Do not get on me, for being mean. Look up the definition of a rant. This is the only caveat you will get.
So the past week or so, I had commented here. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/allergicpagan/2013/09/28/what-a-pagan-can-tell-you-about-whether-mormons-are-christian/ I had ignored it after a few days until cough "Quentin" had replied to me. Quentin knows who he is, shakes my head.
It is this type of Pagan that many of the Pagans listen to. There are many things wrong, in my opinion, with what he says. And he is an example of what I find wrong with the Pagan sphere.
1. His research sucks a lot. He put Galina Krasskova(in an earlier blog) in with Heathens and authority, when any small modicum of research would show that no, she is most assuredly not. Galina and Asatru equals shit storm.( I don't agree with the Heathens on this, but whatev, point is, he didn't look past his darn nose and opinion)
2.I despise this word, I despise the politics behind it, but I'm going to use it. It is awfully privileged to tell Quentin, who is gay, whether he can use the word Fag. Screw privileged it is HUBRIS. John you are straight and granted you may be a supporter of LGBT, and it may be your blog(A blog that is on Patheos and ergo kinda a semi professional zine type thing, but I"ll get to that later), but to say you can't say that on my blog without more of a reason is Hubris pure and simple. You don't get to dictate, ignore and sweep under the rug the reclaimed term Fag that a Gay guy is using. There are very good and essential reasons he was using it. Quit beigeing the world, cause someone might be offended.
3. He demands acceptance of his stance. He is a Jungian Pagan, who wants to claim he is Polytheistic. No, you aren't. You don't follow Gods, you follow psychological thought forms(Jung is a Psychiatrist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung Jung is a school in psychology, so is Freud(the father of psychoanalysis, not the father of psychology). While some of his stuff is interesting, I can not support him defining himself as a Polytheist, when some research points him more as a Pantheist. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polytheism Pantheist definition. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pantheist Definition of Deity. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deity Definition of God http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
A Jungian thought form is not a God. I wouldn't even put it as a god. I will support you, if you want to worship that way, cause frankly it aint no skin off my nose if you choose to do so. I will open the Pagan tent to you, but for the Love of the GODS quit trying to define yourself as something you aint.
4. Quit making people into meany fundy pooh pooh heads if they have the temerity to say you are wrong. See his article and his link to Galina Krasskova. It isn't mean, unethical to say someone is wrong. I realize this is a great sin in today's Pagan land, of special snowflakes and their fragile hypersensitive ego's, but dayum.
He also has a huge problem with Scalia and labels him the huge sinful name of Fundamentalist and demagogue there too. Scalia isn't, he's a bloody Strict Constitutionalist. He took after William H Rehnquist, one of the chief Justices of the Supreme court. Halstead is a Lawyer and should know better btw. You are taught how to argue, you are taught how to source and research for fraks sake.
5.How the hell can I argue the seriousness of Pagandom, with people like this as Big name Pagans, to my local Methodist minister,or the Southern Baptist preacher. How, when frankly my 14 year old and my 9 year old act with more maturity on being told they are wrong. Hell my 14 year old can debate better and source herself better.
What bugs me the most is, while he writes mature, the emotion behind it is basically all the teenage angst of someone rebelling against their parents. That isn't mature theology. I can't argue that my local ministers should respect it, when I have a hard time.
I'll edit in more later
grumbly moonie
The most nonsensical thing in his whole argument about polytheism meaning whatever those who identify with the term want it to mean is that his argument is very circular.
ReplyDeleteFirst: He asserts to me ("Quentin") that the meaning of words "does not 'exist'" beyond what a community defines those words as. So far, it's a fair argument, I don’t necessarily agree, but as one with a fondness of language and etymology, it's a fair argument.
Second: I self-identified as a fag. At first, I only did so without thinking, but then he asserted that in doing so, I was using "derogatory language", implying all over the place that there is no context in which the word "fag" is not derogatory. As a gay-flexible man who identifies as a fag under my own terms, I find the assertion of an ostensibly heterosexual man that the word is always necessarily derogatory not only wrong, but also extremely contradictory to his initial point: That words are defined "in community" and that an absolute meaning doesn't really "exist". After all, there is a community that identifies with that word in a positive manner, suggesting that it DOES have a contextually non-derogatory meaning.
Third: Halstead vehemently rejects this contextual positive intent, the reclamation, and the identification of the individual. I can understand wanting to avoid potential controversy, if that were the reason he gave. I can understand if Patheos, or at least their Paganism editor, made that a rule, if that were the reason he gave. He gave no reason for this rejection beyond "[his] blog, [his] rules". While he is certainly allowed to make arbitrary rules, in this instance, he rejects an established community definition because, for some still-unknown reason, he insists it has a fixed derogatory meaning. He contradicts himself.
Lastly: When I explained that he contradicted himself, his reaction was to screen comments and ban me. Apparently words can only be redefined "in community" under Johnny Boy's say-so, and he gets to police any identity language that he doesn't like. The right to self-identify with the words one chooses for oneself ends at Halstead's comfort zone.
There is no logical argument that allows for some words to be redefined in community, but not others, and he doesn't care. Either words can be redefined in community, or they cannot. Either words have a fixed meaning (such as a derogatory one), or it does not. He wants to eat his cake and have it, and he expects everyone in the vicinity to accept the contradictory logic he presents, lest he call them a "troll".
Why people accept this is certainly beyond any Earth logic I'm aware of.
Quentin, while I am aware of the fag reclamation stuff. I am by no means an expert. Would you please write about it, so that others know the why, the wheres and the what nots?
ReplyDelete