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

[onewheeldave]

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.

 

You're right- some do exactly that. Equally though, some don't, some genuinely find the term distasteful or offensive.

 

Certainly, i think that if the intention is to discuss the issues of God and atheism diplomatically, then simply cease to use the term 'Xtian'- in diplomatic terms it's a no-brainer.

 

If, in contrast, the intention is to discuss the seperate issue of whether 'Xtian' is or is not offensive, or whether it's just an abbreviation etc-

 

 

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.

 

then, it would seem to be a good idea just to discuss it as a seperate issue. There's a big difference in discussing whether 'xtian' is just an abbreviation and, calling someone a xtian in an actual discussion (of God/atheism).

 

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?

 

I think it would be more effective to just discuss the double-standard hypothesis on it's own merits then.

 

Again, if constructive, rational & diplomatic discussion is the aim, using a term which offends or winds-up the listener is unlikely to lead to them appreciating a double-standard- they're unlikely to be listening at that point.

[flamingjimmy]

All fair points dave, I have to say.

 

I don't tend to use it anyway, but I tend not to go for abbreviations most of the time. I only really use ones that I think are cute like 'irl' or 'imo'.

[Waldo]

Very much agree with onewheeldave again.

 

No-one would object to an abbreviation like that if it wasn't to do with religion.

 

I'm not convinced it is just to do with religion. Though of course that is very personal and emotive subject matter. I'm also not convinced that the issue is with it being an abbreviation. Perhaps it's more to do with the abbreviated version of the word, being used (and reserved for use) within the group, and between members of that group (in this case Christians). Then not liking outsiders to use the word? I dunno..

 

It would be interesting to get a Christians perspective on this?..

 

I can't think of any specific examples off-hand, but I imagine the dynamic could apply equally to race, nationality, etc, or other ways of classifying people.

 

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.

 

I just not sure how effective such methods would be in helping people to see through their own duplicity and double standards. I think people tend to respond, like for like, and the only enlightenment we get round ere, is when both parties are adding more and more fuel to the fire of conflict (getting defensive and entrenched etc).

 

So really coming back to daves point, regarding what affect our words are having, and what is our own personal agenda etc.

[Grahame]

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.

 

Plekhanov and redwhine are two people who imo deliberatly set out to offend and insult people with expressions like "imaginary magic man" - "Holy Babble" - and "The catlick church."

 

It belittles and insults people and the moderators seem to have a blind spot where this is concerned.

 

 

[plekhanov]

It's just bizarre that this thread is still going, literally millions of people many/most of them Xians will use the abbreviation in the next few months when they write "Merry Xmas" or similar on cards they send to their loved ones, decorate their houses... yet it's somehow supposed to be beyond the pale for me to do the same?

 

People use abbreviations on SF all the time without attracting all this whining. People rarely seem to type out Liberal Democrats for example often opting for "Lib Dem" for the sake of brevity yet if any Lib Dems were to start whining about this and saying how "offensive" it was for people not to type out "eral" and "ocrat" people would just laugh at them.

 

Similarly if I was to start a thread declaring that I found it "offensive" for people to in any way abbreviate the description of our government as anything but "Conservative, Liberal Democrat coalition" would I get lots of people piling in to insult the morals, maturity and character of those who so insultingly dare abbreviate the name of the parties which govern our nation?

 

Why are Xains so special that the name of their ideology can't be abbreviated (apart from of course from when millions of people do so every year) when this doesn't seem to be a problem with any other ideology?

[plekhanov]

Plekhanov and redwhine are two people who imo deliberatly set out to offend and insult people with expressions like "imaginary magic man" - "Holy Babble" - and "The catlick church."

 

It belittles and insults people and the moderators seem to have a blind spot where this is concerned.

In what way is it an 'insult' for me to abbreviate "Christ" to "X" in exactly the same way Xains have doen for centuries and still do today?

[Grahame]

In what way is it an 'insult' for me to abbreviate "Christ" to "X" in exactly the same way Xains have doen for centuries and still do today?

 

In the context of your aggressive posts and the frequent use of the word 'liar' it is very insulting.

[plekhanov]

In the context of your aggressive posts and the frequent use of the word 'liar' it is very insulting.

Right so when other people abbreviate "Christ" it's just fine but when I do the exact same thing it's "very insulting"

 

Whilst I'm not going to stop using the abbreviation under discussion any more than I'm going to stop referring to the Lib Dems as Lib Dems there's a way you can easily stop me using the word "liar" to you ever again, all you need to do is stop lying.

[Tony]

In what way is it an 'insult' for me to abbreviate "Christ" to "X" in exactly the same way Xains have doen for centuries and still do today?

 

Some of the people that use it don't care what YOU think.

[milquetoast1]

I forgot to mention in my last post that I recall a Xtian 'rock' (now that IS offensive!) band visiting our school that was simply called "X". Indeed, one could almost imagine the abbreviation being embraced enthusiastically by young trendy Xtians.

 

If, as it would seem from some posts here, there is a feeling that the abbreviation is offensive, then I would like to hear a rational explanation why.

 

I do get the impression that it's because plexhanov uses it.