I've seen this whole thing develop over the last few years, moving from thread to thread, and I don't think the response is proportional to the provocation.
I also don't see that any provocation justifies a childish, rude, and overemotional response. "She started it" is a child's argument. Many posts on SI provoke. Either we rise above provocation and maintain an element of reason and dignity in the face of what angers us, or we succumb and respond in kind, or in lower kind. If we do the latter, I don't see that we have any standing to criticize anyone else.
I've occasionally had cause to tell my children that I am less concerned with who started it than I am with who is going to end it. I've felt the same way observing any number of SI's personal disputes.
I have formed some judgments based on the posts I have seen on SI which is the only reference I have.
I have seen many judgements of X, and of other posters here, that are not supported by any posts made on SI. Remember when it was suggested, in a happy merry go round, that women who support abortion rights must do so because they are a bunch of sluts who want to make sure that their personal promiscuity would not burden them with a child?
Many times I have seen it suggested, sometimes quite blatantly, that because X does not accept the concepts of absolute or externally imposed morality, she must be devoid of a personal moral code, unfit as a parent or teacher, etc. I've seen the same argument directed at myself. I do not think that anything in the posting record would justify such conclusions or accusations. |
