The Kilt Kops

[Father Bill]

I think we all would do well to occasionally remind ourselves that people's opinions only have as much weight as we decide to give them.

Matt - absolutely wise advice and good analysis. You are one who often keeps us on an even keel, for which I thank and respect you. You are also one whose vast store of information and whose perspective makes you valuable to us all.

Keep in mind however, the vulnerable feelings of those who are first feeling their way through a strange sub-culture so heavily laden with interpretations, historical and even personal meanings. Those in such a situation are often feeling their way carefully, so all of their senses are primed and ready for every small twitch in the bushes, making them easily vulnerable to slighter nuances of meaning and hurt. Since they know little and are seeking advice (and encouragement) they can only give a lot of weight to the opinions of those who seem to know more.

With a confidence which I might reasonably assume you have gained from your high levels of knowledge and careful thought in this field which is not only your avocation but also your vocation, you may not always be quite as aware of the vulnerability that is normal for strangers in a strange land.

I'm one of those.

With deep respect,

Bill+

[Peter Crowe]

I think we all would do well to occasionally remind ourselves that people's opinions only have as much weight as we decide to give them.

I really feel bad when I read comments from people that they don't spend too much time on the forum any longer because of the "high number of posts" that make them feel that they don't have the right to wear the kilt, or at least not to wear it in the way they choose.

I feel bad because I do spend a lot of time on this forum, and I try to keep up with most of the threads, at least those that interest me, and I have to confess that I often scratch my head at the above sort of comments, wondering what horrific posts I must be missing -- because I don't recall reading anything like that!

Maybe I am not reading things as sensitively as some. Or maybe all that is going on in the threads that I tend not to read (which I doubt because most of the threads I skip tend to be in the contemporary/modern kilt sections).

But I think what is likely happening is that posts that I might be reading as one man sharing his opinion, or maybe even just expressing what he feels to be the common opinion of others (which he may not even share himself), is being read by others as the "Kilt Police" laying down the law.

So at the same time as we are all reminding ourselves of the need to be polite & respectful in expressing our opinion, I think we should also remind ourselves to be kind and charitable (and perhaps a wee bit forgiving) when we read the opinions of others. If something upsets us, perhaps we need to read it again and ask ourselves whether it is possible that we are reading too much into the post. Are we looking at what has been written assuming the writer has the worst intentions or the best intentions at heart?

For myself, I prefer to always assume people have the best of intentions until they prove to me otherwise! It helps keep a smile on my face and my blood pressure at an even keel. :-)

I agree in spades Matt! Moreover, it bothers me that people feel patronised, condescended to, attacked or belittled on the threads to which I contribute. (Those threads probably being the same ones Matt reads). In the short time since I signed up to XMTS I don't believe I have read anyone say people must do this or that, and if you don't, well you are not quite up to snuff and certainly not one of the inner sanctum or true cognoscenti of kilt-wearers.

However, as I have learned by experience when communicating online, you can not be as nuanced as in a face to face conversation as so much of communication is non-verbal. Writing is a difficult art, and while I am competent enough at writing a University dissertation, I make no pretense to literary skill. If anyone feels that I have patronised, condescended to, attacked or belittled them or their point of view on any thread, I sincerely apologise because such behaviour was never my intent.

When people discuss their enthusiasms they can often get caught up in the subject, and their views based on their knowledge (real or imagined) should not be viewed by others as being prescriptive.

[DWFII]

I've been here four years, near-as-nevermind, and I don't post much anymore, either.

The reason I don't, goes back to the title of this thread: Even if not intentionally, the existence of the thread serves to perpetuate and legitimize the calling of names...divisiveness, extremism in defense of one point of view in preference to another.

Along with what I see as an atmosphere of repression and suspicion that is created by the tattle-taling mentioned in the previous several posts, I think it brings out the worst in us...all of us.

Matt is right: Opinions that differ from our own have no weight unless we give them weight. If we can't even hear or read those opinions without reacting defensively and attacking others, then we are indeed giving them weight all out of proportion to their value. If we can't even hear opinions that differ from our own, how do we even wear the kilt?

Where are the bold Heilan' warriors, secure in their selves and their lives, refusing to be driven by opinion?

And I have to reiterate what Redshank said--not one of these statements is mandatory. None of the people...from Jock Scott to the odd grump/"thistle" (thanks for that Taygard) at the Games...has any authority to make you do anything.

There are no "kilt police"--it's just a nasty bit of invective thrown out to disguise insecurity. It is a made up concept that serves no purpose but to create social barriers by pigeon-holing people or opinions you don't agree with.

I don't post here much because when people feel free to call names, it turns all my suspicions into a lead pipe certainty that no one can talk to those people. There is no discussion possible.

[Father Bill]

Ah yes, fellows, you're absolutely right, and I will reluctantly grant that the written word does not easily become as appropriately nuanced... but "sensitivity" does have at least two components:

1. "Thin skinned" as in "You're too sensitive," and,
2. "Highly aware" as in "The neurosurgeon has to have a very sensitive touch."

Over a lot of years caring for children in the school system, and now as a priest it has slowly dawned on me through my thick skull that these two components are in fact and reality, closely allied and interactive. That is why I point out that the "seeker" who is trying to learn something necessarily and probably inadvertently thins out his own skin in order to be more greatly aware. (Kind of like the old stereotype of the safecracker sanding the tips of his fingers to become more "sensitive")

Those who have great confidence in their own point of view sometimes forget those individuals, and can show their kindness when they too become sensitive to those nuances.

Kindness and that kind of sensitivity are always appropriate!

[Chas]

Have I missed something here? Is there a hidden thread somewhere with a secret password?

Who is doing all this name calling? Who has been called a Kilt Kop and by whom? When did this ever happen? Can anybody provide a link?

As for pigeon holing people, of course we do. We learn it at our mother's knee. Who is family, who is friend, who is on our side, who is really not 'one of us'. We categorise people all the time - everyone does. Even the blind categorise people, by the sound of their voice and by their smell. We can't help it, we are human beings and are hard wired that way.

Where are the bold Heilan' warriors, secure in their selves and their lives, refusing to be driven by opinion?

I don't know - probably dead. Like the woolly mammoth and the sabre toothed tiger, maybe they couldn't adapt.

I think there is too much complaining about things that don't exist.

Regards

Chas

[DWFII]

Those who have great confidence in their own point of view sometimes forget those individuals, and can show their kindness when they too become sensitive to those nuances.

Kindness and that kind of sensitivity are always appropriate!

You make my point as if it were your own...

Let's take another look at the idea of "kilt kop"...or, better yet, Matt's scenario of the rude fellow upbraiding an "innocent."

Perhaps the fellow commenting on front pleats is simply a kind and generous elder statesman of the kilt world. I suspect...postulate...the recipient of that sage advice is nervous and tense and consequently has a high startle index. He bridles at any suggestion. He's new, he may get over it or may not. He probably shouldn't be wearing a kilt...just for his own peace of mind.

I've got even money that 80% of the imbroglios that occur in these situations are more because the "victim" has responded defensively and from a position of insecurity--has "lashed out" at an simple and even generous attempt to help--than any real or intended insult.

And things escalate from there.

And yes, there's always that missing 20%...in any human society..

I am not naturally one who scmoozes people but I have to say that it is telling that people like Jock Scott (our resident "elder statesman") or Matt Newsome can give advice...sometimes quite blunt advice...without ever resorting to calling people who wear white hose or their pleats in front "kilt cretins."

But those who fell less than comfortable...and little joy...while wearing the kilt (for whatever reason, including being new to it all) seem to see kilt police everywhere.

[DWFII]

Have I missed something here? Is there a hidden thread somewhere with a secret password?

Well, "you snooze, you lose."

No disrespect intended, but seriously, don't you think this is just a little disingenuous? (I'm asking...)

Who is doing all this name calling? Who has been called a Kilt Kop and by whom? When did this ever happen? Can anybody provide a link?

I don't have as many posts as you do but I've been here as long or longer (maybe I just spend more time listening). Everyone seriously involved in this thread, and others going on simultaneously, almost tacitly acknowledge the problem. Matt Newsome postulated a scenario in which the protagonist was accosted by "kilt police." Matt didn't question either the concept or the name calling.

Even the title of this thread...

I myself have seen name calling and the bandying about of "kilt police" to cut short a discussion or characterize other members as somehow not "right thinking" (unlike the rest of us ) over and over again. As recently as several months ago in a discussion I was involved in and where it was used against me...or someone like me.

And I spoke up against it then as I have done since I joined here.

I think there is too much complaining about things that don't exist.

Or too little about things that do.

But then, again, maybe I'm just paying more attention.

[Chas]

I think there is too much complaining about things that don't exist.

Or too little about things that do.

But then, again, maybe I'm just paying more attention.

Well, you carry on with your paying attention and complaining, it is a beautiful afternoon here in Norfolk and I am off to help my wife in the garden.

Regards

Chas

[DWFII]

Actually, I'd have a much different attitude about all this if I believed for even one moment that the woolly mammoth or saber toothed tiger had been hurt, much less driven to extinction, by opinion.

Beyond all that...think about what's really at stake in all this, folks...

On one hand, we have a mind set that seeks to perpetuate the idea that calling people names or characterizing them as rigid, or complaining, or somehow illiberal is OK when rationality fails or deserts you.

And on the other, a group of people (perhaps too few to notice) who declare that real respect, real civility, real gentlemanly behaviour never includes disparaging other people just because they disagree with you.

[Father Bill]

And on the other, a group of people (perhaps too few to notice) who declare that real respect, real civility, real gentlemanly behaviour never includes disparaging other people just because they disagree with you.

Absolutely correct. No disparagement ever because of disagreement. Concern however, when that disagreement is expressed in terms that could (even inadvertently or unintentionally) cause hurt.