Military Chaplain Investigated for FB Post Denigrating Trans Service Members

[Carolyn Marie]

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2021/01/27/chaplains-facebook-post-denigrating-transgender-troops-under-investigation-by-army/

 

 

Carolyn Marie

[KayC]

Oh.. my ?  well with the new SecDef emphasis on stamping out intolerance and the renewed Trans policy I have a feeling this will not end well for US Army Lieutenant Calvert (see that?  I already demoted him).

[VickySGV]

While the "Major" comments against Flat Earth beliefs, he is still attesting to Creation Science which is a practice of twisting and mangling legitimate 5 sense based science into unwavering support of scriptural based literal interpretations of the physical universe.  Ongoing Anthropological work is discovering that not even the cultures that produced those scriptures believed they were the literal physical process that happened.  I agree that he is not a fit person for military Chaplaincy.

 

[Lee H]

Wow, the vid by Kristin Beck that's accessed through the link Carolyn Marie posted -- is really worth watching. She's a 21 year retired Navy Seal veteran who served on Team 6, and transitioned after retirement. She has a lot to say.

 

The military and the VA seem to be pretty committed to accepting and helping transgender GI's. That's good, smart and ethical. I concur with Vicky's observation that the biased chaplin is basing his criticism on an unproven faith in a supernatural "Divinity" who he thinks created the universe. Question for Chaplin Calvert: If you believe in a God who created humans, how can you reject transgender folks -- as we say, "God don't make no junk." And BTW, do you think he also created all intelligent life in that universe? So are we humans created in the "Image of God," or are humans the "best" creation of all life in the universe?

 

Just curious.

~~Hugs, from Lee~~

[DeeDee]

I understand being annoyed at someone making hateful comments, and even the fact that as an institution historically religious groups have caused a lot of personal hurt in the trans and lgbt+ community and feelings can run strong, I am a pastor and I too am not looking forward to the reactions and hatred of some of my colleagues, but I also know that I will have the support of some great people who genuinely understand the meaning of loving everyone regardless of race, gender or social status. Their voices are just not as loud nor as much fun to sell on media platforms.

The chaplain is supposed to be there to support everyone from all faith's and none and from all ranks, if he cannot do that because of his opinions then he should not be in post.

Science actually works under the very Christian premise that there is an underlying order to be found in the universe so it is not as anti faith as people claim, it just doesn't match the literalist views which few people still hold.

 

3 hours ago, Ellie Jean said:

belief in God is evidence of mental instability lol. XD

 

Making hurtful, mocking, generalised statements like this is doing exactly the same thing as the chaplain.

It absolutely proves your point about genuinely free speech over popularist speech, but demonstrates the same level of intolerance, bigotry and lack of acceptance. ?

I respect others right to not have a faith, but if you are claiming to be more enlightened than someone like Calvert then please do not mock me or call me mentally unstable for having mine.

[DeeDee]

@Ellie Jean 

Honestly I was simply pointing out that two wrongs do not make a right. Something which seems to get lost when the idea of free speech comes up.

 

I am sorry to read of your experiences. It really does make me so sad every time I hear or read of someone like Culvert whose platform and position of authority can cause more damage than good.

 

We are all indoctrinated to the world views of the people around us until we hit our teens and start to question our experiences verses what we have been told.

With the exception of my parents who were the same as everyone else in their generation, the only people who have ever been physically violent towards me have all been loud and proud atheists, but I don't lump everyone in together.

Most people are good, but some people are just dicks. ?

It has made me a skeptical optimist. I expect the worst, but hope for the best.

I agree with most of what you are saying. I don't want my mechanic to offer me thoughts and prayers when I take my car into them any more than I want my doctor to hurry me towards end of life care, but I don't understand the American healthcare system where your life seems to be worth the same as your bank balance either.

Whether we refer to the human condition by calling everyone mentally unstable or labelling it as original sin doesn't matter because that is just an argument of semantics that says nobody is perfect, but knowing we aren't is what gives us the opportunity to improve ourselves.

 

We all make judgements about others, but the old addage of speaking to others how we would like to be spoken to ourselves rings true in any society.

 

P.S There is a comedian called Steve Hughes who did a skit on the whole concept of being offended that I think you'd really like.

?

 

 

 

 

[KayC]

5 hours ago, DeeDee said:

I am a pastor

You have a GREAT opportunity not only to help others like us, DeeDee, but also to have the compassion for those who are intolerant and establish a positive example for them.  I am wishing you great success in your endeavors❣️

[DeeDee]

@KayC Thanks for your kind message, I hope to have a positive effect, however little. This is the only site where I have actually been open about it because of the site rules, I was genuinely afraid of how people would react to me when I first started questioning my gender. 

Transpulse is one of the few genuinely safe spaces for me to ask questions and simply explore being me.

 

@Ellie Jean Got the pm, right person! ? I love so many types of stand up comedy, but observational comedy has a special place in my heart, I think comedians still do the same job now as ye olde time court jesters - which is to point out our hypocrisy, but in a way which we can swallow. Some can be funnier than others but it would be boring if we all had the same tastes.

[KimmieElise]

8 hours ago, Ellie Jean said:

PPS: Everyone's mentally unstable lol; it's like the basis for the human condition. ?

You know, this is how I see the whole thing.  We're all just people struggling through this life.  I doubt I've had a sane thought in all my life.  Life has a way of driving you crazy.  Seeing things this way kinda takes the finger pointing out of things, whether you agree with people of faith or not.  We're all broken in some way, and only the most delusional think they aren't.

 

@Ellie Jean Yes, the Bible does say those of faith are "predestined," but also suggests their is a modicum of free will involved, and I would posit without free will there is no such thing as love, making a great portion of the Bible null.  I think the issue is much more complex than just A or B, and the best I have been able to work it out is there is free will in some regards, and in some regards there is not.  Theologians speak of an "effective calling," by God to a relationship with Him, which is a theological way of saying something like an "undeniable summons."  I think there are moments of free will involved in choosing faith, and in a sense our world view becomes our paradigm in which we to some extent become locked.  I would say there are limits to our free will when it comes to choosing our faith or lack thereof (although I would suggest that everyone has a faith in some fashion, being limited creatures, but some faith is not "religious" in the traditional sense), there is, however a great deal of free will and latitude in the way we live out our faith (or lack thereof, if you prefer).  In short, I can't subscribe to a deterministic point of view, therefore absolving responsibility for one's actions.

 

I do agree with you, Calvert is entitled to his opinion.  The one mistake I often see made in and out of church is that people expect Christians to always have fully informed worldviews and not be required to go through a process of learning and growing.  I belong to a church where LGBT people have only recently been accepted, and my pastor told me, "I am only a few years from retirement, and I would have been happy to have gone on into my golden years without having to have dealt with this issue, but when a gay couple asked if they and their children would be welcome in our church, I couldn't think of a good reason to say, 'no.'"  If anyone would have asked him ten or twelve years ago, he might have said otherwise.  It is evident Calvert does not fully understand being trans, and may respond to education. I would never call for someone to be fired or "punished" before having an opportunity to educate them. There needs to be grace in both cultures, and I often find none in either.  Personally, I would rather people be open with their beliefs, rather than suppress them, that way I know where I stand with them.

 

https://www.cbs46.com/news/metro-atlanta-church-faces-backlash-for-accepting-lgbtq-members/article_b7a472ca-6b31-11eb-9303-5b7346bdf20e.html?block_id=997160

 

I think there are also potentially two ways to take your comment to the effect that "belief in God is a sign of mental instability."  One way is only people who are mad would believe in God, but the other is that people who are mad seek help from a higher power in humility.  I would like to think I am in that later category.

[KimmieElise]

2 hours ago, Ellie Jean said:

My brain has too much trouble wrapping itself around the idea that everything is predestined yet there's still free will; it kinda seems like a paradox to me. In regards to love, I don't see freedom of choice as necessary for it at all. Ha, if anything love is almost further proof that we don't have free will; nobody really chooses to fall in love; it just happens because of chemical reactions in the brain causing neurons to fire off, often the result of various hormone and pheromone interactions. 

 

Without getting too technical, and writing a small book here,  there is limited free will described in the Bible.  It is my contention there are three states human beings can be locked into - that of innocence before any choice can or needs to be made, that of allied with and friends with God, and that of trying to be one's own god and enemies of God.  Both of the later states are entered into by volition, but once entered, both states become so foundational to who we are we cannot voluntarily leave those states unless acted upon by an outside force.  The logic, and support for the notion of being one's own God is found in a more in-depth coverage on my blog https://www.minds.com/kimmie_elise/blog/the-great-insurgency-resolving-inconsistencies-1-1130874339670765568 .  This post does not, however deal with the free will/predestination thing.

 

The results of this are we have limited free will to choose our core path, but a great deal of free will as to how we live our those core beliefs and values.  The predestination, as I understand it (because it is a difficult concept to wrap one's head around without coming to some inconsistent or incongruous conclusions) means that all reject God and try to be their own god.  All become locked into this position, and use their free will to choose how they live out that position.  God having seen what was to be, pre-selected some to in some way give them an opportunity to realign with Him, for reasons only He understands.  This is a super complex subject, and hard to effectively cover in a book, much less a blog post or a social media post.  I am just trying to give you a picture of how I got to a point of logically reconciling the Calvinist vs. Armenian conflict.  What I found is one cannot  understand this concept without a great deal of context.  The concept of Predestination/Free Will cannot be understood on its own, without a much larger picture.

 

2 hours ago, Ellie Jean said:

...That's kinda like the bright side of nihilism lol. ?

 

I never considered nihilism had a bright side.  LOL.

 

Having grown up the child of a mother with narcissistic personality disorder, and having suffered some extreme emotional abuse, I can certainly understand the need to find a mechanism by which one can cope with malevolence.  Jordan Petersen talks extensively about what facing malevolence does to us.

 

From a Christian perspective, love cannot be programmed, either by initial conditions as is the purely agnostic/atheistic mathematical point of view, or by asking the question "Couldn't God have created us all to automatically love Him."  Without volition involved in love, it is nothing more than programming, and has no value nor meaning.  Any parent might agree that they would rather have their children love them because the children want to, than somehow be programmed either organically or mechanically.  It is my belief that in order to have love it was necessary to create humans with free will, and not only that but human beings must exercise such free will at some point to choose other than God, in order to choose Him again.  The state of innocence does not have free will until faced with a moral dilemma and therefore no love.  The state of self-god comes in response to moral dilemma, and the the state of realignment with God comes in response to something more difficult to describe, but involves to some extent God interceding giving us yet another opportunity for free will.  Only in the third state of being realigned with God does love actually exist in its fullest capacity.  This does not mean the self-god cannot love others, but I would say it is an incomplete love in the sense is made within the latitude of how living out the position of being self-god, as opposed to on a level of being aligned with God (not sure how much sense that makes).    In essence, being given free will is pointless unless that free will is exercised.  Once again, super complex topic, and I can't do it justice in a social media/forums post.

 

I am enjoying the discussion, and always enjoy chatting with someone who has thought out their world-view, especially when different than my own.  I always learn something.

 

[Carolyn Marie]

Whenever folks get to talking about the 1st Amendment, they overlook the fact that what it does is protect the public from government censorship, and government curtailment of free speech rights.  When a private company or an institution like the Armed Forces curtails speech, there is nothing to prevent that.  Service members work for the government; I don't think they're considered members of the public, so the military can censor their speech.  That's why the former President and other people kicked off of platforms like Twitter & FB have no leg to stand on in court.  Twitter has near total control over what people say on their platform, and who can access that platform.

 

Carolyn Marie

[KimmieElise]

2 hours ago, Carolyn Marie said:

Whenever folks get to talking about the 1st Amendment, they overlook the fact that what it does is protect the public from government censorship, and government curtailment of free speech rights.  When a private company or an institution like the Armed Forces curtails speech, there is nothing to prevent that.

 

First, let me say the Military is not a private institution, but an arm of the government.  I don't completely disagree with you on the notion the Military ought to be curtail free speech, however I think there needs to be a structure of principles behind that, or there is capacity for top Army officials to misuse the power in inappropriate ways.  Don't get me wrong, I am not agreeing with what this Chaplain said.  I simply support the idea there are ethics beyond what is legal or not.

 

2 hours ago, Carolyn Marie said:

That's why the former President and other people kicked off of platforms like Twitter & FB have no leg to stand on in court.  Twitter has near total control over what people say on their platform, and who can access that platform.

 

So, what I see here is a potential loophole in the system.  I think the potential for abuse is extreme, and I would rather not see such large platforms allied with political sides.  I always consider, if such power can be used to do something I agree with, if things change the same power could be used to do things with which I disagree.  One might agree with, say Trump, being silenced on such a platform, but what happens, and what prevents Biden from also being silenced?  What happens in say four years someone else is at the helm or if say Twitter and Facebook have been superseded by some other companies (I know this unlikely) with a different political bent?  Could they be used to silence Democrats/Left-leaning voters?  I very much believe these huge corporations need to be taken down, and I believe in doing so via a populist, legal, and non-violent means.  I am not the sort which likes regulation, and I am in favor of removing their section 230 protections which I believe will have the net effect of basically shutting them down, because operating will involve too much risk.  Being Libertarian as I am, I find centralization of power to be completely undesirable, and dangerous.  I find Twitter, and more so facebook's practices of extreme privacy invasion (beyond what is justifiable to sell targeted advertising), mutatable one-sided terms of use, and political alignment to be far too much power concentrated into far too few hands, and make no mistake knowledge is power.

 

Am I certain Facebook or Twitter might do something extremely immoral with that power? To some extent I think they have already crossed a number of moral and ethical lines, but I don't know how far they might take it.  I do know, power corrupts, and it is very likely, eventually the power will be used for some greater evil at some point.  Where or when this might happen I don't know.  I would rather pull the plug on the whole dang thing now then risk it ever coming to that, even if the odds are only 1 in 100,000.

 

I think Open Source solutions to providing de-centralized, community policed (by having the code exposed to public inspection), social media platforms is much better than having centralized power.  (I think some people fail to realize most Libertarians are actually opposed to big government and big corporations, or any centralization of massive amounts of power.  I think this is what separates us from both the Right and the Left who would prefer using government control to dominate.)  I think a few small companies and many Fediverse options are more preferable. This is why I subscribe to at least 7 alternative platforms.  I don't like some of the points of view on some of these platforms, but I also like they are openly expressed.  I would rather have my potential enemies out in the open than hidden, which is what regulation Utopian idealism often produces.  A hidden enemy who does not feel they have a voice is one which is far more dangerous than an open opponent.  Gab, for example has outright antisemitists, who openly say nasty things about Jewish people, and openly real white supremacists who will tell you how inferior they think black people are, and Christian Fundamentalist bigots who have called me "Satan" for being trans.  Do I agree with them?  No.  Do I care what they call me?  No.  Am I glad they are open about their views?  Yes.  This gives me a way to engage them, question their ideologies, and maybe educate a few.  The things is, most people are reasonable, and not nearly so extreme.

 

I have to agree with Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  I find those who fear the voices of others to be rather short sighted.  No, I don't think people should be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater under most circumstances, but then there is a large difference between much of the free speech being suppressed by Twitter and Facebook and "yelling fire in a crowded theater," which is suppressing potentially productive discourse.  Being more non-partisan, I kinda see things different.  Both sides feel attacked, are defensive as hell, have more in common with each other than they think, and are more reasonable and less radical than their opposition think.

[KimmieElise]

I find concepts of "right and wrong" to be arbitrary without reasons behind them.  I long ago came to the conclusion right and wrong were pragmatic and not a separate structure from nature itself and of God.  It didn't take long to for me to see how pragmatic most of the commandments in the Old Testament were for physical, emotional, and social  health.  It was two additional revelations which completely catalyzed things for me.

 

First, the idea I described above of being one's own god, comes from being "created in the image of God."  The Bible indicates we "know and  understand God's invisible attributes from what He has created."  I have identified a number of areas where I think we try to emulate self-godhood.  God is just, and we therefore have a sense of justice.  God is sovereign, and I think all of the self-god's in the world try to take sovereignty over creation to some greater or lesser extent.  God is transcendent to His creation, and I think a lot of scrambling toward the "top" people do, a lot of dreams of rising above the problems of life  (such as winning the lottery) are firmly based in this notion of ascendance.  I think this explains why babies more often choose the "good" puppet over the naughty puppet.

 

The second principle came from my question to answer why God chose to create human beings.  I wrote a blog post which covers t his much more extensive than I can explain here (https://www.minds.com/kimmie_elise/blog/what-on-earth-are-we-here-for-1125577161855635456).  The bottom line is I believe we were created for eternally loving relationships with God, with each other, and with ourselves for eternity.  CS Lewis noted, in Mere Christianity, how we generally hold a common morality across cultures, which is universally recognized but not necessarily codified anywhere.  I contend that morality is based largely in this innate sense we ought to be loved, and we ought to love.  That's why when we are faced with someone, as Lewis puts it "shoving in," ahead of us in a line we protest, "Hey, go to the back of the line!"  We aren't just saying, "Hey, go to the back of the line!"  we are saying, "Hey that was unloving, and I ought to be loved!"

 

Unfortunately, at some point the self-god tends to override the sense of how we ought to love others and what is practical for our own health.  The desire to be say worshiped (in a relative sense) or to have sovereignty (rights of control and ownership) tends to take precedence where the two conflict.

 

In the above is why I believe the Chaplain's words hurt just a little.  Those words diminish us, and show us little respect.  We recognize inherently when someone is showing a favorable comparison to one individual or group by portraying another individual or group as less favorable there is a deliberate unloving act in that disrespect.  When we protest the Chaplain's words we aren't really just saying, "Transphobic moron!"  We are saying, "We ought to be loved just the same as a cis person or soldier."  Such actions are often virtue signaling and playing to one side of a disagreement over others.

 

There is however an exception prudent people ought to consider before simply declaring judgement, and I think this is where the trans community often fails.  First, there are still a lot of cis people who simply don't understand.  There are a lot of Christian cis people who are ignorant, who feel attacked by the trans community, and I think if we are honest there are radical elements of the trans community who are very aggressive and very vocal (and who probably feel attacked as well).   These people often feel like they need to defend themselves, and both sides take on aspirations of Utopian models of complete dominance as a means to achieve safety.  We have to realize a great number of cis people haven't the information they need to deal with what to them is being forced into cognitive dissonance when faced with an otherwise masculine individual (usually at the advent of transition) who says, "I am a woman trapped in a man's body."  To the cis person who has never been educated, never had any experience with a trans person, and who has been surrounded by people who feel attacked by the trans community, the idea of someone being "a woman trapped in a man's body" produces cognitive dissonance (even more so when someone says they are "feline gendered," which is even more un-relatable to the average cis person).  Forced to cope with the cognitive dissonance, people grasp for any explanation which is consistent with their current way of thinking, and resolves the cognitive dissonance ("these are gay guys who want to get straight men into bed."  "These people are dissociative." "These people are illogical and deluded.")  Hanlon's razor says, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."  I would modify this to say "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by being uninformed."

 

I think the trans community is just as guilty of being Cristo-phobic, Conservative-phobic, or Cis-phobic in some ways.  We consistently assume malice where uninformed adequately explains the behavior of others.  We go right for the kill rather for the slightest offense, because that's the best way to protect ourselves from what we perceive to be painful attacks.  We want people punished in the maximum possible way, and the cancel culture we are participating in as a community is the same weaponization of acceptance we have experienced from churches over the decades, which we have decried as wrong.  We are every bit as guilty in may ways as those we call transphobic of the same offenses.  Sometimes offering an olive branch is much more productive than swinging a cudgel.  This is why I jumped into this conversation is to raise the issue of whether or not we ought to be a little wiser in whether or not we attack or go to the table and negotiate peace.

 

Personally, I'd like to know a lot more about Calvert before I judge him on the content of one Facebook post.

[KimmieElise]

7 hours ago, Ellie Jean said:

I STILL wouldn't bend the knee;

I would hope you would not feel compelled to by threat, but would rather be inspired to kneel.  I think God is less concerned with formal observances than the condition of the heart.  Any wise and generally benevolent human being would rather have genuine recognition than forced superficial compliance.  I think God would rather you express yourself honestly than fake some sort of respect/appreciation/compliance.  You are correct in assuming some people have weaponized religion, and have used it to make themselves into some sort of mini-gods.

 

I think you are over simplifying the dilemma of whether God made man in His image or man made God in their image.  I think to an extent both are true and it is not a simple binary issue.  We have certain universal traits and expectations, there are certain factors raised by the nature of the Universe itself which are best explained by God.  There are however many attributions of human characteristics to God.  There are tons of possible reasons when you think it through.

 

There is certainly no prohibition for individuals to occupy space in religious institutions and communities wherein they may be self-gods, but appear otherwise.  I think many people erroneously think they can get fire insurance simply by doing and saying certain things.  It is the sort of mentality wherein individuals are thinking something along the lines of, "If I do all these things, He's obligated to let me in heaven."  The failing is in the intention, which is dishonest manipulations without a inward change of heart.  The general mentality of such folks is follow the rules, but take advantage of loopholes when ever and where ever possible.  Such individuals have cause to erode the image of God through the attributions of human failings to Him.  They cannot bring themselves up to His level, so they  drag perceptions of Him down to their level.  That does not mean that God actually has such human short comings.  There are additional reasons God might be seen as having human failures which relate both to personal and spiritual maturity, plus intellectual capacity.  Somewhere in this later set of causes is probably why our Chaplain made statements such as he made.

 

As to the cultural context of scripture, it is not reasonable to think the Bible is a book separated from the culture in which it is written, but that does not automatically mean its value is only for said culture.  The discipline of Biblical Hermaneutics says the meaning of scripture is tied to the meaning it had to the time and the culture to which it belonged.  This particular rule is used to aid in interpretation where meaning is not readily apparent.  The general rule of Biblical Hermaneutics is that  which makes sense taken literally should be taken as literal.  Most responsible Biblical teachers will tell you the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things.  Biblical Hermaneutics says to take scripture in the context of its original culture, but also that of  scripture itself.  This is where most fail in regard to Biblical interpretation.

 

Hell as a fiery place of continual punishment is one such failure, I believe in interpretation, because the Bible speaks of hell in actual three different senses.  The first is that of a garbage heap.  The second is that of a fiery place of torment.  The third is found in the way Jesus referred to hell, which is "the outer darkness,"  a "place of weeping and gnashing of teeth," and a "waterless place."  Only the third description seems to be one which can be interpreted in a literal way, which does not invalidate the others if they makes sense figuratively, and the literal interpretation of Jesus' description supports figurative translation of the others.  I believe hell is a void, wherein God honors the choice of others to be their own god.  It is a place where they may attempt to do so.  The fact, however, that being a god means being transcendent to one's creation, these self-gods are not going to be robbed of that aspect of being gods by being provided any form of creation with which to use as a starting point.  In this place, there will only be self-centeredness, a longing for material comforts, regret and anger.  Those who encounter each other will lash out (gnashing of teeth).  Such self-imposed suffering will be a figurative fiery torture for those their, and the picture of the trash heap is one of being discarded.

 

Keep in mind here that heaven would be no better for the self-god who would like to dictate, control, and be the center of attention.  God will be more than any celebrity.  By practical necessity, preclusion of the self-god from heaven is reasonable.

 

It is human failing which attributes to God the sadistic quality of somehow torturing people for eternity by continually burning them.  Not at all.  Finding this out requires a more thorough investigation of the scripture, however, and whether it be laziness, maliciousness, or just being incapable, we have adopted this notion of hell as being some fiery place with red guys running around; barbed tails, horns, and pitchforks.

 

I find most agnostics and atheists (btw, what you described yourself as is probably agnostic) who criticize the faith are just as guilty of perpetuating these misunderstandings as any religious person is.  I would venture to say most critics of Christianity are poorly informed, and are very much as dogmatic as any Christian.  For agnostics and atheists their information comes from the university lectern rather than the pulpit, or from popular culture and myth, rather than personal and responsible investigation.  Few investigate convenient notions such as the Bible has been inaccurately transmitted over the centuries of its existence, because such notions seem plausible, and fit their confirmation biases.

 

Keep in mind.  I don't judge or look down upon anyone with or without faith.  I am an equal opportunity offender when it comes to people of faith and people who claim no faith.  I piss everyone off. LOL.  I certainly don't think I am smarter than everyone else, but I am always digging a little deeper and trying to learn a little more, and I like to stir the pot to make others less comfortable in their intellectual complacency and to see what I can learn.  My perspective is I've never had a sane thought in my life and there but for the grace of God, which I don't particularly claim to fully understand, go I.  I don't see people as being better or worse than each other, just different in being broken equals.  So, please, don't take anything I say as a condemnation or an insult.