[Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day

[Alfredo Jornet Gil]

By all means, yes, please, use that other thread for interaction issues and contribute sustaining productive subject-oriented dialogue here.


Alfredo


________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
Sent: 14 August 2018 08:01
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day


Hi Jacob and venerable others,


The irony that you must shower your own vitriol and name-calling on a thread having to do with unconditional positive regard and order by grand fiat to shut down this thread is startling. Talk about gendered interactions. I guess you will get what you deserve: a higher level of respect.


So... OK. I will share that there have been interactions offlist [in the past] sent to me by "people" that have been untoward and petty. It just doesn't stop does it? I hope "people" are proud for what commenced on a post about Mr. Fred Rogers and its descent into a flame war. I say gee whiz to the higher angels, or is it trolls? Let's just say "people" are not so innocent as they seem. I'm sure there is a great gnashing of teeth while eating popcorn going on.


Jacob, there is a history. At some point "people" have to be responsible for themselves and what they say and how it affects others. I include myself and I have taken responsibility, I think I've said what I needed to say, and now I'm ready to move on. I'm guessing you can do that too, but that is on your timescale.


I hear you, I respect your post and where it comes from, however the view is not fully informed. It will remain that way because I'm not responsible for the acts of others or to divulge what goes on offlist on the list.


I suggest, though you are free to do your own bidding, not to judge quickly what transpires by appearances alone, of what can be seen or known first off. And also, is it too much to ask to not descend into a "suffering contest" of who has disabilities and who doesn't, whose disability is more of a disability, who is other and who isn't and who is more other. And which otherness has more value, or should I say less.


I'm not going to fall into that trap. The disabled can make mistakes, be rude, be sexist, show insensitivity, etc, just like anyone who isn't disabled.


I initiated a discussion on positive regard, unconditional positive regard, somehow someway there seems to be a force to try to shut that down, unconditionally. Where is this coming from? Am I the only person seeing the weirdness of this?

I do thank you for pointing out that there is sexism on this list. You have a unique position. Ableism? I'm not persuaded, and doubt I can be. Not to say it has never happened, but I do not think this is an example of it. Though I believe the outside pressure and appearances to make it so are quite, quite compelling.

If you would like to post more on these list-interaction topics, I believe that Alfredo started a thread on that. May I request, and quite respectfully, that if you don't want to participate in discussion concerning unconditional positive regard that you not post off-topic here and post on the other thread?

Is that OK with you?


Kind regards,


Annalisa


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180814/96a2c114/attachment.html