Nothing I wrote referred to my being hurt at all Russell.
My comments were clearly focused on your deflection from your poor choice of words by responding with a cheap bizarre assumption re: my empathy, or lack thereof.
Surprise, surprise that you respond with more deflection rather than respond to what I ACTUALLY wrote.
The focus of my comments has been on who has actually been attacked. I’m certainly not seeking sympathy or understanding for my feelings from you, or anyone else for that matter.
For the record, it’s not hurt that I’ve been expressing in my comments here, it’s disbelief that you are so focused on your feelings/hurt re: your perception that Christchurch has been attacked, that you seem unwilling to consider that you could have chosen a more apt description leaving no doubt who was actually attacked.
Any chance you can make clear what your stance actually is on that Russell ?
If you can do that with a response that doesn’t include your imaginings/assumptions about my feelings that would be appreciated.
My response was referring to your choice of language Russell. I have not written any of the offensive posts on social media that seemingly contributed to you writing ‘Christchurch was attacked’, so I had no idea how those words influenced what you wrote in the comments I responded to.
I think you could have been clearer in distinguishing that by saying attacked, you were referrring to those comments, rather than the ACTUAL attacks that occurred on those praying at the mosques.
There is no argument that those hurt by the shootings include classmates, playmates, workmates, friends and many others.
I’d be very surprised if you intended to equate insensitive comments on social media re: Christchurch, with the attacks that led to people being injured, killed and left many mourning / concerned for their loved ones. Because that is how your earlier comments and your response to me, actually read Russell.
We can respectfully disagree on how you chose to express your take on Christchurch being attacked, but you have no idea how closely I am connected to those who have been hurt, just like I do not know your personal connections.
Your assumption re: my empathy for those affected in your reply Russell is actually a great exemplar of you lacking empathy, by inexplicably levelling this at me for questioning you (and you alone) on your comments.
Hard to see how you felt like it was ok to assume I had no empathy towards schoolmates of victims affected by the attacks just because I thought you were inaccurate and loose with your choice of words.
Nothing I wrote directly or indirectly denied, or referred to any way, how those closely connected to those hurt or killed should feel. I query with you whether you could be more careful and respectful with your use of the word attacked, and you accuse me of not caring about little kids greiving the loss of their friends? WTAF?!?
That was a bit of a cheap shot and smacks of a deflection from you taking responsibility for your own writing. Someone asking you to be clearer, is no excuse for you to accuse that person of insensitivity. Not cool Russell.
I read the comments from Emma as you suggested. I’m also not interested in those querying anyone’s right to grieve, or how they do so.
My asking you as an experienced communicator to consider if your words could better distinguish between those physically attacked, and those affected in other ways, was not in any questioning your, or anyone else’s, right to feel aggrieved.
My querying the wording of your comments was not me ‘dancing on a pinhead’ or contributing to a ‘pile of not-helpful’. There is a world of difference between someone being murdered, and reading offensive comments on social media. It is not at subtle difference, nor a matter of mere semantics to call you out on this.
You have now clarified to me and others who might read this thread what you meant and were referring to when you used the word attacked.
That actually has been helpful as it was not at all clear to me in your earlier comments, and now it is.
'But I saw too many people on social media blaming Christchurch and apparently forgetting in their rage that it was Christchurch that was attacked'
In response to your post above,
I also grew up in Christchurch, still have family there and know it well.
A few quick points, your friend's opinion that intolerance seems to have improved post-earthquake does not discount that Christchurch still has much work to do to address the systemic racism and intolerance that still exists there.
Let's not be defensive about it, Christchurch does not 'have these issues to itself', I agree, but that sounds a bit like what-aboutism, rather than addressing how it is in Christchurch.
Also, clearly it was not Christchurch that was attacked Russell. Muslims were attacked and bystanders that didn't fit the target profile of the killer were not targeted.
For a journalist of your experience I think it's a reasonable expectation that you would choose your words more wisely, especially in regard to subjects as sensitive as this.