velvetpage | I got curious.

I got curious.

I just went back to that blog by the author of the Prairie Muffin Manifesto, to see if she'd posted my comment about her lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. (Nutshell version: the ability of the Ancient Greeks to construct complex tools disproved evolution, because ancient man shouldn't have been smart enough. My response: the ancient Greeks were modern humans in the physiological sense, and you'd have to go back about forty thousand years further to find humans who were less evolved than us.)

Her response, in the next entry: "I have a bunch of comments sitting in moderation which I am not going to post. They are all from people who don’t fit into the Prairie Muffin demographic and who want to challenge some of the recent posts I’ve made. Some have made some good points which would make an interesting discussion, but I haven’t got time to open up any more cans of worms and act as playground monitor or engage in an extended debate. So I’m sorry if you wrote but didn’t get posted, but my time is limited and family comes first."

So, my comment is not posted because I don't fit in, I disagreed with her, and she's got time for lengthy posts but not for honest debate about her opinions. It's her blog, of course. She has the right to not engage if she so chooses. But to not even post it seems rather cowardly to me.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

*waves* hey...I'm that Vix person that keeps using Kianir's LJ to respond to your stuff...thought it was about time I just added you so I could do comments under my own name!

:) Welcome aboard!

Link? I'm intrigued by something called a "prarie muffin manifesto". :)

Some poeple are just not into debate. They just use their blogs as a platform for their views, but they have no interest in actually discussing them.

http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/PrairieMuffinManifesto.php

That's the link to the Prairie Muffin Manifesto.

http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/

That's the link to her blog.

OK. I was really turned off by that whole site, and I'll leave it at that. :)

I think that if someone wants to shout out their opinions in a public place, which blogs essentially are, then they should not be surprised to find their assertions challenged. Especially if their opinions are not backed up by any kind of solid reasoning.

It's perfectly okay to have opinions on stuff which are essentially unprovable, I suppose, which is one reason I don't get in the faces of religious people. I'm an atheist, I kind of get annoyed by most other atheists in such debates, but I digress...

I dunno... to me, someone stating beliefs at all is an invitation for debate. If you don't welcome debate, or have any desire to examine and defend your beliefs, then your beliefs are worth nothing and should be kept to yourself. The reason people like Prairie Muffin have such ridiculous beliefs in the first place is, I imagine, because they have made themselves above and immune to opposing ideas and reasoning. Personally, I welcome challenges to my beliefs and would not for a second consider challenges to be rude. Quite the opposite, in fact... I appreciate being given the chance to defend my beliefs and possibly learn something new.

There's no reason, that said, why debate should have to be impolite. Debating online is often problematic because it often seems more in-your-face than it actually is, at least in my experience. For example, while I disagree with many people in

canpolitik (where I met our lovely host and do a lot of my debating), I would be very happy to sit down and share a beer with almost every participant.

I'm the queen of the polite debate - I don't lower my standards of polite behaviour even when my opponent is swearing at me. I learned early the value of the moral high ground. :) In the comment in question, I don't think I even stated that I agreed with the evolutionists on that one - all I did was correct her mistaken impression that ancient = prehistoric = not-yet-homo sapien sapien. I think I pointed out that the author of the article she linked to was basing his work on that faulty premise, but that's it.

You're right about her self-isolation. It even has a basis in the Bible - Christians are to keep themselves pure from, among other things, harmful thoughts. If it makes you doubt your faith, it's clearly harmful, right? (No, I don't agree either, but that's her rationale.)

Not all communities are debate communities. I am guessing that she feels that, rather than being "cowardly", she was politely pretending she didn't hear someone who was crashing her party to pick a fight. I know you love to debate, but not everyone else does! Some people are just online to find friends who share their values.

Yeah, for people with values like that, it's not always easy to find others. I don't mean that nasty, I mean that respectfully, as I fit SOME of those prarie muffin ideals, and it's not always easy to be online and be like that -- especially as you can be the target of abuse, teasing, and trolling.

