Czar, I have to use this as it's illustrative:
I missed that thread about the GB's death. Which one are you referring to? They are dropping like flies.
*giggle* See the problem Bradley? In the final analysis a dub could be offended by that sentence. Censorship has never ever been avoiding ever offending anyone - or if it has it's been a self-defeating aim as that goal is functionaly impossible (extrapolate Barnum's maxim).
Censorship is about avoiding "reasonable" people taking offence - a task as tricky as defining "reasonable".
Here's the thing: I get the impression you think I am being overly righteous or that I don't feel for the pain others have gone through on this board. Au contraire. I understand the indignation and pain of people here -- I have felt that pain and continue to suffer from it's effects from time to time, probably in ways I am not fully aware of.
All the same, I do believe that the sensationalism on this site is less than fully efficacious. I do believe that people make statements about the JWs which are unfair at best, downright nasty at worst. (For instance, the utterly disgraceful manner in which some poked fun at the recent death of a member of the GB.)
This is just it Bradley, and why I highlight "reasonable" above. I think it is quite reasonable for someone who's been in a cult that causes the death of members through their blood-transfusion policies (using the threat of ostracism to enforce it) to poke fun in such a manner. The GB have made and continue to support a decision that indicate (although they would see it reasonably) they do not hold human life dear - or at least hold their rules dearer. Quite frankly, for me, the demise of someone who thinks human life is cheap can be laughed at in good conscience as it reflects their own values.
Thus, you may feel you feel, but I don't feel the way you do nor do others. I'm more concerned about the welfare of those who are out and recovering than those who are still in, and if part of the recovery process is expressing anger, then why should that be compromised for the sake of people who've not had the courage to confront their doubts yet? You're putting (in my estimation) the sensibilities of cultists over the welfare of x-cultists.
Also, perhaps significantly, I remember making more or less exactly the same argument as you about "over the top gnashing and wailing" (as validatiing the Dubbie line and therefore to be avoided) in the late '90's when I was new to the online community and barely five years out of the cult.
I've changed my opinion (!) over time due to experience; there is a grain of truth in what you say, but it's washed away in the needs and rights of the recovering ones, and undermind by the utter self-defeating nature of allowing our x-cult's expectations to continue to deny us free expression.
Is that a "judgment call" on my part? Hell yes! I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Yes -- I do believe that my opinions on certain matters are better than other people's opinions. Otherwise, I would not have those opinions. You do the same. We all do. It's a fundamental part of life. We need to make judgment calls.
This is not the issue.
I take issue with you insinuating that I believe that some people are bad simply because of their behavior, though. I don't think anyone -- not even the most horrible killer -- is utterly and hopelessly bad. Actions, behaviors, attitudes -- they are what is wrong, not the person. I think that type of "judgmentalism" -- if you wish to call it that -- is fundamentally different from that of the JWs.
That being said -- yes, I think some here make outlandish and/or bitter comments which are unneccessary and harmful -- to themselves and others.
I utterly and wholeheartedly stand behind everything I have written in this thread.
I don't feel you think those people are 'bad' as in morally deficient, but you are still being critical of the VICTIM Bradley... and I simply feel you are complaining about gravity - something that is there and unavoidable.
See how you feel in 2008, eh?
Regards
