Why I Hate Sue
Feb. 8th, 2003 07:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackofallgeeks(I would apologize before-hand to anyone who knows Sue personally. It's not my nature to believe anyone could possibly be a completely abhorrent person, and so it is my inclination to believe that there is some good in Sue. However, every indication I have received so far points to a person whom is inconsiderate, unhappy, and faithless -- in God or Man. Regardless of what else might lie beneath the surface, I have been shown someone in whom I will invest no effort. There may be a good person in Sue, and that's all well. I simply have no interest in finding out.)
(I would further like to say I don't like who this makes me out to be. I don't enjoy being angry. I don't enjoy feeling the way I do about this person. That's the whole point of the post -- she brings out the worst in me and I can't stand it. I closed this post for a while because I don't like what it says. I may do so again. But at the same time, for the sake of honesty and friendship, I feel I should share my thoughts and emotions with you guys.)
I like to think it's rather common knowledge that I don't get angry easily. I like to think I exhibit a measure of patience and self-control, and that I don't let the little things bother me. Certainly, there are things you can do to bring out my temper -- we'll say "don't mess with my friends" and leave it at that -- and yes, busting wholes through doors and walls does seem to run in the family. But for the most part, I imagine I have an even temper and a reasonable nature.
One thing that gets on my nerves is ignorance -- not academics ignorance, but ignorance as such. The more ignorant the act, the more it irks me, and the less I like it. It is only reasonable that there could be something so ignorant that I simply can not tolerate it -- that there is, theoretically something that could be so blindly ignorant that it's very presence would drive me to anger.
To an extent, I think Sue is just such an ignorant thing.
If you're reading this, you know the story -- Leslie posts on an insensitive Biology teacher and starts a discussion on Abortion. Sue pokes her head in and masterfully presents the Pro-Choice side of the Argument. I still think it was a very intelligent, very thought-out explanation, and at the time had hoped I would be able to have an intelligent conversation with someone from the Other Side. I'm a great fan of dialogue, debate, and discussion, and my personal philosophy tends to be, "I believe I'm right - prove me wrong."
With this in mind, I endeavored to present my side of the case just as intelligently. I confess, my beliefs are based in my faith, but only because I am based in my faith. Even this being conceded, I don't quite follow how Faith necessarily invalidates a reasonable argument - we have faith in things other than God, and no one questions it. Regardless, I made sure to present myself without recourse to morality -- aside from my belief that Man should work to better himself, though that's as much philosophic as religious.
Instead of being met by an intelligent argument against my case, I was attacked in person - my argument was unsound because I am a man, because I have faith, and because I am a virgin. I was told I was irrational, inexperienced, and out of touch with my own humanity.
This I could deal with -- I was disappointed that such a seemingly intelligent person could be incapable of a contested discussion, and that she would so quickly drop to attacking me instead of my argument. But at this point it was only mild ignorance directed at me. I was irked.
Then our Friend NaughtJennifer stepped up to the plate and tried to make an argument. I think NJ did a reasonable job and kept things civil, yet once again Sue simply shot NJ down, attacking the character, laughing at another persons beliefs per se, and exhibiting, more or less, cold, predatory contempt for someone who would have the audacity to disagree with her.
Now the ignorance was directed at a friend, and seemed more blatant to me. Sue wasn't interested in discussing anything -- if you didn't agree with her, something about you made you unfit to argue. And if you agreed with her, there was no need to argue. I was angered.
But here's the hilarious thing -- Sue PROVED a point I'd made earlier. NJ and I have near-identical arguments, but NJ was pitied where as I was scorned, simply because Sue saw a difference between a Man arguing the point and a woman arguing the same. But it gets better -- forgive me, NJ, for spoiling the ruse, and I ask those here keep the secret, but she's my brother! I would argue (no offense) that NJ is less of a girl than I am but since 'Steve' is a decidedly masculine name....
More ignorance, more barely veiled contempt. I was enraged.
Leslie asked for civility, but I'll say right now that whoever posted that anonymous reply wrote exactly what I was thinking. Sue is as ignorant as the people she claims to oppose - religious fanatics and what not - and just as damnably close-minded. Some may be closed to change, as she said, but she and others like her are closed to the fact that they could possibly be wrong. She's a hypocrite full of bile and contempt, who's only interested in tearing down those who disagree with her and swaying those weaker than her to her side. She may be knowledgeable, but I don't feel she knows very much at all.
The worst part of it is that Sue makes me so angry by her words that I can think of nothing but how little I respect her as a person. And it is for that reason, the fact that she can drag me so low into the pit, that I hate her.
illegitimi non carborundum
(I would further like to say I don't like who this makes me out to be. I don't enjoy being angry. I don't enjoy feeling the way I do about this person. That's the whole point of the post -- she brings out the worst in me and I can't stand it. I closed this post for a while because I don't like what it says. I may do so again. But at the same time, for the sake of honesty and friendship, I feel I should share my thoughts and emotions with you guys.)
I like to think it's rather common knowledge that I don't get angry easily. I like to think I exhibit a measure of patience and self-control, and that I don't let the little things bother me. Certainly, there are things you can do to bring out my temper -- we'll say "don't mess with my friends" and leave it at that -- and yes, busting wholes through doors and walls does seem to run in the family. But for the most part, I imagine I have an even temper and a reasonable nature.
One thing that gets on my nerves is ignorance -- not academics ignorance, but ignorance as such. The more ignorant the act, the more it irks me, and the less I like it. It is only reasonable that there could be something so ignorant that I simply can not tolerate it -- that there is, theoretically something that could be so blindly ignorant that it's very presence would drive me to anger.
