and still finding that the police are not taking action, or that the police cannot get the cases past the Crown Prosecution Service. (Dr Singh) No, we do not have evidence of that ... While I say the blasphemy laws should go, they seem to be too dated, there should be something similar which allows freedom of discussion, real discussion, which is so important we should get behind the superficial niceness of dialogue to real discussion because a lot of things that we say are religious are really cultural things that should have gone years ago. ... but the tests are the hurt it causes. Lord Avebury 527. You get differences in the perception of what could be -- (Dr Singh) But then, against that we must have the second, it must be offensive. People could, of course, say that anything is offensive, you should not say this or you should not say that, but there should be a second test of the real damage done as well. It should not be just a cursory statement that "I feel offended by this". There should be a quantification of the damage that is alleged to have been caused. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldrelof/95/2112703.htm
House of Lords:
What I wondered is whether the Sikh community have got experience of reporting incidents to the police which they think constitute good reasons for bringing a case and for being confident that a conviction will occur and still finding that the police are not taking action, or that the police cannot get the cases past the Crown Prosecution Service.
(Dr Singh) No, we do not have evidence of that
...
While I say the blasphemy laws should go, they seem to be too dated, there should be something similar which allows freedom of discussion, real discussion, which is so important we should get behind the superficial niceness of dialogue to real discussion because a lot of things that we say are religious are really cultural things that should have gone years ago. ...
but the tests are the hurt it causes.
Lord Avebury
527. You get differences in the perception of what could be --
(Dr Singh) But then, against that we must have the second, it must be offensive. People could, of course, say that anything is offensive, you should not say this or you should not say that, but there should be a second test of the real damage done as well. It should not be just a cursory statement that "I feel offended by this". There should be a quantification of the damage that is alleged to have been caused.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldrelof/95/2112703.htm
ET is not one-size-fits-all. Accept diversity, me duck ;-)
I think that's what he's defending:
afew: The community isn't organized around separate clubs with non-club-members excluded, and diarists don't get to choose who joins in the discussion. That's how this place has functioned up to now, and that's what people are, understandably enough, used to.
The community isn't organized around separate clubs with non-club-members excluded, and diarists don't get to choose who joins in the discussion. That's how this place has functioned up to now, and that's what people are, understandably enough, used to.
I suggest you study afew's response too. I wouldn't quite agree with him that "hostility" has been expressed towards "spiritual" diaries, but rather scepticism about some of the claims of those writing about "spiritual" matters. I'm pretty sceptical about some approaches to the "spiritual" but I read with interest this book some years ago:
In this challenging series of dialogues with nineteen artists, writers, philosophers and critics, art critic Suzi Gablik addresses these and other central questions about the meaning and future of art in an age of accelerating social change and spiritual uncertainty. In conversations that are by turns intense, personal, philosophical, intimate and poignant ... Thomas Moore, author of Care of the Soul and archetypal psychologist James Hillman show how art's present crisis of meaning is tied to the broader context of our contemporary social and spiritual crises.
And what do you know, I share Obama's mum's liking for this TV series:
One of Ann's favorite spiritual texts was "Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth," a set of PBS interviews with Bill Moyers that traces the common themes of religion and mythology, http://www.jcf.org/new/index.php
http://www.jcf.org/new/index.php
So there's certainly no hostility on my part even to the spiritual - per se. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Now you say "other sorts of diaries". You can't be talking about political diaries, you currently hold the two top spots in the rec list with political subjects. I don't think you're talking about personal-experience diaries either, since there have been many of them on ET, always well received, including a fine list of your own. So far from being absent on ET, personal-experience diaries are (and always have been) a feature of ET.
So I can only think you mean diaries about spirituality. Yes, they incur some hostility from those who don't believe in a spiritual plane. The hostility works both ways, however. If I were to write a diary saying what I think of spirituality, I guarantee it would set off a storm. Which is why I don't write it. These are issues that divide us, and I think they are not susceptible of rational discussion on a forum like this in such a way that we might reach agreement, or even an empathetic understanding of the other's position.
What you are suggesting, it seems to me, is that those who don't agree with "spiritual" discourse should stay out of such diaries. So you'd accept as reasonable that those people could have their own diaries of "anti-spiritual" discourse, from which the "pro-spiritual" should stay out. But putting up a diary here means accepting comments from other members (within limits concerning excessive language, insults, etc). The community isn't organized around separate clubs with non-club-members excluded, and diarists don't get to choose who joins in the discussion. That's how this place has functioned up to now, and that's what people are, understandably enough, used to.
What does "such things" refer to, which, allegedly, some people "don't like" ? Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