Of course so can anyone else...

I try not to debate in blogs and journals unless it is really welcomed. Sometimes I slip up, but for the most part it's like going to visit someone for coffee in their home and then telling them everything that is wrong with the coffee, the house, and their life.

That's just ME, though. And something that I work on. I wasn't always like that and I still have a long way to go. It's part of something I am working on, personally, and a bit more complex than the comment makes it sound. I think.

(I'm going to debate you - how ironic is that??)

A lot rests on the blog owner, too. I don't post provocative things in my blog unless I am willing for people to come in and debate. I've had several posts on politics, religion, and parenting run into 60 comments. Of course, I've deliberately gone out of my way to friend people who seem to love a good debate. And I've learned a LOT from my flist.

If a blogger doesn't want debate they can either A) say so up front, or B)ignore/delete anything they don't agree with. But what this gal did was a deliberate slap in the face to

velvetpage and anyone else who made a post that didn't get released. It smacks of playground politics to me.

Well I wonder if Mrs. Prarie Muffin (I almost typed MS but laughed and changed) honestly expects that her stuff is NOT provocative, given her audience? And is going in there to debate with her akin to going into the blog of someone who is homosexual and start telling them how they have it all wrong? Or how a Buddhist is wrong? Or someone who homeschools? Or bottlefeeds? Or anything? Really so much is up for debate out there, even if we don't think so.

Maybe by this woman mentioning she wasn't posting things is her way of doing A, saying so up front. That she hasn't had a need to do this in the past, but does now, so it is two things. Saying so up front AND ignoring/deleting what she doesn't agree with.

And it's kind of like a recent post of mine -- where I said flat out that there is one thing you can't change my mind on (in that particular post). There will be no changing the mind of this woman, I am pretty sure. Save the debates for those who actually will get something out of it and give something, too.

And for the record my lj is not totally debate free. I've posted stuff that has brought on debates. Sometimes. When I have the time. And the inclination. :P

I agree with everything you've said in this thread. My standard is that unless someone specifically says they welcome and enjoy debate on all issues, then unsolicited opposing arguments are equivalent to heckling. I think your analogy of coming to a bottlefeeding community to argue that breast is best is a perfect example. In my own journal, I occasionally ask for advice on particular topics, but if anyone charges in to argue with me on other topics, I just politely ignore them, unless they're aggressive about it, in which case I delete their comment and ban them.

I feel kind of sorry for the prairie muffins. There's a defensiveness about the manifesto that to me suggests they know everyone hates them for their beliefs, and they're trying to salvage what pride and mutual consolation they can.

Except that, in this case, I wasn't arguing. I wasn't even really interested in starting a debate, which is why it took me more than a month to go back and look. I just offered a fact for her consideration, and I did so politely.

You've occasionally told me that you'd rather not debate such-and-such, and I respect that. I respect her desire not to debate. But as far as I know, you've always left the comments up for others to see, and I appreciate that, too.

I should point out that I didn't say a single word about whether I agreed or disagreed with her opinion, nor did I (or would I) be rude in how I presented myself. I just pointed out, politely, that evolutionary theory did not, in fact, say what she was saying it did, and why. I was inviting debate, obviously, but I was attempting to do so politely. I wouldn't have called it "picking a fight," though perhaps that's just me not being honest with myself about my motives.

I can see your point, though.

You are probably the most polite debater on the internet!

She's just not open to it, and is a tad defensive, perhaps because maybe you struck a chord? Sometimes when people find some truth in what an opposing viewpoint brings to the table, they want to throw it all out.

I hope I struck a chord, or at least made her do a bit more research. There was a time when I was much, much more conservatively Christian than I am now. It took years of little things like that, presented in non-threatening ways, to truly convince me - but then, I was young and somewhat open to being convinced, because my identity was in flux already and was not dependent on believing as I did. Her identity is so deeply intertwined with her beliefs that she'd be unlikely to admit she had changed, even if she did - and she'd resist that change with all the power of her being.

