Apologies are clearly in order

[crowdog66]

Apologies to those who were offended by my last post, and took the time to tell me so.

I do regret if anyone felt coerced, because that was certainly not my intention. Next time maybe I'll stay away from the "socially conscious" memes and just go for something light-hearted and meaningless. Safer ground all the way around.

Comments

[silverjackal.livejournal.com]

It's not the socially conscious part I objected to, or that you posted it. That's you're choice, and I certainly don't think badly of *you* for doing so. Are we clear? Good. :)

The meme itself, however, implied that if you didn't repost it you de facto did not believe in gay rights. That's incredibly pretentious, not to mean stupid, given it's a livejournal meme. What is reposting going to achieve? Really? Other than making the poster feel good, seeing that others support gay rights, it's pretty pointless. I support gay rights through my actions in the real world, not by posting a statement on my livejournal, and I'm certainly not going to be told what form that support should take, or that I'm somehow remiss for not propagating something that's essentially ineffectual blather. Hence my silence on the meme. Again, not a criticism of you in any way, shape or form!

[silverjackal.livejournal.com]

I meant "mention" instead of "mean". Please pardon the language malfunction!

[crowdog66.livejournal.com]

Thanks. :-) And I agree about the shortcomings of the meme itself.

[metisbutterfly.livejournal.com]

I personally think that folks need to calm down about this one. Didn't the meme say to ignore it if you wish? Then ignore it. Last i checked we still had freedom of speech, and it was hardly a meme that's harmful to others...yeesh.

[lenora-rose.livejournal.com]

Actually, the meme said, or implied so you couldn't miss it, that to ignore it meant you didn't support gay rights.

As for calming down - I am calm. Expressing an opinion that something is being done in a stupid manner isn't actually being shrill, or especially upset.

The strongest emotion I feel for whomever designed the meme - not for Laurie or anyone else who chose to follow it - is disappointment that they'd use a bad tactic on a good cause.

I only spoke because I think promoting discussion about "This is a bad tactic" is more useful than otherwise, and a better way to promote free speech all around than saying nothing. (I should note, too, that in other journals it did become a good viable multi-faceted discussion, about whether there was a way to phrase such a meme that wouldn't be seen as manipulative, about better ways to promote gay rights that's *fun* or at least light {As, to be fair, the meme was probably meant to be})

[jeffheikkinen.livejournal.com]

The exact words were "If you don't believe in gay rights,, then just ignore this". That is not a friendly invitation to ignore it if you wish; it is essentially an accusation that if you choose to ignore it you're a homophobe.

[crowdog66.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I probably should have edited that bit out, come to think of it...

[eastpath.livejournal.com]

No worries... *HUGS* :)

[elaryn.livejournal.com]

I, at least, was not offended. People are free to post memes (or not) as they choose, period. So are you. *hugs*

[lenora-rose.livejournal.com]

Laurie, I didn't feel offended at all, and I didn't feel coerced by *you*. I didn't feel as if you meant anything except the best of intentions; to express your own personal support for a good cause in what you thought was a relatively light way.

In fact, the last thing I'd ever want you to do was to keep quiet about your social conscience or socially conscious causes. Maybe by different means, but silence? NO.

The person who wrote the meme, on the other hand, I feel wrote it in a manipulative way, and could have written it otherwise. I also suspect this was not accidental or clueless, but deliberate writing, though I *am* willing to give the writer the benefit of the doubt. I'm also more than willing to give any individual poster of the meme full credit for their earnest beliefs, and to imagine they didn't think there was anything wrong with the wording of the meme or the idea behind it.

Just remember where I'm coming from: not only do I aspire to work with words for a living, but I read the online journals of dozens of people who are professional writers and editors and analyze word-use at the drop of a hat. Most of whom are also strongly political, and use these same abilities to dissect and destroy right-wing arguments, or false advertising, or sock-puppets, or to tell real grass-roots movements from the corporate funded fakes (aka astroturf).

What this means is that I'm usually in communities where comments like the one I left in your last post are de rigeur, and the posters in such places would not take offense if I made such an analysis, would indeed be inclined to jump right in and say, "Oh, yeah, I hadn't noticed that. But now that you mention it, this sentence ...". (In fact, I was quoting in part from some multi-post threads that did just that in a few places)

Er, in short, I forget that people in other communities sometimes look at analysis and critique as personal criticism, and feel as if it's them, not the words, I'm assailing.

Very much my bad, and please, please, don't think you did anything wrong, or feel you need to retreat to safer ground.

[crowdog66.livejournal.com]

Not your bad at all. And I agree with your points.