![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Oh, no, I can't dare conceive of more than one holiday at a time!
*eyeroll*
Well, that was mildly amusing. I shouldn't bother engaging them, I know, but I've been good... more or less... for a few months (I think), so... yeah.
You'll note that she's probably right - I've never once really heard anybody get offended at being told "Merry Christmas". Even the most die-hard non-Christians I know usually just roll their eyes and accept the greeting in the spirit in which it was given. As that's the case, why the heck can't these twits do the same thing?
Save your indignation for things that really matter, guys. Oh, hey, did you know that there's, like, a war or ten going on right now? There are people starving to death, and going hungry in this very country. There really are Christians in this world who are being persecuted, if that's what matters to you - though not many of them happen to live in this country. For that matter, there are honestly people in this world who really have never heard of Jesus - not many of them live in the US either. And what with the usual outbreaks of war, famine, pestilence, and death all over everywhere, why don't you do the rest of us a favor and go shove that Christian love and charity at somebody who could really use the help. I can name a few places.
Of course, here I am being all hypocritical and all, but man, this sort of stuff irritates me no end! All I want for Christmas is the right to greet people in the manner I see fit, preferably without starting the next world war. And I'm thinking that shouldn't be too much to ask.
Maybe it's just me, I don't know, but was it really worth that whole thread (not to mention this entire pointless entry)?
I didn't think so.
*eyeroll*
Well, that was mildly amusing. I shouldn't bother engaging them, I know, but I've been good... more or less... for a few months (I think), so... yeah.
You'll note that she's probably right - I've never once really heard anybody get offended at being told "Merry Christmas". Even the most die-hard non-Christians I know usually just roll their eyes and accept the greeting in the spirit in which it was given. As that's the case, why the heck can't these twits do the same thing?
Save your indignation for things that really matter, guys. Oh, hey, did you know that there's, like, a war or ten going on right now? There are people starving to death, and going hungry in this very country. There really are Christians in this world who are being persecuted, if that's what matters to you - though not many of them happen to live in this country. For that matter, there are honestly people in this world who really have never heard of Jesus - not many of them live in the US either. And what with the usual outbreaks of war, famine, pestilence, and death all over everywhere, why don't you do the rest of us a favor and go shove that Christian love and charity at somebody who could really use the help. I can name a few places.
Of course, here I am being all hypocritical and all, but man, this sort of stuff irritates me no end! All I want for Christmas is the right to greet people in the manner I see fit, preferably without starting the next world war. And I'm thinking that shouldn't be too much to ask.
Maybe it's just me, I don't know, but was it really worth that whole thread (not to mention this entire pointless entry)?
I didn't think so.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 12:19 pm (UTC)The way I feel about it is that what most americans will be celebrating on the 25th is, in fact, a fully secularized gift-giving event that has nothing to do with christ, so you'd think christians wouldn't want that being confused with their sacred day. But whatever. It must be so hard to be in the religious majority in a country.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 04:50 pm (UTC)1. This is LJ, they can't afford to worry about offending people or they'd never get anything done, thanks very much.
2. It apparently never occured to her that they might not even be Christian, or might honestly and sincerely wish to wish everybody a happy holiday, regardless of what holiday it was.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-29 11:12 pm (UTC)a few Childfreek freetards (this does NOT encompass ALL Childfree individuals, JUST the freek-y freetarded ones!) got "offended" at breastfeeding icons being posted in *GASP* parenting communities! THey whined to LJA. Guess who LJ was worried about offending?
Yeah. They pick and choose their offences.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-30 12:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-30 02:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-30 04:45 am (UTC)LiveJournal abuse has an arbitrary policy regarding showing a nipple in a default icon. They say, don't do it - make it into a non-default icon instead. They don't get into reasons of why there's a nipple, probably because they'd never get anything done if they did.
Whether this is good or bad, it's been policy. It wasn't new then, and it's not new now.
There may not have been any nipple in that icon. I don't know, I don't remember ever seeing it.
Both sides overreacted, and I agree, it was all started by a twit with a chip on his/her shoulder - but you'll note my conspicuous non-posting about it back in the day.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-30 06:05 pm (UTC)LJ had a policy against nudity. The "no nipple OR areaola" (yes, it covers BOTH) addition came after the whiner complained.
It IS a new poilicy. They reworded it in a predudicial way to appease the childfreeks. Period.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-01 01:23 am (UTC)LJ has always defined nudity in that way, at least to the abuse team members. I know abuse team members, that's always been their defining criteria.
The whole thing started because that very same criteria was used to get somebody to take off their non-breastfeeding default icon, they threw their little hissy fit and whined about completely unrelated nursing moms.
Period.