'Xian' - what's all that about then?

[Hairyloon]

You only posted that because you wanted to use an offensive term, didn't you?

 

Not at all. It is a perfect example of the point I wanted to illustrate. The term was in common usage without any hint of derogation for many years: I am sure you will recall the scene in Fawlty Towers.

 

I think the relevant point is the attitude of the person using the term: if it is delivered as a derogatory term, then it becomes a derogatory term.

[Waldo]

Totally agree with you there onewheeldave; yet again you make a great contribution to the forum, thank you for sharing that.

 

I believe what happens with some people, is that they want to win the argument at all costs (to stroke their ego's), and happily resort to causing upset in people, specifically because they feel it helps them to win the argument.

 

These people have very little interest in expanding, changing, evolving their world-view. They just want to be seen to be 'right'. It's very apparent to anyone with half a brain, who these people are.

 

On the other hand, there are people on here, with whom I may not share the same view, but can do so in a friendly and amicable way. Like it's not a battle, we're still friends.

 

So for me, it's not so important to share the same world-view, to see eye to eye; I don't mind in the slightest; so long as people can share their perspectives in an amicable way.

 

Like I posted in the recent thread on the subject of God (that, like these threads usually do on this board, got deleted)-

 

But, for communication, rationality is not the only tool needed, nor the most important one-especially on an issue so heated/personal/controversial as God and personal belief.

 

I would suggest that the prime tool in the box for effective communication on such a divisive issue is a grasp of diplomacy.

 

Best way to ensure the ears of your debating opponent close up so they do not listen to you, is to wind them up and/or insult them.

 

Best way to maximise the chances of them listening, and, of your attempt at communication being successful, is to avoid, as far as is possible, winding them up or insulting them.

 

Not at the expense of watering down your message, of course, but instead, whilst maintaining the integrity of your message, avoiding unnecessarily winding up or insulting.

 

If someone is offended by the term 'Xtian' or otherwise sees it as a 'wind-up' and you want to engage in sincere communication/discussion with them, in a diplomatic way, then don't use the term.

 

Use of the term in that situation would indicate that sincere communication/discussion in a diplomatic way, is not the priority.

 

 

 

Forgive me if I don't get too involved in this thread- I'm pretty tired of the way they get constantly locked/pulled whenefer some posters start to get rude.

[flamingjimmy]

If someone is offended by the term 'Xtian' or otherwise sees it as a 'wind-up' and you want to engage in sincere communication/discussion with them, in a diplomatic way, then don't use the term.

 

I think you've got it the wrong way round. People take refuge in offence because they aren't interested in debating. If they couldn't take offence at the use of the word 'xtian' then they'd find something else to take offence at in order for their beliefs to remain unchallenged.

 

For example, none of the people who've come on this thread and said 'I'm offended by this term' are actually the people who enjoy and participate in the religion threads. They seem to be mostly made up of the people who just like to take snipes at atheists, without ever engaging in debate.

[Hairyloon]

They seem to be mostly made up of the people who just like to take snipes at atheists, without ever engaging in debate.

Unlike the Dawks who endlessly repeat the same things without application of thought.

[milquetoast1]

I noticed that Christina Aguilera is repeatedly referred to as Xtina in the tabloids these days.

 

Perhaps Halibut would like this album for Xmas?

 

http://www.amazon.com/X-2010-Christian-Rock-Hits/dp/B0039VHX0W

 

It's quite funny how an abbreviation that is/was probably widely used by Xtians, suddenly becomes offensive when it is used by a'theists. Isn't it simply the case that Xtians find everything that a'theists say offensive?

[Plain Talker]

Not at all. It is a perfect example of the point I wanted to illustrate. The term was in common usage without any hint of derogation for many years: I am sure you will recall the scene in Fawlty Towers.

 

I think the relevant point is the attitude of the person using the term: if it is delivered as a derogatory term, then it becomes a derogatory term.

 

but in the days when it was supposedly not considered derogatory, it was a derogatory term, and was used as such, by the unenlightened.

[Suffragette1]

I noticed that Christina Aguilera is repeatedly referred to as Xtina in the tabloids these days.

 

Perhaps Halibut would like this album for Xmas?

 

http://www.amazon.com/X-2010-Christian-Rock-Hits/dp/B0039VHX0W

 

It's quite funny how an abbreviation that is/was probably widely used by Xtians, suddenly becomes offensive when it is used by a'theists. Isn't it simply the case that Xtians find everything that a'theists say offensive?

 

I think that you've hit the nail on the head there, it's the provenance of the abbreviation rather than the abbreviation itself which offends.

[Hairyloon]

Isn't it simply the case that Xtians find everything that a'theists say offensive?

Judging by the examples shown on this forum, it is simply that atheists (more specifically the Dawk subset of atheists) tend to behave offensively: resorting to abuse instead of reasoned argument.

[Waldo]

I think that you've hit the nail on the head there, it's the provenance of the abbreviation rather than the abbreviation itself which offends.

 

Probably not so much the provenance, as the intent of the individual using the word. It's quite possible (and healthy) to have excellent, enjoyable, enlightening debates with people who have complete opposite world views to yourself.

 

The word itself, or the belief of the person using it; are not so relevant, as the fact that they're using it specifically because they know it will upset the other person.

[flamingjimmy]

The word itself, or the belief of the person using it; are not so relevant, as the fact that they're using it specifically because they know it will upset the other person.

 

I think that using xtian instead of Christian often isn't that though. There's a subtle difference.

 

I get the impression that Plekhanov uses it not because it annoys people and he likes to annoy people.

 

But more because it highlights the double standards in society when it comes to religion. No-one would object to an abbreviation like that if it wasn't to do with religion.

 

The fact that it annoys people is probably the reason that Plekhanov uses it, but not because he wants to annoy people, just that their annoyance highlights a double standard. If you get what I mean by that?

 

Which also responds to the points onewheeldave was making earlier, if your message is that 'terms like Xtian are no different to other abbreviations and not special just because they're to do with religion' then you can't really get that message across without offending people.