Giles: Cordelia, have you actually ever heard of tact?
Cordelia: Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass.
The late, lamented Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Killed by Death.
Anyway, tact, manners, politeness, all that good stuff -- and it is good stuff, your sainted Grandmother would turn over in her grave you ain't manage to learn any -- these should not be used to obscure or ignore unpleasantness.
Or, as Cordy put it, "not saying true stuff."
Don't agree with the word "true" in there, though.
Not sure how to explain this. Perhaps I could illustrate with a Simpsons quote.
Kang (as Bob Dole): "Abortions for all!"
Kang: "Very well - abortions for none!"
Kang: "Hmm...abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"
Wait, sorry, wrong quote.
Marge: "C'mon Homer, Japan will be fun! You liked 'Rashomon'..."
Homer: "That's not how I remember it..."
Actually, might make more sense to illustrate using Rashomon:
Set during the chaos of 12th-century Japan, a woodcutter, a priest, and a commoner wait out a thunderstorm in the shadow of a ruined gate. To pass the time the woodcutter and priest tell the commoner of a recent investigation in which they both took part. They tell the tale of a samurai and his wife who were attacked by the infamous bandit Tajomaru while travelling. The husband is killed and the wife and bandit have sex. However, during the investigation the specifics of the attack are called into question as those involved relate conflicting versions of the events. The film cuts back and forth between the gate and the various versions accounting for the attack.
(Are there Kurosawa films with likeable women characters, by the way? Just saying is all. . .)
Um, right, so, you got three people in a sitch, you'll get at least three different versions of a story, all of which hold some claim to "truth" even if they vary drastically, blah de blah, not covering any new territory here, right?
Good. Moving on:
satorimedia sketchbook: Rudeness:
Is that really a word? Perhaps "impolite" is a similar term, but I think that somehow "rudeness" implies more the direct and active intent to actual convey disrespect towards someone.
It's been on my mind a lot lately. [Personal stuff deleted - The Mgt.] Continuing as I pointed out to a friend that a recent blog post was rude, and having his attempts at justification metamorphose into an attack on me (and since it's on his own blog, which he has bought and paid for, he is entitled to be as rude as he likes). It's been a long time since I've been called both an "arrogant self-righteous prick" and "candy ass cracka" but I suppose it was overdue.
Never refers to me by name here, which I suppose allows for some plausible deniability -- "candy ass cracka" isn't a direct quote from me, after all -- but technically, if you squint a little, you could describe this as being tactful.
As in, not saying true stuff.
Fuck that noise.
Similarly, my friend with the blog has slammed my attempts at discussing why his comments were rude with a combination of "You have no idea what you're talking about" along with a "You never asked!" guilt trip, followed by pulling out the further difference that he is a minority, I am not (after all, guys like me are a dime a dozen) and therefore not only do I need to shut up, but I had better not continue lest he be forced to go almost as far as "gay black man level tackiness".
Gay black man level tackiness cuts diamonds, baby.
Ain't you ever see Paris Is Burning?
Any road up, his description of events has that cool Rashomon feel, for me at least, but I'm not feeling up to giving the Democratic response, either here or in his comments. Call me crazy, but I think spreading the veiny evil into other people's sites is, you know, rude.
But do I gotta explain why comments like, "it's on his own blog, which he has bought and paid for, he is entitled to be as rude as he likes" might provoke reactions along the lines of, "That's mighty white of you"?
(Should that question mark be outside the quotation marks, seeing as the entire sentence is the question, rather than the bit in quotes, which is a statement? Yes, I have a degree in linguistics, but that just means I make it up as I go along and claim native speaker intuitions/dialect differences when I screw stuff up.)
Nah. Lost cause, there, I think.
Jason, you maybe wanna email your address to the guy so's he can send you the Boondocks book I was gonna loan you, since I mailed it to him a while back. I'd explain why it's necessary for me to go through third parties to get my shit back, but, again, this would be lacking in tact.
As in, not saying true stuff.
I know, I know, "Get over it, already." Um, this is me getting over it. True, it's not as mature as ignoring the existence of other people or de-linking their site, or talking about them without actually mentioning names.
Wait, that's not true.
Update 2: Ah, me. Don't suppose it's worth mentioning that, as the source of the veiny evil, it's perfectly acceptable for people to spout off here? Or that I've already demonstrated that I'm not from the "delete shit I strongly disagree with" school on this one?
No, I expect not.
I'll just point out that I made a choice, and am more than prepared to live with the consequences of that choice. If one of those consequences is losing friends, well, that's life in the big city.
And I see no need to "justify" my choices to anyone.
As Neo said in Matrix Reloaded, "Pants. The problem is pants."
Wait, that's not right. . .
Update: Actually, the hypocrisy of that last bit, given I dropped the link to satorimedia sketchbook is. . . something I could probably get away with not mentioning, as I doubt anyone noticed.
Darn shame the Java version of ICQ I used to have that convo with him doesn't preserve messages in history. I imagine the unedited transcript would be revealing.
For instance, it might make him look like an active participant, rather than a bystander who merely observed "attempts at justification metamorphose into an attack."
Wait, that's getting into the response I said I wasn't writing. Never mind.