To an extent, I think Sue is just such an ignorant thing.
If you're reading this, you know the story -- Leslie posts on an insensitive Biology teacher and starts a discussion on Abortion. Sue pokes her head in and masterfully presents the Pro-Choice side of the Argument. I still think it was a very intelligent, very thought-out explanation, and at the time had hoped I would be able to have an intelligent conversation with someone from the Other Side. I'm a great fan of dialogue, debate, and discussion, and my personal philosophy tends to be, "I believe I'm right - prove me wrong."
With this in mind, I endeavored to present my side of the case just as intelligently. I confess, my beliefs are based in my faith, but only because I am based in my faith. Even this being conceded, I don't quite follow how Faith necessarily invalidates a reasonable argument - we have faith in things other than God, and no one questions it. Regardless, I made sure to present myself without recourse to morality -- aside from my belief that Man should work to better himself, though that's as much philosophic as religious.
Instead of being met by an intelligent argument against my case, I was attacked in person - my argument was unsound because I am a man, because I have faith, and because I am a virgin. I was told I was irrational, inexperienced, and out of touch with my own humanity.
This I could deal with -- I was disappointed that such a seemingly intelligent person could be incapable of a contested discussion, and that she would so quickly drop to attacking me instead of my argument. But at this point it was only mild ignorance directed at me. I was irked.
Then our Friend NaughtJennifer stepped up to the plate and tried to make an argument. I think NJ did a reasonable job and kept things civil, yet once again Sue simply shot NJ down, attacking the character, laughing at another persons beliefs per se, and exhibiting, more or less, cold, predatory contempt for someone who would have the audacity to disagree with her.
Now the ignorance was directed at a friend, and seemed more blatant to me. Sue wasn't interested in discussing anything -- if you didn't agree with her, something about you made you unfit to argue. And if you agreed with her, there was no need to argue. I was angered.
But here's the hilarious thing -- Sue PROVED a point I'd made earlier. NJ and I have near-identical arguments, but NJ was pitied where as I was scorned, simply because Sue saw a difference between a Man arguing the point and a woman arguing the same. But it gets better -- forgive me, NJ, for spoiling the ruse, and I ask those here keep the secret, but she's my brother! I would argue (no offense) that NJ is less of a girl than I am but since 'Steve' is a decidedly masculine name....
More ignorance, more barely veiled contempt. I was enraged.
Leslie asked for civility, but I'll say right now that whoever posted that anonymous reply wrote exactly what I was thinking. Sue is as ignorant as the people she claims to oppose - religious fanatics and what not - and just as damnably close-minded. Some may be closed to change, as she said, but she and others like her are closed to the fact that they could possibly be wrong. She's a hypocrite full of bile and contempt, who's only interested in tearing down those who disagree with her and swaying those weaker than her to her side. She may be knowledgeable, but I don't feel she knows very much at all.
The worst part of it is that Sue makes me so angry by her words that I can think of nothing but how little I respect her as a person. And it is for that reason, the fact that she can drag me so low into the pit, that I hate her.
illegitimi non carborundum
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-02-08 05:16 pm (UTC)::tears up:: I hate all of this.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-08 05:22 pm (UTC)Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to let you see this, but I would rather not cut you out of my inner thoughts. You're a dear friend of mine, and keeping the relationship healthy requires open communication.
Please, don't be upset.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-08 05:34 pm (UTC)I'm sorry for that...I'm sorry for you. I wish things hadn't gone this way.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-08 05:41 pm (UTC)I have half a mind to close this post, due to the fact that I'm afraid it presents me as someone I don't want to be.
Even still...
no subject
Date: 2003-02-09 08:03 am (UTC)Yeah.
I usually don't comment on such things, seeing as I've already proclaimed the majority of people ignorant and just don't bother with them. And we all know my so-far-left-i'm-right policy on abortion. But since Andrew is upset.. and that is rare.. I felt the need.
Here's my take (and you know I'm giving you my straight up opinion):
1. Sue is a peon.
2. Sue is a man hating peon.
3. Sue evidently likes to talk big to cover up some inferiority complex probably centred on males.
4. Sue has a point when she makes an issue of your faith, male perspective and lack of experience. Not to say that these things are central to the argument, but they do affect how you think and what you think. And even if you were pro-choice, it would STILL affect how you think and what you think. But its there.
5. I know you don't care about academic ignorance, but when people read your post on ignorance-bashing and they see all the spelling errors.. it makes you look like the uninformed party. Spell check. Then bash supidity.
Don't be upset Andrew. The world is full of stupid people. Someday I will systematically be rid of them in my Genocidal Extermination and Neutralization of Idiots Undermining Society (Project GENIUS for short)
I would love for Sue to come have a chat with me. I am not male, faithful, or inexperienced and I can argue both sides.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-09 09:22 am (UTC)4) You're right that who I am affects how I think and what opinions I form. At the same time, I feel I can back my opinions up with some amount of fact, and at the very least who I am does not invalidate my argument. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, even to the point that we reach an impasse and neither of us can convince the other. What I have a problem with is the fact that she (presumably) assumed certain things about me, stuck me in a pigeon hole, and refused to acknowledge my argument. That and the fact that she concluded that I blame women for abortions, when my stand is quite the opposite.
5) Right, spelling is our friend. ^_^;; I'm working on it, really -- but the client I have doesn't support spell checking. >_< I can spell alot better than I used to (which necessarily tells you more about how I USED to spell than how I spell now). Point taken, though.
Thanks, Nifer, for commenting and stuff. ^_^;;
You're always good for an objective look at things.
Or something.