Are You Able To Critically Express Yourself Here?

by minimus 56 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hillary_step

  Minimus,

  Are You Able To Critically Express Yourself Here?

  Not always, but then I find that there are many social, business, and even on-line situations on non JW boards when I feel similarly, so it is not a big deal to me and certainly not a situation where I would drag into the issue past emotional baggage from my Jehovah's Witness days. Whenever I see a comparison to Kingdom Hall's, elders, disfellowshipping, marking etc. when curtailment of expression is demanded , such as is practiced on most non XJW discussion boards that I have seen, I tend to think that the person doing so is in danger of regressing to ?Theocratic think?.

  When was the last time you heard a JW in full preaching mode admit that they were wrong? I suspect very seldom. When was the last time you read an XJW admitting they were wrong in an argument? It does happen, but not regularly and certainly not easlily..

  Perhaps there is a correlation with this scenario. We were taught as JW's that we had the 'truth' that nobody else did and everybody else had inferior viewpoints to our own. This form of self-hypnosis filled us a sort of stunning arrogance that allowed the uneducated to feel that they had not just the ability but the right to patronize the educated with pseudo science and illogical theology. None of us, however we might like to feel about it, were immune from this conditioning.

  This habit, of always thinking that what we believe is right and handed to us by God is not an easy one to shake from our lives and frankly admitting to ignorance on a matter is not an easy thing for many of us XJW's to handle either.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  minimus

  Interesting response, Hillary. So do board members think the way they do because of JW conditioning or not? It seems you're saying, intially, that non-jw boards act in the same way because people are people. I'm confused by your point.
• 

  Sunnygal41

  LW, disagreeing without being disagreeable, to me, is that you wouldn't personally "attack" the other person..........do you think someone who posts a comment, then puts "ouch" at the end is not personally attacking? I do. Deliberately adding an inflammatory, personal comment would be................hmmmm, there was a thread a couple of days back that LR posted where he used the term "stupid beliefs". Alot of people jumped on him because he was calling their beliefs stupid. That is a deliberately personal attack. And, as clarification, Minimus was the one who first said "disagree without being disagreeable" in his first post. I was just agreeing. I'd be interested in what his "formula" is, also, although from reading his posts I can get a clear picture. Mine is above. Although I don't inhabit many discussion boards, I have been on enough to see how information and opinions can be shared without setting someone off by being deliberately cruel.....................

  Terri
• 

  kgfreeperson

  I think when people don't agree with us our initial response is to think they don't understand. When it is clear that they understand but don't agree it is difficult for us not to think they're just wrong-headed. I also think people who respond to something with hurt feelings, find it very hard not to see another's behavior as the cause of the bad feelings. (Please understand that I do not exempt myself from these human tendencies!) It seems to me (who has never been anything like a Witness) that being a Witness may exacerbate those very human tendencies.
• 

  Sunnygal41

  Okay, well, I just re-read Minimus' title for this whole post.......... and I guess I misunderstood it. I'm the one who got it wrong...........my bad..............I went into the post thinking discussion, forgetting the critically express part of his title............

  Terri Main Entry: crit·i·cism
  Pronunciation: 'kri-t&-"si-z&m
  Function: noun
  Date: 1607
  1 a : the act of criticizing usually unfavorably b : a critical observation or remark Main Entry: crit·i·cize
  Pronunciation: 'kri-t&-"sIz
  Function: verb
  Inflected Form(s): -cized; -ciz·ing
  Date: 1649
  intransitive senses
  : to act as a critic
  transitive senses
  1 : to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : EVALUATE
  2 : to find fault with : point out the faults of
  - crit·i·ciz·able /-"sI-z&-b&l/ adjective
  - crit·i·ciz·er noun
  synonyms CRITICIZE, REPREHEND, CENSURE, REPROBATE, CONDEMN, DENOUNCE mean to find fault with openly. CRITICIZE implies finding fault especially with methods or policies or intentions <criticized the police for using violence>. REPREHEND implies both criticism and severe rebuking <reprehends the self-centeredness of today's students>. CENSURE carries a strong suggestion of authority and of reprimanding <a Senator formally censured by his peers>. REPROBATE implies strong disapproval or firm refusal to sanction <reprobated his son's unconventional lifestyle>. CONDEMN usually suggests an unqualified and final unfavorable judgment <condemned the government's racial policies>. DENOUNCE adds to CONDEMN the implication of a public declaration <a pastoral letter denouncing abortion>.
• 

  hillary_step

  Minimus,

  The first part of my answer relates directly to your question. The second part dwells on what might be a reason as to why some cannot work within the confines of discussion board rules.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  minimus

  Some people LOVE to just disagree for the sake of argument. I generally do not enjoy communicating with such ones because all they're doing is playing a game. When 2 people know where the other is coming from and they both disagree on a matter, it is unfruitful to say, " I'm right because I'm smarter and you're not". You know--- saying or implying that the other person is stupid will set them off. I will do this if someone begins to verbally browbeat me. That's called self-defense. But I try not to keep it up because I know this is generally counter-productive......In political discussions, if you tell a liberal that Ronald Reagan was the best president ever,you can expect a heated rebuttal. There's no reason to respond with---"Then you must be the stupidest jerk in America!"....That's just not disagreeing---that's being disagreeable and a jerk, too.
• 

  little witch

  I stand corrected Sunny (sorry bout that)

  To use Logans thread as an example, Yes it was inflammatory. But I believe that is how he feels. In other words, I don't see anything wrong with saying something heated as long as the original poster stays involved in an effort to dialogue. Not to just piss people (that would be a troll, which I don't see him as being).

  His veiw was unpopular, and lots of people said so. I don't think anyone was wounded beyond repair, and frankly I enjoy a good debate.

  I have many times stepped on toes, had my feelings hurt, had to apologize for saying something hurtful. I have never been stifled here. If I say something untoward, people usually say "lw, chill" or "that was mean" etc....And life goes on.

  I am not being cruel, only honest (albeit at times I could choose my words more carefully).

  Personally I do not wish to be a part of a cookie cut discussion. Where everyone thinks exactly alike, and dissent is met with expulsion.

  That is why I like JWD, some of the folks I like best are the ones who are oddballs. Makes for interesting conversation. Now I am not defending "trolls'' or whatever. Someone who is cruel, or just looking to start trouble. That is another story, and I agree that we should not have to put up with that.
• 

  minimus

  "oddballs"....so that's why you like me, huh?
• 

  HoChiMin

  minimus,

  It depends what you are criticizing

  hillary_step

  Perhaps there is a correlation with this scenario. We were taught as JW's that we had the 'truth' that nobody else did and everybody else had inferior viewpoints to our own. This form of self-hypnosis filled us a sort of stunning arrogance that allowed the uneducated to feel that they had not just the ability but the right to patronize the educated with pseudo science and illogical theology. None of us, however we might like to feel about it, were immune from this conditioning.

  I used to be ashamed of this attitude. An elder could be functionally illiterate and have a superior air about himself if invited by a university as a guest speaker on JW beliefs. Little did he know he was there as a dog and pony show.

  HCM