BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

The Instant Messaging Thread

  
 
Princess
17:04 / 16.01.07
Do you ever have discussions online and wonder "am I making a pig's ear of this" or "is Mindy really as desperate for my love juice as this MSN conversation suggests"?.

Well, worry no more. Barbelith will save you. Simply copy/paste your conversation here and people cleverer than you will explain what has happenend.

OK. MY first problem is this:


Al says:
hello hello
Princess Swashbuckling says:
hey
Al says:
how are you
Al says:
do you have any new pictures for me
Al says:
how's the wicca going too
Princess Swashbuckling says:

Princess Swashbuckling says:
NOt a wiccan.
Princess Swashbuckling says:
But the witchcraft is going fine.
Al says:
i thought you were
Al says:
oh
Al says:
difference being
Princess Swashbuckling says:
wicca is a very specific polytheistic religion started by Gerald Gardener in the 40s, it often contains witchcraft
Princess Swashbuckling says:
witchcraft is just witchcraft
Al says:
ah so Wiccans believe in multiple Gods
Al says:
witchcraft is.. atheist?
Princess Swashbuckling says:
oops, I meant duotheistic
Princess Swashbuckling says:
they have one god and one goddess
Princess Swashbuckling says:
witchcraft isn't a belief. It's a practice. Like plumbing or poetry. So some witches hav a ton of gods, some only have one, and some have none.
Princess Swashbuckling says:
lol. Don't worry about it. It's the kind of thing you probably don't have to know unless you already know it.
Princess Swashbuckling says:
Then only pics I've got of me are on my gaydar. green_hanky
Al says:
and you have none?
Al says:
how can you believe in witchcraft and a supernatural realm and no God
Princess Swashbuckling says:
well, I've a got a few
Princess Swashbuckling says:
focusing fairly heavily on Eris.
Princess Swashbuckling says:
but some witches don't believe that "magic" is supernatural at all
Princess Swashbuckling says:
they explain it with psychology
Princess Swashbuckling says:
which makes sense I suppose
Princess Swashbuckling says:
not my cup of tea, but it makes sense
Al says:
sorry i think i missed a lot of your response, so excuse me if i asked a redundant question. also i do have a picture to send if you want it
Al says:
Eris sounds.. interesting, if not oriental
Princess Swashbuckling says:
lol, she's a minor greek goddess
Al says:
however do you actually think you can justify the existence of a God?
Al says:
i mean and if so, how. what does she do, what is her involvement
Princess Swashbuckling says:
can't justify it at all. it's completely illogical.
Princess Swashbuckling says:
as to what she is, well she's strife and chaos and change
Princess Swashbuckling says:
and her involvment is that she actually is those things
Princess Swashbuckling says:
so if something changes, she is that change
Al says:
hmm
Al says:
how about politics
Al says:
who do you vote for
Al says:
random i know
Princess Swashbuckling says:
never conservative
Princess Swashbuckling says:
i like the "idea" of labour but I'm generally dissapointed by the result
Al says:
why never conservative
Princess Swashbuckling says:
I don't like the ethos behind it. Nothing in life should be conservative, it should be vast and changing and challenging.
Princess Swashbuckling says:
Conservative boils down to "lets keep these social institutions in place just for the sake of it"
Princess Swashbuckling says:
and I'm against that
Al says:
yes but they're institutions that have proven to work. like, would you really want to rid the NHS? of the institution of marriage? the monarch or the general set up of family.. or education in its current form of which you're apart of
Al says:
i think you can have a modern conservative that sticks with what works but wants to change that which needs.. i.e. neo conservatives recognise gay/lesbians as family set up
Princess Swashbuckling says:
marriage needs a massive shakeup and cahnge around. The monarch I can take or leave. The general set-up of the family I don't like at all and academic education is rubbish.
Al says:
and what would you suggest
Al says:
for example what's wrong with marriag
Al says:
e
Princess Swashbuckling says:
, it's the question I always ask people when they rant. How awful to have it turned back on me.
Princess Swashbuckling says:
Well, I think marriage/family systems at the moment take away choice.
Al says:
how so
Princess Swashbuckling says:
WHy can't a person ahve three parents.
Al says:
because i think two parents has proven to work and stand the test of time. can you imagine a relationship between three people bringing up children
Princess Swashbuckling says:
why does a parent have to be mommy or daddy. WHy can't there be some transgendered name too?
Al says:
and then there's biology
Al says:
one mum one dad
Princess Swashbuckling says:
biology is neither a reason or an excuse. Lions eat the young of their rivals, but I don't see it being taught in schools
Princess Swashbuckling says:
and, tbh, just because something ahs been around a long time doesn't mean that it's not worth trying somethng new
Al says:
well the fact a mother and father are the biological parents of a children naturally suggests they are best suited to bring up thier child
Al says:
how can you suggest you would be ok if you went home and your mother was not there but some other random woman who say, lived with her transgendered partner, and told you they would raise you
Al says:
surely that is absurd
Princess Swashbuckling says:
how so. How does the prescence of similar genetic material suggest any ability to parent?