It sounds as if her beliefs also include beliefs about what other people believe.

I wouldn't think you meant to pick a fight either - because I know you well enough to know you aren't a belligerent person. My point was how it must seem to her, when she is no doubt bombarded by hundreds of comments like yours that come from total strangers, and of varying levels of politeness. In her shoes, I wouldn't spend time trying to work out which ones were kindly meant and which ones were attacks on my most deeply cherished values - I'd just ignore the whole lot of them, which seems to be exactly what she's doing.

In response to your comment above about my journal, in fact, I have recently deleted quite a few attempts at debate that I felt were unkindly meant - but none of them were yours! Don't you ever delete unwelcome comments in your breast & bottle community? Or, wouldn't you start, if people kept coming there to tell you that you were bottlefeeding Claire because you didn't understand the facts about breastfeeding well enough?

I never have, but if they were clearly unkind attacks, I would consider it. More likely, though, I would simply revoke the person's membership in the community and freeze the thread. I intensely dislike deleting comments from other people.

I see your point, though.

I saw Prairie Muffin and for some reason the term made me think of cow pie.

Ha! Me too!

I'm so glad it wasn't just me! :-D

Prairie muffins (or meadow muffins): a rural term for cow manure. Why on earth would someone actually call themselves that? Wow, low self esteem! :)

It is very sad, not to mention they are working on reversing the Women's Movement with their whole line of thinking. What a head trip! Ugh!

It really wasn't just you.

Actually, the comparison has been suggested every time they come up in the

dark_christian community. She admits it herself, and claims that a certain amount of satirical humour is reasonable.

Precisely!!! I actually expressed it as "My first mental image upon hearing the term 'Prairie Muffin' is a pile of shit." Buffalo chips are good to make fire... *L*

That manifesto bothers me - big time. And you know me I am a lot more conservative than you are. That manifesto really really bothers me. I am very irked and perplexed by it.

Oh and just to be clear - the userpic was for them not you.

I felt that way too. I am also extremely conservative, but that wholew thing rubbed me the wrong way. It came off as...smug. Lots of stuff about subimtting to husband, God, family, and everything else you can think of, but coming across as very self-satisfied for doing so.

I liked the bit about how prairie muffins don't nag their husbands for things that fall under the heading of "boys will be boys," but at the same time, when monthly trials come around, they're not supposed to give in to them. Um, double standard, anyone? Of course, the whole thing is one big double standard.

And you're right - smug is a good word for it.

At least it's a reasonable double standard. Not expecting other people to live up to the standards she does seems reasonable.

A person who expects certain behavior from other people but doesn't do the same or better is using an unreasonable double standard.

Um, that last was me.

I think what bothers me about it is that it's so very militant in its submissiveness. It's one thing to believe that women should submit to their husbands, and it's another to shout from the rooftops of the internet (holy mixed metaphors, batman!) that this is what submission looks like, so LOOK AT IT, DARNIT!

Fiercely submissive! That made me giggle. I don't think truly submissive women describe themselves as fierce.

Why, we're so submissive, sometimes we have to chase our husbands with rolling pins until those big softies act appropriately macho towards us!

One person pointed out that it's like a dom/sub sex game, except without the safe word for the sub. And that bothered THEM a great deal.

Taking extreme pride in one's submissiveness, one might say? I'll be honest - I haven't looked at that site, due to the name and the myriad of comments here - it's not a llama I really need to involve myself in. But dang, it sounds cootie-laden and I already have little boy cooties. I don't need religious weirdo cooties.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I got curious.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

I blame my irreverence on sickness...

Re: I blame my irreverence on sickness...- but I am not sick

Re: I blame my irreverence on sickness...- but I am not sick

Re: I blame my irreverence on sickness...- but I am not sick

Re: I blame my irreverence on sickness...- but I am not sick

Re: I blame my irreverence on sickness...- but I am not sick

Re: I blame my irreverence on sickness...

Re: I blame my irreverence on sickness...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject