?

Log in

No account? Create an account
curiosity

October 2017

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
anger management

Offensenticity!

I've recently decided to apply a standard to people taking offense. It isn't good enough for someone to just take offense at something. There has to be legitimate grounds for offense.

Because I try to be fair about these things the standard can't be just whether I would be offended. The standard I choose to apply is whether the offending person intended to offend (which can be difficult to prove) or if the offending words or actions are inherently offensive (Which depends on context. All meaning depends on context).

People can use neutral words as insults. "Man" and "woman" are not inherently offensive words. Calling a man a woman, or calling a woman a man is inherently offensive because you are implying that they are not what they are. Sometimes people can use a tone to make calling someone what they are an insult. The word "men" or "women", if said in the proper tone, can be insults that are justifiably offensive, even when they are used to correctly.

I recently got into a discussion on metaquotes when someone posted about stay-at-home-mothers being offended by the question "What do you do?" The question is not inherently offensive. I will grant that it can be offensive if asked in a derisive tone. But usually it is asked as a neutral conversation starter. People who take offense to neutral questions have a personal problem they need to work on. They are projecting their own insecurities.

Yesterday, I posted in the _wicca_ community about some of my experiences working with groups. I talked about how I am a Wiccan and I prefer to practice Wiccan ritual, and how it is nice to work with other Wiccans. The only comment I have received was from a woman who mentioned how she is not a "Neo-Wiccan" and how she was pleased to see how "Neo-Wiccans" work. I am offended. "Neo-Wiccan" is a term that is being propagated by Gardnerian and Alexandrian traditionalist to imply that other traditions are not "really" Wicca. I believe that it is inherently offensive because it is a political ploy to belittle other traditions. It is what Gus diZerega called an "enemy word" a word that is only used to describe others. It isn't just a question of "do I have the right to name myself" but of another group trying to use language to gain a political advantage. As a member of the group they are trying to disenfranchise I will fight them every time I hear it. Although I don't bother to go into their communities because that would just be a waste of my time and energy.

Comments

So which is a better counter to neowicca? "archaeowicca" or "paleowicca"?
Given those choices I would go with "Archaeo-Wicca". "Paleo Wicca" should refer to Wiccecræft as practiced in 5th to the beginning of the 12th centuries when the word "wicce/a" was first used.

But I prefer to just refer to the particular tradition.