Biology has lots of fuck ups, like the way our gullet and our wind-pipe cross causing choking. Just because evolution stumbled blindly down some alley doesn't mean we ahve to follow.
Princess Swashbuckling says:
you assume I dont.
Princess Swashbuckling says:
And why would it be absurd? What about hypothetical non-heteronormative parents makes them worse carers?
Al says:
i'm sorry but i'm not having this conversation, it simply defies rational logic.
Princess Swashbuckling says:
how?
Al says:
you just suggested that a mother is not best suited to raise her child. how can i possibly have a conversation with someone who would suggest someone other than a mother raise her child, or at least be given the naturally, biologically accorded chance to
Princess Swashbuckling says:
Well, for a start I didn't say she shouldn't be given a chance. I haven't questioned the right of a mother to raise her child.
Princess Swashbuckling says:
for two, even if I have, the whole point of conversation is to discuss things. If I did have a view that radically different from yours then rather than saying "nahnahnah I'm not having this discussion" maybe it would be more healthy and more enlightening to find out why I think that
Princess Swashbuckling says:
You know, step outside your comfort zone.
Al says:
well there is stepping outside of one's comfot zone as you say, and then there is having a conversation where all good and rational assumptions are disregarded.. however i'm not intending to show disdain just... a little surprise at what you're saying, all of which remains somewhat unclear
Al says:
i can see its unorthadox though
Princess Swashbuckling says:
"all good and rational assumptions" meaning your assumptions then?
Al says:
well no, commonsensical assumptions to be terse. i.e. about how to raise children.. well commonsensical assumptions to someone who say, lives in a western country and has had some relative education
Princess Swashbuckling says:
well I live in a western country
Princess Swashbuckling says:
and I'm educated
Princess Swashbuckling says:
and there are whole academic disciplines devoted to what I'm talking about
Al says:
and yet you feel it appropriate for three people to raise one child
Princess Swashbuckling says:
yes, yes I do
Princess Swashbuckling says:
why wouldn't it be. What damage would it do the child? How would they miss out compared to children raised orthodoxly?
Al says:
because a loving couple having to share responsibility of their child would create problems
Princess Swashbuckling says:
so does a loving couple not sharing responsibility. And I'm not talking about a couple + 1. I'm talking about a threeway relationship.
Princess Swashbuckling says:
or not, actually
Al says:
you must be joking
Princess Swashbuckling says:
any arrangement that people find working for them
Al says:
a threeway relationship
Princess Swashbuckling says:
why is that more ridiculous than a two-way relationship?
Al says:
because it defies biology. two couples, made for procreation and apt in raising a child. a man cannot live with two women and have a happy and contented relationship, the notion is absurd
Al says:
its simply not feesable
Princess Swashbuckling says:
um, ok
Princess Swashbuckling says:
well we'll ignore all the polyandrous and polygamous societies in human history then shall we?
Princess Swashbuckling says:
and what biology does it defy?
Al says:
to put it simply, i would not be in a relationship with Two men
Princess Swashbuckling says:
maybe you wouldn't. But we're not talking about you. We're talking about the whole of the country. And I can't see a reason why a loving group of three, four, or twenty five people shouldnt be able to marry and have kids
Princess Swashbuckling says:
anyway, gtg, I'm late for the pub
Princess Swashbuckling says:
nice talking
Princess Swashbuckling says:
xx


Then I went to the pub. Here are my questions:

1) Is my argument style ok? Are my points relevant and useful?

2)Was my description of Wicca\Witchraft\Theism ok?

3)Am I right to not like this man?
 
 
Ticker
17:17 / 16.01.07
that was the best 5 minutes of reading I've done all day. GOOD JOB!!!

I do think it's an epic use of text but, you know fuck it. I do think the conversation is wide sprawling enough to warrant a live in person discussion if possible before judging. But yeah the other party's party line on the raising of sprog is enough to make me question how much any conversation is going to change their POV. Pretty hard line about it in text form, which is why a live verbal chat may reveal some wiggle room.

Gawd knows my mother wasn't fit to raise me simply because she birthed me and the challenge of doing so was brutal. I wish she had the option of being helped by whatever good hearted patient folk wanted to step up out of love.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:36 / 16.01.07
Dude. Even BEFORE I got to the "raising of children" part I disliked the guy. Conservatism will save the NHS? Is that what was being implied there? Cos that's just crazy talk.
 
 
petunia
18:12 / 16.01.07
I like the guy.

I think if you're going to be wrong, you should be utterly incapable of even cosidering the potential that another opinion is correct. That's the proper way of doing idiocy.

I feel a warm feeling when i consider this person. Like humanity has gone astray somehow. Somewhere we lost the pride in being incorrect.

'Al' is here to give us our pride back.
 
 
Leigh Monster loses its cool
18:47 / 16.01.07
wow. did he really say oriental?
 
 
SMS
02:02 / 17.01.07
Your argument style was respectful & persuasive, although given the likely response of us folks at Barbelith, posting the thread here makes the respectful part at least a little less so. On persuasion, it appears that you were making points that Al has never even considered. Since persuasion takes time and requires two-way patience and willingness to change, that means he won't be supporting polyamory any time soon. He will be sustained in his belief that his positions are common sense by his peer group. They will ease his discomfort by expressing surprise if he mentions this chat to them, and they will assure him that normal people don't believe in polygamy at all. If they are especially right-wing and anti-gay, they will probably say that your position constitutes the bad end of the slippery slope upon which gay rights activists are trying to thrust society. But it sounds like they won't be quite that right-wing. Maybe some will. In any case, his complacency will be disturbed for a moment. That isn't much, but one hardly expects to change the world using instant messenger. Or maybe one does, I don't know. I don't.

I would say you are right to dislike him if you find that your relationship is unlikely to be mutually beneficial. Al is certainly more than his politics and his bumbling ignorance of wicca and witchcraft. But, as it happens, if he makes terrible beer, has no sense of humor, and frequently drives with his blinkers on, then he may have little to show for himself.

On the day of judgment.

So to speak.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:26 / 17.01.07
I think you're remarkably polite, considering. Having said which, I might have started by undermining his premise using familiar examples. So, for example, a chilminder is often called in to, in effect, co-parent. Grandparents often play a role in the raising of children. Is this illogical? Then, if a biological parent dies or leaves and the other parent remarries, that's a nuclear unit but without a biological connection. If a child is adopted by two parents, then neither parent is biologically connected to the parent. And so on.
 
 
jentacular dreams
11:35 / 17.01.07
I'd mostly agree with both SMS and haus there. Also to an extent it sounds like you shocked him so much he may have completely got the wrong end of the stick, especially:

Al says:
how can you suggest you would be ok if you went home and your mother was not there but some other random woman who say, lived with her transgendered partner, and told you they would raise you
Al says:
surely that is absurd
Princess Swashbuckling says:
how so. How does the prescence of similar genetic material suggest any ability to parent?

Wherein he seems to think (by reading your reply as an implicit agreement) that you are advocating some sort of instant nationwide wifeswap, where children and teenagers throughout the land come home from school to find they have new parents, varying wildly in number and gender. Which you obviously aren't. I think he is envisoning your views as a proposition for some sort of (in his eyes) sweeping social experiment, and feels that it's "too big a risk to take with children" or something of that ilk. Obviously he's not considered that the breakdown of family into it's current isolated (and often somewhat fragile) state is also something of an experiment, albeit an unintentional one.

As for whether you are right not to like him, I would ask you several questions. Are you happy to make a judgement on whether you like someone or not based on a single (?) conversation via messenger? Put it another way, if you found you liked someone on messenger, would you be shocked not to like them in 'real life'? Obviously you disagree with a lot of things he's said, and he with you. But were you to meet you might find him more receptive to your positions in real life than online. He may well not be fully comfortable with debating topics online (especially in real-time), possibly particularly so when it's unexpected and he's never (from my interpretation) heard the counter arguments before. Or, as has already been suggested, he may be a bit of a gorg. I'd suggest giving him another go, maybe via e-mail this time before you write him off completely.

On the family topic itself, I find myself quite interested. Anything you can recommend? I searched for a thread but the recent family values thread was the closest the 'lith(/dave/cosmic citadel of cosmic justice) seems to have.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:13 / 17.01.07
There's some discussion of parenting models in the Fathers 4 Justice thread in the Switchboard, I think, and the Monogamy thread in Head Shop may also be worth a dig.

More to the point, though, was his pic h0tt?
 
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
12:16 / 17.01.07
I wouldn't mind a bit more context as to why you were chatting with the guy in the first place.
 
 
Princess
12:57 / 17.01.07
I actually have no idea. He's been on my list for a few months now, but I actually have no idea who he is. I didn't get the picm, so I can't reveal his h0ttness.

As to not linking him, well, I'm not sure. The whole ignorance of Wicca etc wasn't really an issue. The majority of my friends are uncunts, and tbh, it can get pretty boring talking to people of the 'dar about religion when all I want is the money and the cock.

What did annoy me was the "I can't have this conversation" thing. If you are only going to communicate with people who share your opinion then why bother communicating at all?

That said, I do think people are right in that I did sorta throw the guy in at the deep end. If I'd gone for things like Haus suggested then maybe he wouldn't have found it quite so keraaazy and uneducatedly non-western.

Ah well, I'm sure we can talk more when I'm next online.
 
  
Add Your Reply